State held liable for man's oyster-related death

(AP Crime 01/01 12:17:58)

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - The Louisiana health department's failure to make restaurants post warnings about the dangers of eating raw oysters in 1993 means the state is legally responsible for a tourist's death, a state appeal court has ruled.

In a 2-1 decision, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court that San Diego resident Jack Van Natta died because the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals failed to enforce the posting of shellfish danger warnings at restaurants where Van Natta ate raw oysters when he visited the city.

"There is no evidence that Mr. Van Natta knew or should have known that eating raw oysters was hazardous to him," Judge Joan Bernard Armstrong wrote for the court. "The trial court implicitly found that the warnings were not posted in the restaurants."

The split decision, released Monday, upholds Civil District Court Judge Yada Magee's ruling in 2000 that the state agency was 100 percent at fault for Van Natta's death. Magee awarded $85,000 in damages and about $84,000 in medical expenses.

Craig Nelson, an attorney for the agency, said the case will not have much impact, since new rules went into effect almost 10 years ago. He said the state will appeal the ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court.

"Other people that eat oysters and become sick because of their immune system problems cannot use this case to assist them," he said. "This incident occurred a month before the actual sanitary code warnings went into effect."

An alcoholic suffering from liver disease, Van Natta fell into the category of people who are particularly vulnerable to
contaminated shellfish, which are linked with about 16 deaths per year. He died after eating raw oysters at three restaurants in 1993.

The state argued that even if the warnings had been posted, Van Natta wouldn't have heeded them. He was an alcoholic who kept drinking despite his doctor's advice, the agency said.

The appeals court majority refused to link Van Natta's alcoholism to his choice of food.

In his dissent, Judge Dennis Bagneris agreed with the state's argument that Van Natta likely would have ignored the warning signs.

"An adequate warning would have been futile given the evidence that (Van Natta) did not (heed) the medical advice given by his physician regarding his drinking habits," he wrote. "Van Natta was an alcoholic with a severely damaged and diseased liver. (He) failed to heed the warnings from his physicians to stop drinking."