KFC Ordered to Pay $8.3m To Poisoned Girl

[mosaix]

An Australian court has ordered KFC to pay $8.3m to a girl who suffered brain damage after contracting salmonella poisoning.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17867168

The company said:

"We feel deeply for Monika and the Samaan family. However, we also have a responsibility to defend KFC's reputation as a provider of safe, high-quality food,"

The family's lawyer said:

"...at busy times, the restaurant would reuse chicken that had been dropped on the floor."

[Gary Compton]

Originally Posted by mosaix

The company said:

"We feel deeply for Monika and the Samaan family. However, we also have a responsibility to defend KFC's reputation as a provider of safe, high-quality food,"

Which idiot said that? The courts have decided that KFC ended someone's life, albeit, not in a physical sense. And yet some spin doctor says that.

Definately an idiot, bordering on being offensive. I won't be buying again, even Murdoch managed to say sorry.

[Bowler1]

They have not paid the fine and plan to appeal. Well done KFC this is advertising you can't buy!

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

See, this is why I no longer eat KFC-even if there WERE any available nearby. The last time I ate KFC, years ago, I got horribly sick as well. No hospitalization, but believe me, the toilet does NOT make a good bed.

[The Judge]

Not a fine, Bowler, it's a compensation award.

From the brief write-up, it appears that KFC dispute causation -- that is they're not disputing the girl is disabled and she's obviously in a heart-breaking condition, but they're saying that her lawyers didn't prove KFC is at fault. Whether that's because they dispute the original sickness arose from food poisoning from KFC food**, or they say the medical evidence doesn't show any link between the food poisoning and the brain damage isn't clear. (Why on earth the BBC can't actually provide proper reports instead of relying on press releases is beyond me).

And to be fair to KFC (not something I've ever said before) judges of first instance can make mistakes over issues of this kind -- that's why we have appeal procedures.


** In this respect I note it's the family lawyer who told the court that chicken dropped on the floor is used, but if evidence to that effect had been given, why doesn't the report say "witnesses claim" or "former employees claim"? (Possibly because no evidence was given, and this trial was purely looking at the medical issue of linking the food poisoning to the brain damage, but it would be nice to know.)

[Aun Doorback]

KFC have so far strung this out over seven years and as Bowler1 says will appeal. You would think that even on a purely hard nosed business level they would have dealt with this more compassionately and offered a settlement years ago.

[hopewrites]

I find kfc unpalatable, I agree with TJ about the sensationalist reporting ... it just doesn't effect my decision not to eat there.

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

The best fried chicken is homemade fried chicken anyway, if you know how to do it right. (And most of my family does, including myself.)

[Bowler1]

Fine was a poor choice of word and quite rightly on tehis forum, I have not got away with it. I still think KFC have made a poor strategic decision. Image is everything and the corporate face of KFC is snarling and foaming at the beak right now. Not the usual chicken image we associate with this company!

[Gary Compton]

KFC will probably wing it in court and win by the skin of their teeth

We await the next leg of the story...

[Warren_Paul]

Originally Posted by Bowler1

Fine was a poor choice of word and quite rightly on tehis forum, I have not got away with it. I still think KFC have made a poor strategic decision. Image is everything and the corporate face of KFC is snarling and foaming at the beak right now. Not the usual chicken image we associate with this company!

I can see why they are appealing it though, instead of just accepting it is their fault.

If they accept the charge, they will be admitting that they gave a girl brain damage, something that would destroy their image beyond repair.

If they appeal and win, then they can still be sympathetic for the girl - or at least act like they are - but turn around and say that it wasn't their chicken that gave her brain damage and save their image from being destroyed. Some people might think that wrong, and unsympathetic, but many more will accept that their chicken was not the cause and keep eating KFC.

[j. d. worthington]

As cold, hard fact, the company and its lawyers owe it to their shareholders to combat something like this, especially if it is not proven; to simply make a compassionate payment (even granting they wished to, and for all we know, they do) would leave them open to every possible type of lawsuit in the future. Heinlein's D. D. Harriman expressed the point very well in The Man Who Sold the Moon:

"We have a related item next," said Dixon. "A Mrs. -- uh, Garfield, through her attorneys, alleges that we are responsible for the congenital crippled condition of her fourth child.[...]"

Morgan looked at Harriman. "Delos, I suppose that you wikll say to settle out of court."

"Don't be silly. We fight it."

Dixon looked around, surprised. "Why, D. D.? It's my guess we could settle for ten or fifteen thousand[...]."

"It's obvious why; it's loaded with high explosive. But we should fight, regardless of bad publicity.[...] [I]f we let this get by, we'll be sued for every double-yolked egg that's laid from now on. This calls for an open allotment for defense and not one damned cent for compromise."

It may be distasteful and seem inhuman, but it is practical business-sense. And (no disrespect meant to the young woman, her family, or their lawyer) we don't know the evidence and, as TJ has pointed out, the fact that it isn't a fine may or may not mean the evidence was strong enough to uphold their claim; hence any business that can afford to fight it would almost certainly do so if they wish to remain in business.

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by Bowler1

Fine was a poor choice of word and quite rightly on tehis forum, I have not got away with it.

Sorry, Bowler, I didn't mean to sound as if I was correcting you for no reason, but I forgot to add in the bit I was thinking of when I wrote it (senility calls... )

It's an award of compensation because this is a civil matter -- the family on behalf of the little girl are suing KFC for the tort (wrong) they did to her. By and large fines are only imposed for criminal offences -- ie following conviction after prosecution by the state. And what's interesting here is that there's nothing said about KFC being prosecuted for the original food poisoning of the whole family.

I don't know the exact remit of Environmental Health laws over there, but I would have expected the authorities to have taken a keen interest in these circumstances. If KFC had been prosecuted the family lawyers would have trumpeted it very loudly indeed. Again, the lack of reporting means we don't know what happened -- it might be the family didn't notify anyone until far too late for investigations to be made, or investigations were made and KFC cleared by the EH inspectors. Neither invalidates the family's claim, but both give extra strength to KFC's defence and grounds for appeal.

[Ursa major]

Here's the statement on KFC Australia's website regarding their decision to appeal.

It may be that the judgement, with the reasoning** behind it, is (or will be) available on line, but I have no idea where this might be found.






** - I've seen a few on-line judgements in UK courts: they tend to go to great length in describing exactly how the judge came to the judgement, often dealing with both sides' arguments.

[Gary Compton]

That's a pity Ursa, it would've been nice to pick over the bones of the case, no doubt someone is going to get a roasting over this