Consider the case of Winstead v. Ed's Live Catfish & Seafood, Inc. 554 So. 2d 1237 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1989), which is linked here: http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/food/winstead.htm.
It is a "failure to disclose case," involving the eating of raw oysters. That's right -- oysters.
This case goes to the very heart of what I have been writing about for almost a year now.
Scroll down to item [75], and read that one paragraph. For your convenience, I will write most of it here:
[75]"... The fact that the DHHR [Louisianna Department of Health and Human Resources] chose not to aggressively disseminate the information contained in the Monthly Morbidity Report to the general public does not constitute a breach of duty to warn. Since this bacteria only attacks a small percentage of the population...the DHHR was reasonable in its conclusion that the best way to warn these people was through the medical community. The Monthly Morbidity Report was sent to every physician in Louisianna, the Center of Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, and the health departments of several states, including Mississippi. We hold that this satisfied the duty to warn incumbent on the DHHR due to its specialized knowledge and position of public trust."
By highlighting this case, my point is that, based on this rationale rape victims, for example, which represent a "small percentage of the population," don't need to be warned of The Public Duty Doctrine, which is that government and its agents (law enforcement and district attorneys) have no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held legally liable for failing to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place.
Here, the state claims that they have "no legal duty to warn" because victims represent small numbers. If there was a warning, it was in fine print, a needle in a haystack.
No comments:
Post a Comment