Supermarket juice for kids - 4 months out of date!

whitegoods_engineer

Why is it these days that everybody 'projectile vomits'? what happened to good old fashioned vomiting?

Original Poster, please don't think you have to preceed the word 'vomit' with 'projectile' for effect.

ThumbRemote

Azari wrote: »

My point is that the alleged symptoms - i.e. very severe vomiting within 30 seconds of consumption and no other effects are a vanishingly unlikely result of drinking out of date fruit juice.

They weren't sick 30 seconds after drinking it. They were sick slightly later on in the day.

peachyprice wrote: »

Legal assistance for what exactly when Tesco have done nothing illegal?

If Tesco have sold a product past the best before date, and that product has made someone ill, Tesco have failed in their duty of care to the cutomer.

Note I say 'if', as it would be down to the OP to prove this. Hence they need legal assistance to know what steps they need to take. The onus of proof isn't massively high - a 'balance of probabilities'.

peachyprice

ThumbRemote wrote: »

T
If Tesco have sold a product past the best before date, and that product has made someone ill, Tesco have failed in their duty of care to the cutomer.

Note I say 'if', as it would be down to the OP to prove this. Hence they need legal assistance to know what steps they need to take. The onus of proof isn't massively high - a 'balance of probabilities'.

Hmm, there was so IF in your OP was there. You categorically stated that it's a classic personal injury case according to you, which it isn't.

Once OP gets his lab report back proving that the juice was toxic it'll be a classic case, until then it's nothing of the sort.

stephen77

It will be very hard to prove the juice is toxic from food poisoning due to being out of the best before date.

WHen the juice was in the sealed / unopened container it would have been easy.
Now the juice is open bacteria can start working on it.
Eg leave a glass of fruit juice in a cup for a few days and you will see mould on it. So if any juice is saved I would be hard to prove the micro-organism growth did not come after opening.

Azari

ThumbRemote wrote: »

They weren't sick 30 seconds after drinking it. They were sick slightly later on in the day.

Sorry, I misread that.

It's odd that the OP chose to mention some completely spurious time period rather than the only relevant one; the time between his child imbibing the drink and becoming ill.

I still think the joins/immediately posts weird Tesco based complaint/does not return are indicative of someone playing silly beggars.

ThumbRemote

peachyprice wrote: »

Hmm, there was so IF in your OP was there. You categorically stated that it's a classic personal injury case according to you, which it isn't.

Once OP gets his lab report back proving that the juice was toxic it'll be a classic case, until then it's nothing of the sort.

In every personal injury case its down to the claimant to prove the defendant failed in their duty of care and caused the injuries.

I would argue that OP has evidence Tesco failed in their duty of care by selling products 4 months beyond their best before date. They have evidence of the illness and have seen a doctor, although we don't know what the doctor is willing to put into a report (which will be important to their case).

This is a classic personal injury case. Doesn't mean they'll win, but I think they'll have a good chance.

ThumbRemote

Azari wrote: »

Sorry, I misread that.

It's odd that the OP chose to mention some completely spurious time period rather than the only relevant one; the time between his child imbibing the drink and becoming ill.

I still think the joins/immediately posts weird Tesco based complaint/does not return are indicative of someone playing silly beggars.

I don't think the 30s is spurious, it has a direct impact on their financial losses.

The actual time between drinking and vomiting is pretty irrelevant on here; no matter what time period it is there'll be someone arguing that it can't have been the cause.

peachyprice

ThumbRemote wrote: »

I would argue that OP has evidence Tesco failed in their duty of care by selling products 4 months beyond their best before date. .

There is no lack of duty of care in selling a product beyond it's best before date, that's why it's perfectly legal to do so, it's a guideline to indicate that a product is within or beyond it's prime condition not an indication of food safety.

Surely you remember the days when tins and cartons didn't have BB dates on them?

ThumbRemote

peachyprice wrote: »

There is no lack of duty of care in selling a product beyond it's best before date, that's why it's perfectly legal to do so, it's a guideline to indicate that a product is within or beyond it's prime condition not an indication of food safety.

While it may be legal to sell food beyond the best before, after some period of time that food is going to be unfit for consumption. In this case it wasn't a few days, it was a number of months after.

Just because it's legal in itself doesn't mean it's not a breach of duty of care.

peachyprice

ThumbRemote wrote: »

While it may be legal to sell food beyond the best before, after some period of time that food is going to be unfit for consumption. In this case it wasn't a few days, it was a number of months after.

We're talking more like a year or two before UHT tetrapak juice become unfit for consumption, not months, and when it does it is plainly obvious because it ferments and the packaging expands.

If it were only a matter if months before it became unfit for consumption it wouldn't be labelled best before it would be labelled use by.