Poisoning and its Penalties.

Hastings Standard, Issue 462, 28 October 1897, Page 4

Poisoning and its Penalties.

Restaurant-keepers and others who supply to the public food which proves to be poisonou.3 are liable to heavy penalties. The principle of law is that persons who sell goods to be used for a particular purpose warrant them to be fit for that purpose. The Engglish Sale of Goods Act recognises this principle, and the County Court Judge at Newcastle-on-Tyne had to apply it recently under rather remarkable circumstances. In March last, several people who lunch&d at a restaurant partook of roast pork, which to' all appearance was quite suitable for food, but which, as the result showed, was affected with ptomaines, and, therefore, highly poisonous. All who partook of the pork were subsequently seized with violent pains in the stomach, followed by diarrhoea and sickness. Some of them suffered severely, others more lightly. Fortunately no one died. Under these circumstances a test action was brought against the restnurant company by one of the consumers of th 6 pork, who claimed damages for the injury and discomfort to which he had been put. The facts that the plaintiff had been made ill by reason of eating the pork and that the pork was to all appearances fit for food, was not really disputed ; and it became a question of pure law whether under such circumstances the restaurant company was liable to pay damages to its customer. The Judge held that it was. The meat was sold for the purpose of being eatSTi, and, in such circumstances, one of the conditions of the contract of sale was that the meat should be fit for eating. The knowledge, or absence of knowledge, on the part of the person who served the meat, that it was unwholesome, was immaterial. The company contracted to sell eatable meat, and had failed to supply it, and must pay the damages resulting from its breach of contract. This decision has been appealed against, but the result of the appeal cannot affect the general bearing of the law, which very properly recognises the importance of checking the sale of unwholesome food. In some cases those who sell it may be punished criminally, even though it is not shown that they knew it to be bad when it was exposed for sale. There is less reason for considering absence of knowledge as a legal excuse when the question is one of civil responsibility for injuries due to the sale of unwholesome food. Those who embark in the provision businass sell their goods for the purpose of being eaten, and it is their business to take care that they are fit for that purpose. At any rate the object of the law is to check the sale of unwholesome and doubtful food, and the knowledge that such sales may prove expensive to the seller must go far towards enforcing that care which is so much needed in the public interest.