




What do oysters eat?
Hepatitis A - traditional

Liver disease
 some die vibrio vulnificus - the new threat
 acute liver disease and failure various other nasty vibrios
This is why God made deep fat fryers
2


THERE MAY BE A RISK ASSOCIATED WITH
CONSUMING RAW SHELLFISH AS IS THE CASE
WITH OTHER RAW PROTEIN PRODUCTS. IF YOU
SUFFER FROM CHRONIC ILLNESS OF THE
LIVER, STOMACH OR BLOOD OR HAVE OTHER
IMMUNE DISORDERS, YOU SHOULD EAT THESE
PRODUCTS FULLY COOKED.
3





Why would oyster processors oppose the warning?

How did their position affect the final form of the law?
Why should restaurants and oyster processors want the warning?

What would you tell them as a products liability lawyer?
What should it really say?
Is this like fugu - puffer fish - sushi?
4



Section 23:006-4 of the Sanitary Code requires that all "establishments that sell or serve raw oysters must display" a prescribed warning "at point of sale." The establishment has discretion in determining what method may be used to convey the warning because the warning can be conveyed by a sign, menu notice, table tent or other clearly visible message.
What is the critical language?
5




What happened to plaintiff?

Preexisting illness?

What if he did not have a preexisting illness?
Where was the sign posted?
Where did plaintiff eat?

Did he see the sign?
6







Who did the plaintiff sue?
What was the comparative fault assessment?
What is the plaintiff's negligence theory against the state?

What is the causation issue?
Why was DHH assessed so much fault?
What is the state's defense?
How does plaintiff attack this defense?
7



Sovereign immunity was abolished by the Edward's
Constitution

How does this change the construction of the immunity provision as compared to the construction of the FTCA?
The Discretionary Authority Statute:

"Liability shall not be imposed on public entities or their officers or employees based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform their policymaking or discretionary acts when such acts are within the course and scope of their lawful powers and duties. "
8



The Court's use of Berkowitz is confusing.


It rejects the Fowler's court's reliance on Berkowitz because the LA statute is different
It then appears to use an analysis that is consistent with Berkowitz and other FTCA cases in its resolution of the case
How is this case like Berkowitz?

What is the role of the regulation?

How is the agency arguing that the reg does not apply?
9



Did it really allow inspectors to decide what point of sale meant?


What does the court assume - probably correctly about what the inspector did?
What was the negligence by the department?
Was the restaurant also liable?

Bad oysters or bad warning?

How did the court modify the allocation of fault?
10




Does the health department have a duty to warn about risks it knows of?
What if it warns physicians, but not the public?
Should it be liable for not abating a risk to the public?


What about testing the oyster beds?
What did the health department find about the origin of the oysters in this case that should worry you?
11



Data from health studies in the mid-1970s showed a huge risk of hepatitis b in bathhouses

Should the health department have warned the public?


Should they have closed down the bathhouses?
What about AIDS in the bathhouses?
What if the statute says the government shall protect the public?

What does the public assume from government inaction?
12