Salmonella poisoning payout
By Alex Wilson
February 02, 2005
DOZENS of diners who got salmonella poisoning after eating at a Melbourne pizza restaurant today won compensation payments in the Federal Court.
But their lawyers have warned the payout could be the last of its kind with state and federal law reforms all but wiping out people's ability to seek compensation for food poisoning.
Sofia's pizza restaurant on Burke Road in Camberwell has agreed to pay out a total of $200,000 in damages to 62 adults and 14 children who fell ill after eating there in December 2003 and January 2004.
A Department of Human Services investigation found chicken was not being cooked thoroughly enough and that there had been cross-contamination with undercooked chicken and other foods.
The DHS found 90 people had become ill after eating at Sofia's, among them Melbourne teenager Keeley Goldrick, who became seriously ill and was admitted to hospital.
She was so dehydrated doctors could not take a blood sample to see what was wrong with her and were forced to perform surgery to remove her appendix as a precaution.
Linda Hunt, 44, of Box Hill shared a chicken pizza with three friends at Sofia's on December 23, 2003 and on Christmas Day fell desperately ill.
Ms Hunt spent three weeks in bed and in and out of hospital with a serious salmonella poisoning.
She experienced severe diarrhoea and crippling stomach cramps and now has an ongoing sensitivity to rich food.
"I am very nervous and I am very careful about what I eat," she said.
"There is some sort of long-term mild sensitivity that could go on for a long time, perhaps forever."
Ms Hunt received $13,000 in compensation but James Higgins, a partner from the law firm Slater and Gordon who ran the case, said under new laws she would have been unlikely to have won any compensation.
In the past two years federal and state governments have enacted tort law reforms, sparked by the public liability insurance crisis of 2001.
Mr Higgins said the reforms meant people could only claim compensation for permanent impairment and not pain and suffering.
Keeley Goldrick, he said, would not have been eligible for compensation after her operation, because the appendix was not a vital organ and she would therefore not be permanently impaired.
Compensation was now largely limited to loss of wages, and this meant students, children and the elderly would not be able to claim, he said.
"Those people who are most vulnerable in our community are certainly discriminated against under the new laws because of that fact," he said.
"Consumers must now be aware that if they are poisoned in a mass outbreak like this their rights have basically been wiped out by so-called tort reform."
Mr Higgins said in the Sofia's case 90 per cent of the payout was for pain and suffering and in future it would not be worth taking similar cases to court.
A manager at Sofia's today refused to comment on the payout.
