Silo cops a Slater and Gordon class action

And one day we wake up and question why our only dining options are over processed food heated to a gazillion degrees in a microwave.

Salmonella can occur in free-range, organic, barn laid or cage eggs. All types of egg producers try to limit the eggs to exposure, but it is common for a little bit of bacteria to happen now and then. It is then up to the buyers of eggs to either cook them, or keep them refrigerated.

As much as Silo has tried to blame this on free-range eggs, thus putting a scare campaign on that industry instead of them, as a restaurant/cafe bakery they are responsible for handling their produce and ingredients correctly.

They have every right to try and take the egg supplier to court too if they wish, but it comes down to the fact that if you use homemade mayo, you keep it in the goddamn fridge unless you want you or your customers to get sick. Not rocket science.

Leinna said :

In what way was Silo negligent? Salmonella came from the raw eggs in the mayonnaise … not from faulty food hygiene practices … unless using raw eggs is a faulty food hygiene practice!

Insufficient refrigeration is most certainly a ‘faulty food hygiene practice’ when handling/serving real mayonnaise containing uncooked eggs.

Just reading ‘Slater & Gordon’ tells you all you need to know. Nothing like some free money!

In what way was Silo negligent? Salmonella came from the raw eggs in the mayonnaise … not from faulty food hygiene practices … unless using raw eggs is a faulty food hygiene practice!

The experiencing first hand the way many Canberra eating establishments treat their chefs and apprentices , i’m surprised this kind of outbreak doesn’t happen more often , either from spitefully wanting to cause damage to the business or just not giving a stuff!

Peptis said :

devils_advocate said :

I’m assuming nothing. Note my emphasis on the word IF in my original post.

Your original post said: “If the business can’t give a credible offer of safety (and I say IF), then it should be removed from the market one way or another.” If Silo did indeed handle all their food properly then I would argue that they have done all that they can in order to “give a credible offer of safety”. I don’t see how your emphasis on “IF” is at all relevant in this context.

devils_advocate said :

In any case, public liability doesn’t get anyone off the hook anyway. The insurance company can (and arguably will) go looking for someone to blame, assuming it is liable. Also in food poisoning cases, it can be hard to prove that the poisoning originated from the defendant especially if one person, but in the present case if there’s 10 people all coming down with a case of the same poisoning who ate at the same place on the same day (and possibly at the same menu item) then that probably gets them across the line on the ‘balance of probabilities’ test.

The important point isn’t whether the food poisoning came from Silo, I think that’s pretty well established—what needs to be proven is that Silo actually did anything wrong with their handling of the food. Until you prove that then I don’t see how they should be liable for any damages.

Hi Graham!

Peptis said :

devils_advocate said :

The important point isn’t whether the food poisoning came from Silo, I think that’s pretty well established—what needs to be proven is that Silo actually did anything wrong with their handling of the food. Until you prove that then I don’t see how they should be liable for any damages.

I dont’ think that’s the legal test. The supply of the food was between Silo and the consumers, so they are the proximate cause. The S&G case refers to negligence in preparation. Does cooking the eggs reduce the risk of salmonella poisoning? If so, and they are using raw eggs in the mayo, then the onus is on them to make doubly sure that the ingredients are safe, or face the consequences. Anyway I suppose more will come out when the relevant claims are filed.

Well if it goes to real court then Silo will get the chance to have their say too.

devils_advocate said :

When I hand my money over for food, I certainly expect it to be safe to eat.

If the business can’t give a credible offer of safety (and I say IF), then it should be removed from the market one way or another.

I reckon all food businesses need to hire Tasters. They had ’em in the palaces of egypt. If Claudius had used one for his mushrooms, he’d still be alive today.

devils_advocate said :

I’m assuming nothing. Note my emphasis on the word IF in my original post.

Your original post said: “If the business can’t give a credible offer of safety (and I say IF), then it should be removed from the market one way or another.” If Silo did indeed handle all their food properly then I would argue that they have done all that they can in order to “give a credible offer of safety”. I don’t see how your emphasis on “IF” is at all relevant in this context.

devils_advocate said :

In any case, public liability doesn’t get anyone off the hook anyway. The insurance company can (and arguably will) go looking for someone to blame, assuming it is liable. Also in food poisoning cases, it can be hard to prove that the poisoning originated from the defendant especially if one person, but in the present case if there’s 10 people all coming down with a case of the same poisoning who ate at the same place on the same day (and possibly at the same menu item) then that probably gets them across the line on the ‘balance of probabilities’ test.

The important point isn’t whether the food poisoning came from Silo, I think that’s pretty well established—what needs to be proven is that Silo actually did anything wrong with their handling of the food. Until you prove that then I don’t see how they should be liable for any damages.

The word from the tuck shop lady is talk to is they are looking at selling …. For a half the orginal value which was a pretentious figure.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=slater+and+gordon+ambulance+chasers

Peptis said :

You are assuming that Silo has actually done something wrong. It is possible that all the food was handled correctly at Silo and that it was their supplier that supplied them with “bad” food. In that case Silo would have no way of knowing that the eggs or chickens were dangerous.

I’m assuming nothing. Note my emphasis on the word IF in my original post. Above, I acknowledged the issue of the raw eggs. Sure, Silo might have a right of action against the egg supplier. But the consumers have a right of action against Silo (at contract – and at negligence, against the manufacturer, within the Donohue v Stephenson doctrine).

In any case, public liability doesn’t get anyone off the hook anyway. The insurance company can (and arguably will) go looking for someone to blame, assuming it is liable. Also in food poisoning cases, it can be hard to prove that the poisoning originated from the defendant especially if one person, but in the present case if there’s 10 people all coming down with a case of the same poisoning who ate at the same place on the same day (and possibly at the same menu item) then that probably gets them across the line on the ‘balance of probabilities’ test.

KB1971 said :

Public liability should cover it.

Really though, while salmonella poisoning is shite, was anybody harmed from this event?

All this will do is close the business down & for what?

To encourage other food businesses to ensure they aren’t negligent when it comes to food safety procedures?

devils_advocate said :

KB1971 said :

All this will do is close the business down & for what?

The business may learn from its mistake and be more careful in the future. If it does, it may go on to be successful.

As a consumer I would be wary, regardless of the court outcome. When I hand my money over for food, I certainly expect it to be safe to eat.

If the business can’t give a credible offer of safety (and I say IF), then it should be removed from the market one way or another.

You are assuming that Silo has actually done something wrong. It is possible that all the food was handled correctly at Silo and that it was their supplier that supplied them with “bad” food. In that case Silo would have no way of knowing that the eggs or chickens were dangerous.

devils_advocate said :

KB1971 said :

All this will do is close the business down & for what?

The business may learn from its mistake and be more careful in the future. If it does, it may go on to be successful.

As a consumer I would be wary, regardless of the court outcome. When I hand my money over for food, I certainly expect it to be safe to eat.

If the business can’t give a credible offer of safety (and I say IF), then it should be removed from the market one way or another.

So the smack on the arse from the authorities & the exposure in the media is not enough?

Its just a money grab.

Im pretty sure they ahve to have public liability for their lease.

KB1971 said :

All this will do is close the business down & for what?

The business may learn from its mistake and be more careful in the future. If it does, it may go on to be successful.

As a consumer I would be wary, regardless of the court outcome. When I hand my money over for food, I certainly expect it to be safe to eat.

If the business can’t give a credible offer of safety (and I say IF), then it should be removed from the market one way or another.

I know this is vague (actually being gentle calling it that) but on the Colbert Report recently he interviewed someone who had written a book about spurious civil suits in the US. The gist of the book was it doesnt happen as often in the US as you think and often these cases are thrown out anyway Something of an urban myth it seems. Even the hot coffee lady from McDonalds, while true, had more background than often given.