Can you sue a restaurant or venue for food poisoning? This is an extraordinarily common question, and one which is partially answered by the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal case of Goldkind v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited, 2020 BCCRT 734. As will be discovered, it takes more than simply being sick shortly after eating somewhere in order to get a remedy from the tribunal/court.
Facts
On March 28, 2018, Alex Goldkind purchased a breakfast combo meal from McDonald’s at around 9:00 am. He started eating the meal about 10 minutes later while driving to work. After working for a few hours, he returned home and began experiencing symptoms (this was approximately four hours after consuming the meal). Goldkind’s symptoms included feeling cold, having a fever, vomiting, and diarrhea. He suffered from these symptoms for nearly 24 hours, causing him to miss work, but he eventually recovered after three days.
Goldkind provided a witness who was identified by the Tribunal as BZ. BZ confirmed that he saw Mr. Goldkind eating breakfast around 9:30 a.m. on March 28 and identified it as a McDonald’s “Egg McMuffin”. BZ said he did not witness Goldkind eat anything else. Additionally, Goldkind’s spouse, identified as “XL”, stated that he had become ill when he arrived home from work on the same day and mentioned that he had only eaten McDonald’s food for breakfast.
Goldkind sought medical assistance from Dr. McShane at a walk-in clinic on March 30. Dr. McShane’s chart notes revealed that Goldkind reported recent symptoms of diarrhea, hot and cold sensations, and sweating (but did not mention any vomiting). The primary complaint documented was a headache that started on the evening of March 29, 2018. Dr. McShane considered the possibility that dehydration related to gastroenteritis or food poisoning might have triggered Goldkind’s headaches, noting that his reported symptoms appeared soon after eating and were consistent with food poisoning.
Goldkind then filed an application to the Civil Resolution Tribunal seeking, among other things, $5,000 in damages.
Law
The applicant (in higher courts they are referred to as the “plaintiff”) bears the burden of proving their claim. Accordingly, Goldkind has to prove that it was more likely than not that McDonald’s was negligent in causing his injuries.
To prove negligence, Goldkind had to establish that McDonald’s: 1) owed him a duty of care, 2) that McDonald’s behavior breached the standard of care, 3) that he suffered damage, and 4) that this damage was a direct result of McDonald’s breach. Most important to Goldkind’s action was that his loss was a result of McDonald’s negligence; he had to prove that the food served by McDonald’s was a significant cause of his illness.
Application
The Tribunal believed that Goldkind experienced symptoms several hours after consuming a meal from McDonald’s. However, it also found that Goldkind had not proven negligence on balance. The Tribunal emphasized that while Dr. McShane considered food poisoning or gastroenteritis as possible causes, she did not definitively diagnose or conduct tests for these conditions. Her opinion relied solely on Goldkind’s self-reported symptoms which had resolved by the time of her examination. Therefore, her statements about food poisoning were speculative and did not establish a direct link between the McDonald’s meal and Goldkind’s symptoms.
Furthermore, the Tribunal found that there may have been other causes of Goldkind’s condition. McDonald’s presented an opinion from a gastroenterologist, Dr. Gray, who stated that Goldkind’s condition was inconclusive since Goldkind was not tested for infectious gastroenteritis. Dr. Gray explained that the incubation period of such infections can vary, making it difficult to determine the exact source or timing of ingestion. While clusters of similar symptoms among individuals who share a common food source can indicate an infectious process, there were no other reports of food poisoning or contamination from the McDonald’s restaurant during that period.
Considering Dr. Gray’s opinion, the Tribunal held that other alternative causes, including other illnesses from earlier meals, could not be ruled out. Despite the short timeframe between consuming the McDonald’s meal and experiencing symptoms, Goldkind’s medical evidence did not prove that the meal was more likely than not the cause of his illness.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the Tribunal found McDonald’s was not liable and dismissed Goldkind’s claim. The moral of the story is that evidence of cause always matters. There needs to be some evidence proving a link between the injury and the actions of the alleged careless party. In Goldkind’s case, even the notes from the walk-in clinic doctor were not quite enough.