Hi Franck,
This is the case -
Alleged Poisonous Omelette at a Restaurant
Davis & Davis v. A. & . S. Gatti
(Before Mr Justice Pickford and a common Jury)
The hearing of this action was continued this morning in which Mr and Mrs (Lewis) Davis sued Messrs Gatti for alleged breach of warranty in supplying at a supper party at this restaurant, the Adelaide Gallery [Adelaide Street], in August last [August 3, 1910], a mushroom omelette which made Mrs Davis ill.
The plaintiffs’ case was closed after the closing of further medical testimony and the evidence of two other ladies who partook of the mushroom omelette at the party in question [both of whom did not finish their meals and subsequently felt unwell, whereas Mrs Davis developed abdominal pains, high temperature and a rash subsequently diagnosed as ‘associated with fungal poisoning.’]
Sir Frederick Low, KC [for the defence], then submitted that as far as Mrs Davis was concerned, no action lay. The plaintiffs had alleged no negligence and based their case solely on breach of warranty and there was no privity of contract between her and Messrs Gatti.
Mr Justice Pickford expressed his doubt whether, if a man asked a party to supper at a restaurant, there was any implied warranty of the quality of the food as between the caterer and guests, but His Lordship reserved his position on the point on Sir Frederick Low saying that he did not wish to shirk a full investigation of the case.
Evidence for Messrs Gatti
Evidence was then given by the defendants’ storekeeper that the mushrooms were purchased from George Monroe (Limited), of Covent Garden, on the day in question and were bought as forced, fresh mushrooms at 1s a lb, “the best in the market,” and that they appeared to be quite fresh and in good condition. They were examined before going down to the kitchen.
There were tinned mushrooms in the restaurant which were sold to customers. They came from France and were “button” mushrooms, not suitable for omelettes and he never used them.
The vegetable cleaner at the Adelaide Gallery said that he examined and peeled the mushrooms. They were forced mushrooms and none of them were bad or decayed. He had never found a bad mushroom among those he peeled.
The man who cooked the three omelettes in question said that about ten mushrooms were used. He washed them first, sliced them up, put them in butter, and mixed them with the omelettes. They were not preserved mushrooms but good fresh English ones. He never used preserved things for omelettes. There were nine eggs in the omelettes, which were cooked separately, though the materials had been mixed. The mushrooms used had arrived that morning.
The present manager, who was chef at the restaurant, said he used to examine the mushrooms before they were peeled, and only fresh ones were used. They were short of mushrooms during the whole of August. The tinned mushrooms were only used for chicken cutlets.
Mr Lin, of Worthing, said he had a large business supplying forced or cultivated mushrooms. He sold none from the fields. On August 12th he sent a consignment of 61 lb to George Monroe (Limited) in baskets covered with white paper. They had been picked that morning. He had grown mushrooms for over 30 years, and never had a complaint, though he sent them as far as Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Dr Halden Davies, FRCS, MRCP, MB, said that a mushroom omelette was an indigestible form of supper, and the way Mrs Davis arranged her day gave the mushroom omelette the best chance of disagreeing with her.
“There is no mention in the books,” said Dr Davies, “Of any rash as a symptom of fungal poisoning.” He had known a case of a lady who, after eating mushrooms for many years without harm, suddenly became susceptible to them and had not been able to eat them since.
Mr Justice Pickford, in summing up, counselled the jury in the event of their finding the defendants liable, to assess the damages of Mr and Mrs Davis separately, in order that the legal question of the defendants’ liability to Mrs Davis might be argued.
The jury found a verdict for the defendants, for whom judgment was entered with costs.
[The Times, January 26, 1911. p. 3)
