Ok I understand suing for the hospital bills but suing for jobs and such she might not of even gotten ? (she was an aspiring actress/entertainer )
can she actually get anything for that ?
I think with lawsuits of this nature you have to prove actual damages. That said I think some jobs she actually did have lined up but had to pull out of because of her sickness so I think it could be argued that it did cause her a tangible loss of future income.
When I read the title I immediately thought of the time I bought a rotisserie chicken from Costco that still had pink meat ( not from bone-bleed or anything). I tried again another time, same problem. I never went back to that costco location, now the other ones… perfect. Those chickens are really versatile and cheap for their size. I can’t help but suspect its because they reuse the chickens that are not sold and are let to sit then they come across other prep surfaces again, increasing the risk of contamination. She will likely win a lawsuit, as to losing potential wages, it may or may not be a stretch to prove that.
Lost wages due to a permanent disability?
" and battle staph infections from the surgeries.".
Unfortunately that would probably suggest her disease is more an act of god,
she didn’t recover well because of golden staph … the court will have to decide if she would get sick even without the e coli issue ?
It is absolutely possible to sue for loss of future earning potential. How this is calculated is a complicated question, whether or not this particular plaintiff would succeed in this particular scenario is an open question, but as a general matter, yes, if you can establish that you will be deprived of income into the future because of the defendant’s negligence you can recover damages under that head of loss.
She has to establish that Costco was at fault. That’s usually easy, she bought the chicken there, and even if they followed all food service health regulations they’ll be found to blame somehow. But they could counter that she didn’t properly care for the chicken once in her possession. If she bought the chicken in the morning, left it in her car all day, finally taking it out for dinner, then a jury will decide that it’s still Costco’s fault because ‘poor woman suffered and Costco has lots of money’. Costco will settle.
Also, when you’re initially filing a lawsuit, you want to err on the side of asking for too much, rather than for too little. You can still win that way; you’re likely to just get less than you asked for. But you’re never going to get more than you ask for.
Following the links in the article, the CDC found
so your snark is misplaced.
You can sue for future earnings. For example, it was reported that Tracy Morgan got 90 million from Walmart and presumably most of that was for foregone earnings.
However, since the woman was only hoping to be a broadway actress and had only appeared in one small film, it is unlikely she will an exorbitant amount for future earnings, though it may still be quite large since she was so young and had so many years of earning taken away.
It wasn’t staph that trashed her large intestine and kidneys, it was hemolytic urinary syndrome, which was from the E. coli, not the S. aurens. The *S. aurens *didn’t help, but from what I read in the article it’s not the primary source of her problems.
Multiple other unrelated people got sick from the chicken salad which implies the problem was the chicken salad and not the subsequent handling.
It wasn’t a question of a widdy tummy tummy all hurt. From the linked article:
According to the complaint, HUC is not curable and will require lifetime treatment.
The attorneys for the plaintiff are from Kirton McConkie, one of the most respected firms in Utah and not some sleazy ambulance chaser.
The medical bills have totaled over $2 million so far, for this “poor woman.”
But she wouldn’t have got the staph infection if she hadn’t needed the surgeries to respond to the initial effects of the bad chicken. Complications from surgery may not be common, but they are reasonably foreseeable.
If she can prove that the surgeries were necessary to respond to the E. coli infection, then the complications aren’t an act of god, but a reasonably foreseeable outcome of Costco’s negligence.
nm: double post
Foodsellers are strictly liable for contaminated food. She doesn’t have to prove that Costco was at fault (except to obtain certain types of damages), only that the food was in an unsafe condition at the time of sale.
The court doesn’t have to do that. It only has to decide whether the subsequent infections were related to treatment provided for the e. coli infection.
Theoretically, yes. In practice, it’s very difficult to claim damages in a field where the plaintiff never worked. That is particularly true of fields like entertainment, where the plaintiff’s future earnings are based on subjective judgments by employers, audiences, and so on.
She’ll also have to convince the jury that her injuries prevent her from working in the field, and that whatever she’ll earn now is less than what she would have earned. Given the nature of Broadway (and the number of performers who are actually employed in theater but struggling financially), lost future earnings are probably not a significant part of her claim. But if you don’t ask, you don’t get.
Subject to the proviso that you shouldn’t ask for *so * much more than you’re likely to be awarded that you end up filing in the wrong court.
Technically, if I recall correctly, the bacteria came from the celery, not the chicken, the final report said. I paid attention in detail because I buy that chicken salad often. It’s really good, and very cheap.