In other grocery lawsuit news: you may remember back in December that a single Canadian cow was found to have mad cow disease, and as a safety precaution, tens of thousands of pounds of beef were voluntarily recalled in addition to the 10,510 pounds the USDA ordered recalled. Well, it seems that a Seattle-area woman, Jill Crowson, is bringing a class action against supermarket chain QFC. Says the suit, it wasn’t enough for QFC to merely pull the meat from its shelves, post signs, and make public announcements; even though coverage of the lone mad cow dominated headlines for a week, QFC should also have taken the individual step of contacting customers who purchased beef to warn them–and presumably have managed to accomplish this instantaneously on Christmas Eve, since QFC learned about the beef on December 24 and Ms. Crowson ate it on December 25.
Now, it’s exceedingly unlikely that Ms. Crowson or her family has suffered any injury from her Christmas-day tacos. First, it’s unlikely that Ms. Crowson had any meat from the infected cow; second, it’s extremely unlikely (and there is no evidence) that one will contract variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease from the muscle meat of a cow (the real danger is the relatively unpopular brain and spinal cord); third, even those who do eat infected brain and spinal tissue are unlikely to contract vCJD, which has stricken 150 people out of the millions exposed worldwide. Ms. Crowson probably suffered more risk driving to and from the grocery store or her lawyer’s office. Nevertheless, she wishes damages for the ”stress and fear” of vCJD–though if such longshot risks cause her such anxiety, one would think she would do more due diligence in life. (Lewis Kamb, “QFC says it acted appropriately in beef recall”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Mar. 6; “Seattle family sues grocery chain over mad cow claim”, AP, Mar. 6; Kyung M. Song, “Clyde Hill woman sues QFC over suspect meat”, Seattle Times, Mar. 6; complaint; QFC statement).
One wonders how far plaintiffs’ lawyers wish to take the concept of “fear of future injury” as a grounds for recovery. Should an irrational fear of future injury merit recovery? If so, isn’t Hagens Berman, the law firm behind this lawsuit, liable for creating anxiety by not adequately conveying to members of the class how low their risk of vCJD is? Can someone sue his neighbor because he has an irrational fear that the neighbor’s C-band satellite dish will cause cancer? Most courts require an actual showing of injury before permitting a lawsuit to recover damages; the floodgates will open if that rule is chipped away with “emotional distress” claims.
The filing complains that QFC wouldn’t reveal to the Crowsons that the beef they purchased was recalled until after they received a written and signed request; QFC hasn’t said so, but I would imagine that that requirement is a consequence of a privacy policy. There are, of course, numerous class actions out there seeking damages alleging that corporations have failed to protect consumers’ privacy adequately.
The complaint also says that “some of the meat” was consumed after December 24, a negative pregnant that suggests that the rest of the meat was consumed before QFC learned of the mad cow exposure. More: FindLaw columnist Anita Ramasastry (Aug. 5) views the suit more favorably.
Comments are closed.