New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1909-12-22
CATERERS RESPONSIBILITY.


Mention has already been made IN
our columns IT the suit recently brought
against restaurant keeper at Chatham,
England. for serving oysters which We're
contaminated with typhoid germs and
the eating of which was followed by
disastrous consequences. In several
particulars the case WAS of much III
teTest 10 Americans as we'll as 10 Eng
lishmen. since similar occurrences are
by no means unknown in this country.
Two naval officers dined at the res
taurant and ate oysters. Soon after
ward they were both taken in with what
appeared 10 be ptomaine poisoning, but
recovered. Later both were stricken
with typhoid fever IN an acute form.
One Of them died and the other was
dangerously in fer q long time. hut
finally recovered. His protractcd Illness
prevented him, however, from accepting
the offer of an important promotion and
compelled him 10 remain ON half pay for
about a year. ON regaining his health
he brought suit against the proprietor OF
the restaurant for decentralization for
the losses which ne had suffered.
II WAS shown that the oysters hal
been taken from the River Midway.
which is recipient of sewage; that
various eases If typhoid al Chatham hal
been attributed o. the eating Of oysters
from the river. and that an official warn
ing had been issued against the further
use Of them a month before they were
served 10 the plaintiff. \ physician tes-
-. L., Ions
We're the bearers of the infection i'm this
Ease. It was. he said. we'll established
that oysters could convey typhoid. the
germs being. however. not i'm the oyster
itself. hut i'm the fluid which was lodged
m its sils. The presence Of contami-
mating sewage did not affect the health,
appearance. smell OF dayor of the oys-
ters, some of the finest containing the
germs: hut il was possible To- make the
oysters innocuous by thorough washing.
The jury found that the plaintiff con
tracted the disease from the oysters,
that ne had u'lied upon the defendant
to supply him with good food. that the
defendant did not exercise reasonable
and proper care in procuring and serv-
ing the food. but was guilty of nesli-
sence and that therefore the plaintiff
was entitled 10 damages i'm the sum Of
$500 in addition 10 $3.50 for the expenses
of his illness. That judgment was ac-
ccrdingly entered 10y the court
This verdict Ina fixing the blame upon
contaminated oysters, which had been
taken from sewage-fOuled river. is not
novel but il of interest for its cumu-
lative authority. particularfSs..jn this
country. where il Is a not uncommon
practice not only 10 take oysters from
such waters. hut also 10 expose clean
oysters 10 fouling 10y deliberately laying
them down in such waters Tor a time
Just before marketing them. but more
novel ami more important was the cs-
adjustment of the caterers responsible
ity for the character of the fo0d which
he served aud for the results of eating
a.. Such responsibility 10 a certain eX
tent has long been recognized. hut not
often, if ever. 10 quite - marked an
extent as in this case. The justice of
the principle is not, however, TO lie i'm
peached. though, Of course. like many
other perfectly sound principles. il Is
susceptible Of serious abuse II is tit
ting that caterers should be mulcted
when they knowingly or neElisently
serve unsound food. But il would DE
hardship Ia have suits brought and dam
ages collected for all eases Of illness
which followed eatiag at a hotel. and
which the eluttonous or dyspeptic suf-
ferer might attribute 20 the food rather
than 10 his own indiscreti0n.