In this case, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s expert’s report only addressed the fact of the happening of the alleged food poisoning and did not contain a causation opinion linking the Plaintiff’s illness to the Plaintiff’s consuming the Defendant’s food.
The court recognized that, absent an obvious causal relationship, a personal injury Plaintiff must have expert testimony to establish causation.
The court generally agreed that such an obvious relationship can arise from an immediate and direct injury or as a natural probable result following alleged negligence.
However, the court found that becoming ill several hours after consuming food is not such a relationship of cause and effect as noted above. Here, the court noted that the causal connection would require guesswork and/or conjecture on the part of a jury.
Given the failures of the Plaintiff’s expert report, summary judgment was granted.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
However, the court found that becoming ill several hours after consuming food is not such a relationship of cause and effect as noted above. Here, the court noted that the causal connection would require guesswork and/or conjecture on the part of a jury.
Given the failures of the Plaintiff’s expert report, summary judgment was granted.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
Source of image: Photo by Sergio Arreola on www.pexels.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.