Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
An E. Coli Outbreak At a Chain Restaurant: A Case Study on How Easily Legal Liability Can Spread to a Franchisor
In early January 1993, the American public was introduced to a deadly pathogen that has remained in the news ever since: E. Coli O157:H7. Hundreds of people were injured and four children died in what is still referred to as the Jack in the Box outbreak, even though a primary cause of the outbreak was adulterated hamburger patties manufactured and sold to the restaurant chain by one of its longtime suppliers.
The litigation that resulted from this outbreak was widespread and took years, and tens of millions of dollars, to resolve. It involved not only personal injury lawsuits against the restaurant and its supplier, but also a shareholders' lawsuit and a lawsuit filed against Jack in the Box by its franchisees. And when the last of the lawsuits was finally over, there were still the sales to win back, and the need to repair a much-damaged brand name.
Overshadowed by the Jack in the Box outbreak was another E. Coli outbreak that received little attention at the time. This one, also in the Pacific Northwest, involved four steak-and-salad-bar restaurants in Washington and Oregon, later found to be part of the Sizzler chain. An investigation into the outbreak concluded that cross-contamination from beef within the restaurant kitchens, where meat and multiple salad bar items were prepared, was the cause of the outbreak. (An abstract of the investigation report can be found at http://archinte.amaassn.org/cgi/content/abstract/160/15/2380.) Specifically, the steaks at the restaurants were cut on site from larger pieces of meat and then needle-tenderized and marinated in close proximity to where fruits, vegetables, and other salad bar items were being prepared. As was perhaps inevitable, cross-contamination occurred, and quite a few people were made seriously ill. Fortunately, no one died.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?