Food Poisoning Claim For Compensation

A group of four adults visited a restaurant for the first time and unfortunately three of the group suffered the same symptoms of food poisoning. Nelsons were instructed by Mr. and Mrs. P, and Mrs. F to make a claim against the restaurant.

The party had attended the restaurant on an evening. Two days later three of the party started suffering non-specific symptoms of cold, generally feeling poorly, before diarrhoea started the following day, accompanied by nausea. These symptoms continued for several weeks, gradually residing, and it was in the region of four weeks before each individual felt back to normal. During that time, the individuals were absent from work and experienced weight loss.

Nelsons were instructed of the food poisoning claim two weeks after the visit to the restaurant. As each individual had seen their General Practitioner, the Health Authority had been advised of the situation, and an Environmental Health Officer had investigated the case. Stool samples were obtained from each individual, and the microbiology results confirmed the bacterial culture of campylobacter.

A claim against the restaurant for campylobacter food poisoning was initiated. Nelsons identified that the three complainants had all eaten the same starter; the fourth member of the party having eaten a different starter and was not ill after the meal. Although the restaurant had not retained any other samples of the starter the complainants had eaten, it was clear that on the balance of probabilities, a connection could be made to the starter at the restaurant. This involved investigating the food which all three individuals had eaten, prior to the meal at the restaurant and shortly afterwards.

Initially the insurers for the restaurant denied liability of the food poisoning claims. They required proof which obviously could not be provided, other than the complainants relying upon the facts of the situation and their individual evidence.

Over a period of time, the insurers then changed their position, initially putting forward nuisance offers to try and deter the claimants from continuing their claim for compensation. Eventually, the insurers accepted Nelsons’ arguments, that there was in Nelsons’ view a significant chance that the Court would accept, considering the facts and the balance of probabilities, that there was a connection between the food poisoning and the starters eaten at the restaurant involved.

Despite the insurers argument over the value of the claims, after further negotiation, Nelsons were able to secure payments of £2,500, £1,500 and £1,500, the first figure including some additional losses and expenses relating to absence from work and other miscellaneous costs incurred as a result of the illness.