Case Name: Theresa M. SIMEON, et al. v. John DOE, d/b/a The Sweet Pepper Grill, et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1993-05-24
Citations: 618 So. 2d 848
Docket Number: No. 92-C-2353
Parties: Theresa M. SIMEON, et al. v. John DOE, d/b/a The Sweet Pepper Grill, et al.
Judges: WATSON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 618
Pages: 848–859

Head Matter:
Theresa M. SIMEON, et al. v. John DOE, d/b/a The Sweet Pepper Grill, et al.
No. 92-C-2353.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
May 24, 1993.
Rehearings Denied, June 24, 1993.
Thomas P. Breslin, Jr., Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis & Breslin, Charles S. LaBarre, Wendell H. Gauthier, Gauthier & Murphy, Metairie, for applicant.
Gustave A. Fritchie, III, Montgomery, Barnett, Brown, Reed & Hammond, H.F. Foster, III, Bienvenu, Foster, Ryan & O’Bannon, Craig R. Nelson, Christina Pa-pastavros, Sarah Ann Lowman, Hulse, Nelson & Wanek, New Orleans, for respondent.
Lawrence S. Kullman, New Orleans, Daniel C. Palmintier, Lafayette, Michael C. Palmintier, Baton Rouge, for Louisiana Trial Lawyers Ass’n, amicus curiae.

Opinion:
MARCUS, Justice.
On September 6, 1986, Floyd Simeon, Sr., age 63, and his son, Edward Simeon, age 38, went to the Sweet Pepper Grill, a restaurant at the River Walk shopping center in New Orleans. They ordered a dozen and a half raw oysters. The oysters were taken from a refrigerated area, shucked in front of them, and were placed on a single tray. Mr. Simeon ate approximately six oysters; his son ate nine or ten. His son testified the oysters smelled and looked "okay" and tasted "good." He testified he and his father had eaten raw oysters together for many years, and his father had never gotten sick from eating them.
Two days later, Mr. Simeon began running a fever and complained of pain in his ankle. The next day, his wife brought him to the hospital. His family doctor, Dr. Charles Magee, called in Dr. James D. Conway, a specialist in infectious diseases. Dr. Conway diagnosed Mr. Simeon as suffering from vibrio vulnificus septicemia, an infection resulting from ingestion of raw oysters containing the vibrio vulnificus bacteria. As the disease progressed, Mr. Si-meon developed severe blisters on his legs and began to lose subcutaneous tissue. Dr. John Church, a plastic surgeon, was called in. Dr. Church applied antibiotic dressings and began debridement of the skin in an effort to stop the spread of the infection. When this was unsuccessful, he was forced to amputate both of Mr. Si-meon's legs. However, the doctors were unable to stop the spread of the infection and Mr. Simeon died on September 23, 1986. .
On March 23, 1987, plaintiffs filed a petition for damages for the wrongful death of Mr. Simeon. Named as defendants were John Doe, d/b/a The Sweet Pepper Grill (Sweet Pepper) and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. (USF & G), as insurer of Sweet Pepper. On September 15, 1987, plaintiffs filed a second supplemental and amended petition naming as an additional defendant M.J. Bilich Oyster Co. (Bilich), the supplier of oysters to Sweet Pepper. On November 17, 1987, plaintiffs filed a third supplemental and amended petition naming as defendant the Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR).
Evidence at trial indicated that vibrio vul-nificus bacteria is not a pollutant and occurs naturally in the Gulf of Mexico. The oyster, because it feeds by filtering hundreds of gallons of seawater per day, concentrates the bacteria inside of itself. Studies suggested that under the appropri ate conditions 55-60% of all oysters may contain the vibrio vulnificus bacteria in different doses. Proper cooking will kill the bacteria. Vibrio vulnificus bacteria is microscopic and in order to test for it, the oyster must be destroyed. Currently, there is no feasible way to prevent oysters containing vibrio vulnificus bacteria from reaching the consuming public.
The evidence indicated that vibrio vulnifi-cus bacteria is not toxic to all people and can be killed by stomach acids or by the liver or kidneys. Those persons with gastric disorders, liver diseases (such as cirrhosis or hepatitis) and hemochromatosis (high iron content in the blood) are at risk; diabetics', people with suppressed immune systems (such as people on cancer chemotherapy), and people with renal disorders may possibly be at risk. Statistics indicated that between 1977-1982, the incidence of vibrio vulnificus infection in southern Louisiana was .6 to 1.9 cases per 100,000 population. Between 1977-1985, there were fourteen cases of primary septicemia related to the eating of raw oysters; of those fourteen people, ten died. Once the bacteria gets into a person's bloodstream and septicemia develops, the mortality rate is 50-70%. In August 1982, the DHHR issued to physicians and hospitals a "Monthly Morbidity Report" dealing with vibrio vulnificus infections. The report stated, "[b]ecause of the severity and high case fatality rate for the septicemia cases, physicians should warn patients with chronic underlying liver and kidney diseases and other conditions causing, or capable of causing, impaired immune responses, to avoid eating raw oysters."
Dr. Magee, Mr. Simeon's family doctor since 1970, testified that he diagnosed Mr. Simeon as having cirrhosis of the liver in 1983 and also operated on him that year for a malignancy in his lower colon. He also treated him in July 1986 for a duodenum ulcer. After he found the liver cirrhosis, he advised Mr. Simeon not to consume alcoholic beverages and to watch the amount of sodium he consumed, but did not remember telling him not to eat raw shellfish. He testified that his office received the monthly morbidity reports from DHHR, but could not recall seeing the August 1982 report.
At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case, the trial judge granted a motion for involuntary dismissal in favor of Sweet Pepper and Bilich finding neither party strictly liable. The judge denied DHHR's motion for involuntary dismissal based on La.R.S. 9:2798.1 (the policy-making or discretionary acts doctrine). At the conclusion of the trial, the judge rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against DHHR, finding DHHR had a non-discretionary duty to warn the general public of the dangers of eating raw oysters. Plaintiffs appealed that portion of the judgment which held neither Sweet Pepper nor Bilich liable. DHHR appealed that portion of the judgment holding it liable. A five judge panel of the court of appeal affirmed the portion of the judgment finding no liability on the part of Sweet Pepper and Bilich and reversed that portion of the judgment holding DHHR liable. We granted certiorari to review the correctness of that decision.
The issue before us is whether Sweet Pepper, Bilich and/or DHHR are liable to plaintiffs.
Liability of Sweet Pepper and Bilich
Plaintiffs argue that the principles of strict liability should apply to Sweet Pepper and Bilich for the sale of the oysters containing the vibrio vulnificus bacteria.
The principle of legal fault or strict liability underlies articles 2317-22 of the civil code. When harm results from the conduct of a person or defect of a thing which creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others, a person legally responsible under these code articles for the supervision, care, or guardianship of the person or thing may be held liable for the damage thus caused, despite the fact that no personal negligent act or inattention on the former's part is proved. The injured person must prove the vice (i.e., unreasonable risk of injury to another) in the person or thing whose act causes the damage, and the damage resulted from this vice. Once this is proved the owner or guardian responsible for the person or thing can escape liability only if he shows the harm was caused by the fault of the victim, by the fault of a third person, or by an irresistible force. Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 484 So.2d 110, 116 (La.1986); Loescher v. Parr, 324 So.2d 441 (La.1975).
The concept of unreasonable risk of harm is analogous to the concept of "unreasonably dangerous" developed in products liability. "Unreasonably dangerous" has been defined as meaning "the article which injured the plaintiff was dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by an ordinary consumer." DeBattista v. Argonaut-Southwest Ins. Co., 403 So.2d 26, 30 (La.1981). DeBattis-ta points out that the "unreasonably dangerous" requirement came into our jurisprudence as a result of section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which itself developed from common law statutes applying to persons supplying food and drink. Comment i of that section makes it clear that a product is not unreasonably dangerous simply because it cannot be made "entirely safe for all consumption." Examples given in the comment show that while ordinary sugar is a "deadly poison" for diabetics and whiskey is "especially dangerous" to alcoholics, neither product is considered unreasonably dangerous.
Based on the record, we are unable to say that raw oysters containing the vi-brio vulnificus bacteria are unreasonably dangerous to the ordinary consumer. The evidence is uncontroverted that vibrio vul-nificus bacteria in raw oysters poses little, if any, threat to a healthy person. The bacteria is only harmful to those persons with specific underlying disorders such as liver or kidney disease. Seen is this light, the "defect" is really found in the person rather than the product, much in the same way that sugar is harmful only when used by someone with diabetes. Therefore, we find no error in the trial judge's conclusion that Sweet Pepper and Bilich are not strictly liable.
However, a finding that Sweet Pepper and Bilich are not strictly liable does not necessarily mean they are entitled to be dismissed from the suit. As we stated in Halphen, 484 So.2d at 117:
An injured person cannot recover under the codal theory of strict liability if he fails to prove there was an unreasonable risk of injury inherent in the thing which caused his damage. Failing in his attempt to prove a vice in the thing, the injured person cannot rely on strict liability but must pursue a theory of recovery instead which requires him to impugn the conduct of the defendant. Analogy to the product liability field indicates, therefore, that an injured consumer who fails to prove that the product is unreasonably dangerous per se or has a construction defect must pursue a less strict theory of recovery which impugns the conduct of the manufacturer, such as an action for failure to warn or for failure to adopt an alternative design, [emphasis added].
The duty to warn applies to "any danger inherent in the normal use of the product which is not within the knowledge of an ordinary user." Winterrowd v. Travelers Indent. Co., 462 So.2d 639, 642 (La.1985); Hebert v. Brazzel, 403 So.2d 1242 (La.1981). However, for such a duty to apply, the plaintiff must prove that the seller knew or should have known of the defect. Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 358 So.2d 926, 930 (La.1978). In the context of products liability cases, we have held that "[i]n performing this duty a manufacturer is held to the knowledge and skill of an expert. It must keep abreast of scientific knowledge, discoveries, and advances and is presumed to know what is imparted thereby." Halphen, 484 So.2d at 115. Under this failure to warn theory, "evidence as to the knowledge and skill of an expert may be admissible in determining whether the manufacturer breached its duty." Id.
Turning to the facts of the present case, it is clear that there was a danger inherent in the normal use of the product not within the knowledge of an ordinary user, i.e., that people with certain specific underlying conditions may become seriously ill or die as a result of eating raw oysters. Given the magnitude of the possible harm, we believe a warning is particularly necessary. However, we find it unclear from the record whether a reasonable retailer or wholesaler of oysters on September 6, 1986 would have known or should have known, when held to the standard of an expert, of the potential danger to certain people from eating raw oysters. Since we now apply a different theory of recovery than that presented by plaintiffs at trial, we find it is appropriate to remand the case to the trial court to take further evidence on this issue.
Liability of DHHR
DHHR argues that it should be exempt from liability, on the basis of the policy-making or discretionary acts doctrine, La.R.S. 9:2798.1, which provides in pertinent part:
B. 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 policy-making or discretionary acts when such acts are within the course and scope of their lawful powers and duties.
C. The provisions of Subsection B of this Section are not applicable:
(1) To acts or omissions which are not reasonably related to the legitimate governmental objective for which the policy-making or discretionary power exists; or
(2) To acts or omissions which constitute criminal, fraudulent, malicious, intentional, willful, outrageous, reckless, or flagrant misconduct.
In Fowler v. Roberts, 556 So.2d 1 (La.1989) (on rehearing), we set out a two step inquiry, derived from Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 108 S.Ct. 1954, 100 L.Ed.2d 531 (1988), to determine whether the policy-making or discretionary acts doctrine applied in a specific fact situation. First, a court must determine whether a statute, regulation or policy specifically prescribes the course of action for the employee or agency to follow. If so, there is no discretion on the part of the employee or agency and therefore no immunity. If a court determines discretion is involved, the court must then determine whether that discretion "is the kind which is shielded by the exception, that is, one grounded in social, economic or political policy." Fowler, 556 So.2d at 15. If it is, then the doctrine applies and the employee or agency is insulated from liability; if it is not, the employee or agency is liable for any negligence.
Applying this test to the facts of the present case, we find no statute, regulation or policy mandating DHHR to issue warnings on potentially dangerous diseases. Since there is no statute, regulation or policy, we must decide whether DHHR's decision to warn physicians rather than the general public was a discretionary decision grounded in social, economic or political policy. We find that it is. The record clearly shows that DHHR made a discretionary policy decision that it was preferable to warn physicians (through the August 1982 Monthly Morbidity Report) rather than issue a warning to the general public. Dr. Henry Bradford, Director of Division Laboratories for the Department of Public Health, testified:
I think we tried to notice those people that if they were at risk that they had a particular problem and we had to do that through the normal channels of going through the medical community. It is those people that is the physicians of this state that can best understand and appreciate those that are at risk and how to best handle those individuals and how to communicate that information to them so that they understand.
Likewise, the testimony of Dr. Louise McFarland, Chief Epidemiologist for the Office of Public Health, reveals that a policy decision to warn physicians was made:
When we gathered a certain amount of information and we're finished with some studies back in 1982, we wrote an article that you have already used this morning, the morbidity report from the State, sent out to probably 7 thousand doctors cross the State, and said to the doctors, in doing this we sent out these morbidity notices, used to be every month but now it's every two months, Sir, put this in your file because this is something you will need to talk with your patients about. So always prefer to work with physicians for them to say to their patients[s] that have these underlying diseases that I know we have already talked about, we can talk about them again if we need to, so that a doctor would say to a patient you should not be eating raw oysters, raw beef, raw pork, raw vegetables, whatever, if you have this underlying condition.
Therefore, we find DHHR's decision to issue warnings only to physicians is a discretionary act under La.R.S. 9:2798.1(B) and DHHR is immune from liability arising out of this act. Further, we find DHHR's action was reasonable under the circumstances, and does not constitute criminal, fraudulent, malicious, intentional, willful, outrageous, reckless, or flagrant misconduct under La.R.S. 9:2798.1(C)(2). The court of appeal correctly found that DHHR was not liable to plaintiffs.
DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed insofar as it dismisses plaintiffs' suit against the Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources. The judgment is vacated and set aside insofar as it dismisses plaintiffs' suit against the Sweet Pepper Grill and M.J. Bilich Oyster Co. The case is remanded to the district court to take evidence and render a decision on the issue of whether a reasonable retailer or wholesaler of oysters on September 6, 1986 would have known or should have known of the potential danger to certain people from eating raw oysters, and thereafter to render a judgment as to the liability of the Sweet Pepper Grill and/or M.J. Bilich Oyster Co. In the event liability is imposed, the previous damage awards should be reinstated. The rights of all parties to appeal the issues of liability and damages to the court of appeal are reserved. All costs will await the final outcome of the case.
WATSON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
LEMMON, J., dissents and will assign reasons.
Pursuant to Rule IV, Part 2, § 3, Ortique, J. (recused) was not on the panel which heard and decided this case. See the footnote in State v. Barras, 615 So.2d 285 (La.1993).
. On May 4, 1987, plaintiffs filed a first supplemental and amended petition substituting "Big Easy, Inc. d/b/a The Sweet Pepper Grill" for "John Doe d/b/a The Sweet Pepper Grill."
. Vibrio vulnificus infections can also be acquired through wounds.
. 602 So.2d 77 (La.App. 4th Cir.1992). Two judges concurred in the part of the majority opinion exonerating Sweet Pepper and Bilich from liability, but dissented from the part of the opinion exonerating DHHR from liability.
. 608 So.2d 155 (La.1992).
. Strict liability under the civil code closely resembles the principle of strict products liability developed in Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Ins. Co., 259 La. 599, 250 So.2d 754 (1971). La.R.S. 9:2800.52(6) of the 1988 Louisiana Products Liability Act specifically exempts "harvesters and other producers of . oysters . ire their natural state" from the scope of the act; however, that act has been held to be non-retroactive and would not apply to the present case. See Gilboy v. American Tobacco Co., 582 So.2d 1263 (La.1991).
. Both the trial judge and court of appeal applied the so-called "foreign-natural" test. See Title v. Pontchartrain Hotel, 449 So.2d 677 (La. App. 4th Cir.1984), writ denied, 450 So.2d 967 (La.1984); Loyocano v. Continental Ins. Co., 283 So.2d 302 (La.App. 4th Cir.1973); Musso v. Picadilly Cafeterias, Inc., 178 So.2d 421 (La.App. 1st Cir.1965), writ denied, 248 La. 468, 179 So.2d 641 (1965); see also Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.4th 617, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 145, 822 P.2d 1292 (1992) (citing Title, Loyocano and Musso). We recognize that this test has long been applied by our courts and the courts of other states in cases dealing with food, and has recently been applied by the California court of appeal to a case involving raw oysters containing vibrio cholera bacteria in Kilpatrick v. Superior Court, 8 Cal.App.4th 1717, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 323 (1st Dist.1992). Nonetheless, we do not believe the foreign-natural test is the correct test to apply in present case. The foreign-natural test has traditionally been applied to cases where the substance (such as bone in ground meat) presented a potential danger to all persons. By contrast, vibrio vulnificus bacteria affects only a very small number of persons— those persons in a specific risk group. Because of this difference, the foreign-natural distinction is not useful in the present context.
. Although not applicable to the present case, we note that in 1991, DHHR amended Chapter IX, § 9:045 of the State Sanitary Code to read:
All establishments that sell or serve raw oysters must display signs, menu warnings, table tents, or other clearly visible warnings at point of sale with the following words:
"WARNING: CONSUMPTION OF RAW OYSTERS CAN CAUSE SERIOUS ILLNESS IN PERSONS WITH LIVER, STOMACH, BLOOD, OR IMMUNE SYSTEM DISORDERS. FOR MORE INFORMATION, READ THE INFORMATIONAL BROCHURE OR CONSULT YOUR PHYSICIAN."
The warning must also be placed on containers of pre-packaged raw oysters and sacks or other containers of unshucked raw oysters.
. La.R.S. 40:4(A)(13) empowers and authorizes the DHHR to issue "emergency rules and orders," but does not specifically mandate that it do so:
The state health officer, through the office of health services and environmental quality, shall be expressly empowered and authorized to issue emergency rules and orders when necessary and for the purpose of controlling nuisances dangerous to the public health and communicable, contagious, and infectious diseases, and any other danger to the public life and health and health-safety.
. In addition to its holding that DHHR was immune under the policy-making or discretionary acts doctrine, the court of appeal also found that plaintiffs' action against DHHR was prescribed, as it was not brought within one year of the occurrence and there was no timely filed suit against a solidary obligor to interrupt prescription. Since we are remanding the case to the trial court to determine the liability of Sweet Pepper and Bilich, there is a possibility that they could be held liable, and the suit against DHHR (as a solidary obligor) would therefore be timely. However, as we find DHHR is immune from liability under La.R.S. 9:2798.1, it is un necessary to consider the question of prescription, and DHHR is entitled to be dismissed from the suit at this time.