Udder Nonsense? The Emerging Issue of Raw Milk Sales in Florida, Part II: Legal Liability

Producers who sell raw milk without pasteurizing it face legal trouble because raw milk can carry dangerous bacteria and viruses. Even though pasteurization can make milk safer, it also reduces its nutritional benefits and taste. The FDA has blamed raw milk for causing severe illnesses and hospitalizations in the past. Despite the health risks, some producers still sell raw milk, even when it’s against the rules. If someone gets sick from raw milk, they can sue the producer for things like negligence, product defects, broken promises, or lying about the milk’s safety. In a negligence suit, dairy farmers and raw milk vendors must take care in how they produce, market, and sell the milk, and they must warn people if the milk might be harmful. Some mistakes they might make include using contaminated milk, not cleaning equipment properly, or not keeping the milk at the right temperature. In a lawsuit, it can be hard for the injured person to prove that the milk caused their illness. This is because there are often many different producers of milk, and one contaminated batch can spoil the whole supply. In Florida, the injured person has to show that it is likely that the milk caused their illness. If the injured person wins the lawsuit, the blame might be split between different producers based on their share of the market. Raw milk producers may have a duty to warn consumers about the potential dangers of their product. Even if they provide a warning, they can still be held liable if the warning is not adequate. Violating laws about selling milk can also make them liable for any harm caused. Raw milk producers can also be held responsible for defects in their product, such as harmful ingredients and unsafe design. Even though some producers claim that raw milk is healthier, it can still be considered defective if it causes harm to consumers. If a product has dangers that could have been made safer with clear instructions or warnings, it might be considered defective. This applies to things like pet food and raw milk. Product warranties can be express (stated by the seller) or implied (automatically applied). For food, it needs to meet safety standards and be fit for consumption to be considered merchantable. If someone gets sick from eating or drinking something, they might be able to sue the seller for breach of warranty. If a company falsely advertises their product and someone gets sick from it, they can sue the company. The company may try to defend itself by saying the person also had a part in getting sick, or that the time to sue has passed. In Florida, the person can still sue up to 10 years after getting sick, unless the sickness wasn’t immediately obvious. The amount of money the person gets from the lawsuit depends on how much they were at fault for getting sick. The risk of getting sick from food is higher because most of it comes from a few big places, and more people eat out instead of cooking at home. Raw milk sales can lead to legal trouble for producers and sellers. Many states think pasteurization is a good way to make milk safer. Advocates for raw milk say pasteurization destroys important nutrients and enzymes. But raw milk can also make people sick. If you’re thinking about buying or selling raw milk, be careful. And be aware of the risks. These are references to legal cases and articles about food liability and product liability. The cases and articles discuss issues such as proving liability for food and drugs, and what it takes to win a product liability claim. Some of the cases involve lawsuits against food companies for harm caused by their products. These are references to legal cases and articles about product liability and food safety. They discuss the standards for determining if a product is defective and the factors that are considered, such as the likelihood of injury and the utility of the product. They also talk about the negligence standard and the different approaches to products liability. Some references are about specific cases or studies related to food safety and raw milk consumption. Finally, there is a reference to the Uniform Commercial Code, which is a set of laws that govern commercial transactions. The Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) provides remedies for breach of warranty claims in the sale of goods. It states that there is an implied warranty of merchantability, meaning that the product is fit for its ordinary purpose. There is also an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose if the seller is aware of the buyer’s intended use of the product and the buyer relies on the seller’s judgment in selecting a suitable product.

In the context of milk, a warranty could be created if the buyer told the seller that they needed the safest milk due to a health condition.

There are time limits for filing claims related to product liability, and certain diseases, such as renal failure from E. coli infection, can onset years after initial exposure.

It’s important to be aware of the potential risks when consuming certain products, such as raw milk, as it can lead to serious illness. According to a study, most cases of food poisoning in the 1990s occurred outside of people’s homes. The authors of the study are Damian C. Adams, Michael T. Olexa, Tracey L. Owens, and Joshua A. Cossey. The article was originally published in the Drake Journal of Agricultural Law and is now being republished with permission.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/udder-nonsense-the-emerging-issue-of-raw-milk-sales-in-florida-part-ii-legal-liability/