A diner at the Stellenbosch-based Beyerskloof Wine Bar, who said that she had ingested a needle-like object which she claimed was in her hamburger, won her damages claim against the establishment after the Western Cape High Court found the restaurant’s breach of care was linked to the plaintiff’s harm.
Maxine Williams blamed the wine bar for ingesting the foreign object and she claimed more than R750,000 in damages against the establishment.
The restaurant, meanwhile, disputed that it was the cause of any danger. The object that was allegedly ingested by the plaintiff did not come from consumables sold and/or prepared by them, they said.
Williams testified that on the evening of October 3, 2020, she and her husband visited their favourite restaurant in the area, and each ordered a hamburger and sides. Halfway through her meal, she experienced a sensation of discomfort, as though something was lodged in her throat. She immediately tried to get it down but struggled profusely. She went to the restroom as she started to cough and was in a state of panic.
She noticed some blood in the bathroom basin, and she began to cry. She returned to her husband and he took her to the emergency room at Stellenbosch Mediclinic. X-rays revealed that a needle-like object was stuck in her throat.
The ENT specialist attempted to extract this object manually but could not succeed. She could not be operated on that evening as she had eaten food and drunk wine. The plaintiff underwent an operation after seven hours which was unsuccessful. She was discharged after five days when the object was no longer detected.
The plaintiff testified on the extent of pain, discomfort, anxiety, and panic she experienced during this incident. She was adamant that there is absolutely no possibility that a foreign object came from her clothing, as she did not wear hair clips or pins and so on.
The only way the needle-like foreign object could have entered her body was through the food that was served at the restaurant, she said. She was certain that the object was on the hamburger because that is what she consumed at that time. She was uncertain as to whether it was on the bun, patty, or garnish, or how it had been introduced to the hamburger.
The general manager for the restaurant testified that the establishment ceased operations in April last year. He told the court the establishment had never experienced an incident of this nature. He explained that the hamburger patties were sourced from a reputable butchery which has been in business approximately since 1960.
The buns and sides also came from suppliers which supplied the hotels and restaurants in the area. At no stage did the defendant make its own patties, the court was told.
But it was argued on behalf of Williams that the defendant had not provided an explanation of the origins of the foreign object on the food. It merely stated that it had safety and health protocols in place to ensure food safety.
The restaurant manager also did not testify about what process was undertaken by which staff member to prepare the plaintiff’s hamburger, or whether there were any pins perhaps attached to the uniforms of the waitresses which could have fallen into the food.
Judge Babalwa Mantame acknowledged there is no direct evidence regarding the origins of the needle or how it came to be in the hamburger, but she concluded the restaurant’s staff was exclusively in control over preparing the final hamburger.
She said there was thus a connection between the hamburger and the damage caused. She ruled that the restaurant is 100% liable for the damages suffered by Williams.
