COMMENTARY | Today, news broke of an $8.3 million judgment against the Australian division of KFC, owned by Louisville, Ky.-based Yum! Brands. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of 11-year-old Monika Samaan, and her family, sickened by salmonella after eating a KFC Twister Wrap. The girl was left a quadriplegic and will need lifetime care.
Lawsuits against fast food chains are nothing new, occurring so frequently they are usually only newsworthy when the case involves an outrageous settlement which becomes a staple of tort reform discussion, such as the McDonalds “hot coffee” lawsuit, or when the claim is eventually found fraudulent, such as the woman who sued Wendy’s over a severed finger in a bowl of chili.
Four things make this case stand out for me, and raise serious questions.
There is an apparent lack of proof. The family claims to have purchased the contaminated food at KFC. KFC’s attorney argued during the trial there was no sales data to prove the family had actually even purchased a Twister Wrap at KFC on the date and time claimed.
They all were sickened by the same item. The daughter, unable to finish the Twister, shared the leftover portion with her mother, father, and brother. If you have eaten a Twister, a folded pita stuffed with two chicken tenders, lettuce, and mayonnaise, you will agree it is a messy proposition even for an adult. If you have watched a 7-year-old eat something messy and difficult to hold, you know what is left on their plate is usually not fit to be neatly divided among the rest of the diners.
They took the meal home. No other diners at that KFC reported taking ill. Sampling data from the chicken provider performed prior to shipment detected no trace of salmonella. Would it not seem a more plausible argument that some cross-contamination occurred at the family’s home rather than the restaurant?
They did not initially blame KFC. During visits to the hospital over three days, when all involved were showing symptoms of salmonella poisoning, no mention was made to doctors there was a common denominator. When pressed at trial for an explanation, her father replied, “Because there was no direct question at me.”
The restaurant was guilty by association. The lawsuit was filed in March 2009, one week after two other KFC stores in Australia were given a record fine of $73,125 and convicted of 11 charges of breaches of food hygiene laws.
This ruling strikes me as another case where victim sympathy takes precedence over culpability. The family not prove the chicken from KFC was contaminated with salmonella. They could not even prove they actually purchased food from the restaurant.
A young life has been tragically altered, lifetime medical expenses will be in the millions of dollars, and if someone is responsible they should be held accountable. But that does not mean the party with the deepest pockets should foot the bill regardless of proof. KFC plans to appeal the ruling.
