Romba v Bromely & Manton [2003] PGDC 2; DC91 (1 January 2003)

DC91

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 150 OF 2000

BETWEEN

ROBERT ROMBA
Complainant

AND

BROMELY & MANTON

Defendant

Mount Hagen

S W Seneka

2003

SENEKA: Complainant is a regular customer and on 20/07/00 he and his family had gone to Haus Mit section 40 Lot 24 Tarangau Mt. Hagen. Defendant owns the Haus Mit. The complainant bought:-

2 cocktails @ K7.50 each K15.00

2 kakaruk Net @ K4.50 each K9.00

They took them home and cooked the cocktail and ate it but found it to be smelly.

As a result they were sick and claim general & exemplary damages. The family had consumed portion of it and as a result visited toilet regularly the evening of 20th and morning of 21st July, 2000. On the 21.07.00 the family visited Dr. John Mckup at Family Medical Clinic.

By his affidavit of 22.08.01 said he carried out a check and Robert Romba family and found that the family had

"Severe abdomin pains, fever, vomiting and diaharria. Family consumed some meat from the store as a result of poison meat."

On 21/07/00 took the meat to the Health Authority. Mr. Fidela Losmanu an Environment Health Officer in his report of 29/08/00 and letter dated 08.08.00 to complainant said

"Assessment on the physician is a quote from Mr. Fidelia Losmanu's report the nature of the cooked meat had firm indicates that the meat stuff had very heavy accumulate."

That certifies that the family of Mr. Robert Romba namely Mr. Romba, Josephine Romba, Natalie, Wesley and Justine Romba were seen and treated at this clinic on 21.07.00. They suffered severe abdominal pains, fever, vomiting and diarrhoea following consumption of some meat from the store. An intoximeat (not infected) of abrupt. They clinically had severe toxic state of food poisoning and treatments were given. Recovery had been excellent and they fully recovered.

This was conveyed to defendant who through their lawyer Warner Shand said they will defend it vigorously.

There is evidence to show the cocktail was bought at Defendant's shop. That when it was cooked contaminated as shown by the Environment Health Officers findings. That the result of eating it was frequent visits to toilet, diarrhoea, vomiting, abdominal pain and fever as a result of the food poisoning.

There was no evidence for defendant to rebut complainant's claim nor are there evidence as to how much complainant is claiming. We know complainant went to a private Doctor so may have spent money. He also went and saw the Environmental Health Officer to carry out test. We are not told the cost involved.

Generally court has no idea what expense were involved in the whole process from eating the contaminated food to the filing of the summons.

The court was not assisted by way of case laws or otherwise to calculate the value of pain, embarrassment and suffering.

Court can only assumed that there was no expenses involved and can only order a minimal expense K1, 000.00.

For pain suffered, I will order a figure of K2, 000.00.

For exemplary damages defendant knew the cocktail was bought from his store. It needs to be careful in maintaining perishable food and such negligence action is unacceptable. To refuse to compensate is also unaccepted and so must be at fault. K500.00 is sufficient for defendant's inaction.