united-states european-union medical health food
What rights would a healthy individual have if she ate spoiled food sold by a supermarket?
<p>Suppose that an individual ate some spoiled food but she has no <strong>obvious</strong> symptoms due to her own healthiness and well-being. Suing the supermarket for medical bills is unrealistic; at the same time, having spoiled food might have long-term negative effects which is difficult to measure and prove.</p>
<p>Some countries have laws that such an individual is entitled a remedies 10X of the original purchase amount (see for example p. 43 of <a href="https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/report/downloadreportbyfilename?filename=Amended%20Food%20Safety%20Law%20of%20China_Beijing_China%20-%20Peoples%20Republic%20of_5-18-2015.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this summary of food safety laws in China</a>). What rights do Americans (or Europeans) have?</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/england-and-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="england-and-wales-container">england-and-wales</a></p>
<p>She (as the claimant) would have to prove that the food caused her &quot;long-term negative effects&quot; and the shop (as the defendant) was negligent in knowingly offering spoilt food - a legal concept known as &quot;causation&quot; that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causation_in_English_law" rel="noreferrer">Wikipedia</a> describes as concering:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the legal tests of remoteness, causation and foreseeability in the tort of negligence. It is also relevant for English criminal law and English contract law.</p>
<p>[...]</p>
<p>The claimant must prove that the breach of the duty of care caused actionable damage. The test for these purposes is a balance between proximity and remoteness:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>that there was <strong>a factual link</strong> between what the defendant did or failed to do, and the loss and damage sustained by the claimant, and</p>
</li>
<li><p>that it was reasonably foreseeable at the relevant time that this behaviour would cause loss and damage of that type.</p>
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>I cannot find any relevant caselaw using the given circumstances of far-future ill-effects, but it seems unlikely (to me) that such a claim would succeed on the information available due to the remoteness between events.</p>

<p>Assuming that it could be established that the food was in fact spoiled  when sold, there is probably a valid claim for the purchase price of the food. Given that no medical effects have been established, and no related medical expenses incurred, there seems no basis for any claim for medical expenses.  There might possibly be a claim for the distasteful exprience of eating spoiled food, but I suspect not in the absence of a medical claim.</p>

<p>Pretty much none. A successful lawsuit would require:</p>
<ul>
<li>Provable damages (there are none- a nebulous &quot;well I might be less healthy down the line maybe&quot; is worth nothing).</li>
<li>An actual link between the negligence and the damages. A typical person eats 3 meals per day and the post talks about symptoms that could take weeks to appear. How do you demonstrate that the layered sponge cake in question was the cause?</li>
</ul>
<p>Realistically, any compensation would be given my asking customer service nicely as they don't want to lose a customer or potential bad publicity.</p>
