Food poisoning litigation in the United States is a story deeply intertwined with public health, industrialization, evolving legal standards, and the growth of the modern food system. The journey from early informal legal complaints to today’s sophisticated tort-based system of foodborne illness litigation reflects broader societal changes in food production, regulatory oversight, consumer protection, and science. From the 19th-century adulterated milk cases, to landmark E. coli lawsuits in the 1990s, to the current litigation strategies used by firms specializing in foodborne illness, such as Ron Simon & Associates, it is a telling story.
I. Early Food Contamination and the Origins of Legal Remedies
In colonial America and the early 1800s, food production was localized, and outbreaks of foodborne illness were typically confined to small communities. Lawsuits for food poisoning were rare, not because people were not affected, but because legal mechanisms were limited. During this period, liability typically rested in contract law—meaning that only the direct purchaser of the tainted food could sue the seller under breach of warranty or implied merchantability.
One early and influential case was Van Bracklin v. Fonda (1823), where the New York court recognized that a vendor could be held liable for selling unwholesome food. However, this was not yet food poisoning in the modern microbial sense—it dealt more with spoilage, adulteration, or gross contamination. [Van Bracklin, a meat seller, knew the cow was sick and the meat was bad, but he did not reveal these facts to the buyer, Fonda. Fonda ended up getting $5, a good deal of money at that time!].
By the mid-19th century, the rise of urbanization and the industrial food supply introduced new risks. Milk diluted with water or laced with chalk to improve its appearance, or meat sold from diseased animals, became the subject of public scandal. These products could—and did—kill. But there was little public regulation and even less legal recourse.
The real shift began with the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, championed by public health advocates and spurred by muckraking journalists like Upton Sinclair, whose novel The Jungle exposed unsanitary practices in the meatpacking industry. This law established a federal role in protecting food quality, but it did not create a direct legal avenue for consumer litigation. Instead, it enabled the government to seize tainted products or prosecute manufacturers under criminal law.
II. The Rise of Tort Law and Negligence in Food Cases
The 20th century saw the expansion of tort law as a tool for foodborne illness victims. The legal doctrine of negligence became increasingly applicable in cases where companies failed to act with reasonable care to prevent contamination. Courts began to hold food sellers and manufacturers liable when their failure to take reasonable precautions resulted in consumer injury.
One milestone came with the 1916 California case Mazetti v. Armour & Co., in which a consumer became ill after eating canned meat and successfully sued the producer, even though there was no privity of contract. The court held that a food manufacturer owes a duty to the ultimate consumer. This marked a shift toward strict product liability, allowing plaintiffs to sue manufacturers without proving negligence, as long as the food was defective and caused harm.
As food production became more centralized and cases of food poisoning more traceable, plaintiffs gained traction. Courts became more sympathetic to the idea that corporations that mass-produce food should be responsible for ensuring its safety.
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), adopted by most states in the mid-20th century, further solidified the implied warranty of merchantability in food sales. Section 2-314 of the UCC implies that food sold must be fit for ordinary purposes—which includes being free of harmful bacteria. This allowed for consumer lawsuits based on breach of warranty, even without direct proof of negligence.
III. Public Health Advancements and the Role of Science in Litigation
From the 1950s onward, scientific advances in microbiology and epidemiology gave food poisoning lawsuits a powerful evidentiary foundation. Public health surveillance, culture-based identification of pathogens, and incubation period analysis allowed attorneys to argue causation with greater precision. Victims no longer had to rely solely on circumstantial evidence; lab tests and epidemiological links could tie a Salmonella or E. coli infection to a specific product or establishment.
This scientific credibility laid the groundwork for successful litigation in several high-profile outbreaks, especially in the latter half of the 20th century.
One pivotal moment came with the Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak of 1993, one of the deadliest foodborne illness incidents in U.S. history. Undercooked hamburgers served at Jack in the Box restaurants in several states caused hundreds of illnesses and at least four child deaths. The strain involved—E. coli O157:H7—would become infamous and a rallying cry for food safety reform. Litigation following the outbreak resulted in tens of millions of dollars in settlements and jury awards. The outbreak also pushed the USDA to classify E. coli O157:H7 as an adulterant in ground beef, meaning its mere presence made the product illegal for sale.
The lawsuits arising from this outbreak were notable for their use of genetic fingerprinting (via pulsed-field gel electrophoresis) to link the bacteria in victims’ bodies to that found in the contaminated food. This was a precursor to the modern use of Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) in foodborne outbreak investigations, a technique now essential in litigation support.
More recent outbreaks, such as those involving peanut butter (Peanut Corporation of America, 2009), Listeria in cantaloupes (Jensen Farms, 2011), Romaine lettuce (multiple outbreaks from 2018 to 2021), and ready-to-eat deli meats, continue to generate civil lawsuits alongside regulatory action and criminal charges.
IV. Strict Liability and the Dominance of Product Liability Theory
By the 1970s and 1980s, strict liability had overtaken negligence as the primary theory of recovery in food poisoning cases. Under this doctrine, plaintiffs needed only to prove that:
-
The food product was defective (i.e., contaminated with a pathogen),
-
The defect existed when it left the defendant’s control,
-
The defect caused the plaintiff’s illness.
This framework, set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A, enabled broader recovery. It allowed attorneys to bring class actions or represent individuals who might not otherwise have been able to shoulder the burden of proof required in negligence claims.
Law firms began specializing in these types of cases, refining methods to establish causation and identify liable parties across a food production chain—including growers, processors, distributors, and retailers. Over time, the chain of distribution doctrine allowed plaintiffs to sue multiple entities in the food supply line without having to pinpoint which one specifically caused the contamination.
V. The Modern Era of Food Poisoning Litigation: Traceback, Class Actions, and Specialty Law Firms
Today, foodborne illness litigation is a mature and highly specialized practice area. Law firms such as Ron Simon & Associates lead the way in representing clients injured by Listeria, Salmonella, E. coli, Cyclospora, and Norovirus outbreaks.
These firms rely on public health traceback reports, Whole Genome Sequencing data, and investigative findings from the CDC, FDA , and USDA FSIS. When an outbreak is traced to a specific lot or product, and that product is recalled, attorneys can use this as strong circumstantial evidence that their client was exposed to the same contaminated food.
Most food poisoning lawsuits are brought as individual personal injury lawsuits, and include many pathogens like Hepatitis A (a virus), e. coli (a bacteria), or Cyclospora (a parasite). Most of these food poisoning lawsuits are filed individually or as part of consolidated litigation. Settlements vary based on the severity of injury. Cases involving Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS), miscarriage, or death often result in six- or seven-figure settlements.
Legal teams today also evaluate the economic damages (lost wages, medical bills), non-economic damages (pain and suffering), and occasionally punitive damages in cases where companies were grossly negligent—such as knowingly shipping contaminated product or falsifying lab results.
VI. The Intersection of Regulation and Litigation
Foodborne illness litigation does not occur in a vacuum—it interacts directly with regulatory oversight. While the FDA and USDA issue recalls and conduct inspections, these actions often provide the evidentiary foundation for civil lawsuits. Attorneys use government findings—such as positive swab tests, inspection violations, or published recall notices—as support for liability.
At times, litigation also drives reform. Lawsuits arising from major outbreaks have prompted food safety legislation, including the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) of 2011, which expanded FDA authority over prevention-based controls in the food industry.
In some cases, litigation has also supported whistleblowers inside companies who allege that food safety violations were ignored. These dual pressures—from government enforcement and private lawsuits—together help deter future negligence in the food industry.
VII. Conclusion: The Legal Frontline of Food Safety
Food poisoning litigation in America is not simply about compensation—it is part of the broader mechanism by which food safety is enforced, improved, and monitored. From the earliest 19th-century spoiled milk cases to modern lawsuits involving genomic evidence and multinational food companies, the legal system has evolved to reflect the complexities of an industrialized food supply chain.
Today, legal actions serve as both a remedy for individual victims and a powerful incentive for the food industry to prioritize safety. The evolution of food poisoning litigation mirrors the evolution of public expectations: that food should not only be nourishing but safe. With science, regulation, and litigation aligned, the law has become one of the most important tools in preventing future outbreaks and ensuring accountability in the American food system.
