HanNam Chain Market

[redacted]Revdex.com4747 Viewridge Avenue, #200San Diego, California 92123Re: Your Correspondence dated December 19, 2014 (/D No. [redacted])December 30,2014Dear [redacted]:Please be advised that I am general counsel for Hannam Chain USA, Inc. This letter is...

inresponse to the above referenced correspondence regarding a customer complaint for a recenttransaction at our Buena Park location. We respond to the allegations in the customer'scomplaint as follows:Customer claims that he purchased flounder sashimi from the Hannam Chain's Buena Parklocation (the "Supermarket") on December 13, 2014. After storing the raw fish in hisrefrigerator for some time, Customer claims that he consumed the sashimi at approximately 7:00p.m. Customer claims that he began feeling sick around 12:00 a.m. and continued to feel sick forthe next two days.The sole basis of the Customer's claim is that he allegedly developed food poisoning after eatinga meal which included sashimi purchased from the Supermarket. However, it is pure speculationas to whether the food poisoning was from eating sashimi or from something else the Customerate or otherwise ingested. Furthermore, even if the Customer became sick from eating thesashimi there is no evidence that the sashimi was contaminated when it left the Supermarket.The Supermarket sells various types of fresh fish. In the case of sashimi, the Supermarket has aseawater take of live fish on the premises. When a person orders sashimi, the live fish is selectedfrom the tank and then the sashimi is immediately prepared. It takes approximately 10 minutesfrom the time the fish is alive and swimming in the tank to when it sliced and given to thecustomer at the counter. There are also raw fish items that are immediately refrigerated afterbeing prepared in the same manner. The sashimi is always fresh and prepared in a professional,expert manner and great care is taken to serve a find, clean product.The Supermarket follows all appropriate sanitary procedures by washing and sanitizing allcutting surfaces and knives after each sashimi order. Furthermore, employees wear a fresh set ofdisposable gloves when beginning the process of preparing each sashimi order. The manager ofthe fresh fish department has over a decade's worth of experience in the fish market industry.After the freshly-sliced sashimi is handed to the customer, the Supermarket no longer has controlover how it is handled or under what circumstances it is transported, served, or eaten.Customer's unsubstantiated allegation of food poisoning is the first time the Supermarket hasever received a complaint regarding the freshness and quality of its sashimi. The Supermarkethas been preparing fresh sashimi since it first opened.The Court of Appeal addressed the issue of a plaintiff's burden of proving causation in a foodpoisoning case in [redacted] v. [redacted] Restaurant, (1997) 67 Cal.App.3d 1003. The palintiffsin Minder, a husband and wife, sued a restaurant for damages incurred from purportedlyingesting contaminated food. (!d. at p. 1007.) The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to meettheir burden of showing that the probable cause of their illness was the contaminated food eatenat the restaurant. (!d. at p. 1008.)The [redacted] court explained that in order to make a prima facie case, the plaintiff must prove thatthe food was unwholesome or unfit and caused his illness. (!d. at p. 1008.) "Theunwholesomeness character of food is not established, nor is a prima facie case made,merely by showing that the plaintiff became sick after eating it." (Ibid.)The [redacted] court also identified the ways in which a plaintiff can prove causation in a foodpoisoning case including: (1) evidence the food is "outwardly deleterious"; (2) evidence showingthe food was contaminated such as by scientific analysis of the food or evidence ofunsanitaryfood preparation practices.There is absolutely no evidence that the sashimi consumed by Customer was outwardlydeleterious. If the Customer detected an improper smell or appearance of the sashimi, he wouldnot have eaten it. As the [redacted] court stated, "where the food or beverage is not outwardlydeleterious the burden of proof is greater, and mere proof of illness without a showing ofunwholesomeness and causal connection is insufficient. (!d. at p. 1008.) Here, when the sashimiwas provided to the Customer, it was absolutely fresh. The fact is the Supermarket took propercare in preparing the sashimi and has sold a substantial volume of sashimi to its customers andnever had a person complained of getting sick.If it is true that the Customer really did get sick, it was caused by something other than theSupermarket. After the Customer left the Supermarket with the sashimi, the Supermarket wasnot in control of the conditions and treatment of the sashimi. The Supermarket cannot controlthe environment in which the sashimi was exposed, served, and eaten. If the sashimi becamecontaminated, then it had nothing to do with the Supermarket's handling of the sashimi.Additionally, there is no scientific analysis of the sashimi or evidence ofunsanitary practices.The sashimi in question was never scientifically analyzed or examined, and therefore there is nodirect proof of contamination. There is no evidence showing what type of bacteria may haveinfected the Customer. Furthermore, the Customer offers no evidence that he visited a doctor orwas given a diagnosis of food poisoning. No evidence of blood, urine, or stool samples whichwould provide a causal link between the sashimi and Customer's illness were ever proffered.Therefore, Customer's claim that the cause of his illness was due to the sashimi from theSupermarket is pure speculation and conjecture.Also, there are numerous other potential causes of the Customer's illness. As the [redacted] courtstated, "if the plaintiffs' illness is explainable on grounds other than unwholesomeness, it may benecessary to exclude such causes." ([redacted], supra, 67 Cal.App.3d at p. 1009-1010.) Here, itwould have been just as logical for the contamination to have resulted from other food eaten atthe same time or earlier in the day, or it could have resulted from a source besides food. TheCustomer could have touched a dirty door handle at home or from a different location, and thencontaminated the food himself.There is no evidence that any other persons became ill from eating the sashimi other than theCustomer. Multiple other people purchased sashimi from the Supermarket on the day Customerpurchased his sashimi, but the Supermarket received no other complaints. Moreover, this is thefirst and only time the Supermarket has received a complaint regarding its sashimi despitepreparing and selling numerous daily orders of sashimi, all of which were prepared in the samemanner as the sashimi which Customer alleges caused his food poisoning. Because other patronswho ordered sashimi the same day had no complaints, it cannot be inferred from the evidencethat the sashimi was unwholesome.For the reasons stated above, the Customer cannot meet his burden of proving that the sashimi inquestion caused his illness as a matter of law. Therefore, while we sincerely feel bad that theCustomer became ill, we do not believe that the Supermarket should be held liable in any mannerfor the Customer's illness.Please feel free to contact me at [redacted] or via email a [redacted] if you wouldlike the further discuss any of the issues set forth above.[redacted]General Counsel, Hannam Chain USA, Inc.

Review: On saturday Dec. 13th, I purchased a little less than a pound worth of flounder sashimi at Hannam chain market in buena park. It took me 30min. to get home and immidiately after I got home I stored the sashimi inthe freidge.Around 7PM that day I then procided to eat the sashimi. I went about my night and was getting ready for bed around 12am.When I began to feel extreamely nautiousand sick for the next 6hours. I continously threw up over 12 time and had extremly severe [redacted]. I used the toilet more than 20 times. I was unable to report to work for the next 2 days due to the severe food poisioning that was given to me after I ate the bad sashimi. My wife and I ate exact same things all day except for the sashimi and she was completely fine. I would like for the store to be aware that the fish they are seeling made someone extremely sick and I would appreciate if thier fish made sure to keep it stored under the correct temperatures and to simply give out what we as customers are paying for. I am so dissapointed and discugsted in what occured and for these reasons I will never purchase anything from this store again. It cost me 2 days off work and food poising at its worst. I was in a nightmare for 2days that I woudn't wish upon anyone and I hope that they change drastically in the way they handle their products and more importantly the health of thier customers.Desired Settlement: I hope the honest business.

Business

Response:

[redacted]Revdex.com4747 Viewridge Avenue, #200San Diego, California 92123Re: Your Correspondence dated December 19, 2014 (/D No. [redacted])December 30,2014Dear [redacted]:Please be advised that I am general counsel for Hannam Chain USA, Inc. This letter is inresponse to the above referenced correspondence regarding a customer complaint for a recenttransaction at our Buena Park location. We respond to the allegations in the customer'scomplaint as follows:Customer claims that he purchased flounder sashimi from the Hannam Chain's Buena Parklocation (the "Supermarket") on December 13, 2014. After storing the raw fish in hisrefrigerator for some time, Customer claims that he consumed the sashimi at approximately 7:00p.m. Customer claims that he began feeling sick around 12:00 a.m. and continued to feel sick forthe next two days.The sole basis of the Customer's claim is that he allegedly developed food poisoning after eatinga meal which included sashimi purchased from the Supermarket. However, it is pure speculationas to whether the food poisoning was from eating sashimi or from something else the Customerate or otherwise ingested. Furthermore, even if the Customer became sick from eating thesashimi there is no evidence that the sashimi was contaminated when it left the Supermarket.The Supermarket sells various types of fresh fish. In the case of sashimi, the Supermarket has aseawater take of live fish on the premises. When a person orders sashimi, the live fish is selectedfrom the tank and then the sashimi is immediately prepared. It takes approximately 10 minutesfrom the time the fish is alive and swimming in the tank to when it sliced and given to thecustomer at the counter. There are also raw fish items that are immediately refrigerated afterbeing prepared in the same manner. The sashimi is always fresh and prepared in a professional,expert manner and great care is taken to serve a find, clean product.The Supermarket follows all appropriate sanitary procedures by washing and sanitizing allcutting surfaces and knives after each sashimi order. Furthermore, employees wear a fresh set ofdisposable gloves when beginning the process of preparing each sashimi order. The manager ofthe fresh fish department has over a decade's worth of experience in the fish market industry.After the freshly-sliced sashimi is handed to the customer, the Supermarket no longer has controlover how it is handled or under what circumstances it is transported, served, or eaten.Customer's unsubstantiated allegation of food poisoning is the first time the Supermarket hasever received a complaint regarding the freshness and quality of its sashimi. The Supermarkethas been preparing fresh sashimi since it first opened.The Court of Appeal addressed the issue of a plaintiff's burden of proving causation in a foodpoisoning case in [redacted] v. [redacted] Restaurant, (1997) 67 Cal.App.3d 1003. The palintiffsin Minder, a husband and wife, sued a restaurant for damages incurred from purportedlyingesting contaminated food. (!d. at p. 1007.) The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to meettheir burden of showing that the probable cause of their illness was the contaminated food eatenat the restaurant. (!d. at p. 1008.)The [redacted] court explained that in order to make a prima facie case, the plaintiff must prove thatthe food was unwholesome or unfit and caused his illness. (!d. at p. 1008.) "Theunwholesomeness character of food is not established, nor is a prima facie case made,merely by showing that the plaintiff became sick after eating it." (Ibid.)The [redacted] court also identified the ways in which a plaintiff can prove causation in a foodpoisoning case including: (1) evidence the food is "outwardly deleterious"; (2) evidence showingthe food was contaminated such as by scientific analysis of the food or evidence ofunsanitaryfood preparation practices.There is absolutely no evidence that the sashimi consumed by Customer was outwardlydeleterious. If the Customer detected an improper smell or appearance of the sashimi, he wouldnot have eaten it. As the [redacted] court stated, "where the food or beverage is not outwardlydeleterious the burden of proof is greater, and mere proof of illness without a showing ofunwholesomeness and causal connection is insufficient. (!d. at p. 1008.) Here, when the sashimiwas provided to the Customer, it was absolutely fresh. The fact is the Supermarket took propercare in preparing the sashimi and has sold a substantial volume of sashimi to its customers andnever had a person complained of getting sick.If it is true that the Customer really did get sick, it was caused by something other than theSupermarket. After the Customer left the Supermarket with the sashimi, the Supermarket wasnot in control of the conditions and treatment of the sashimi. The Supermarket cannot controlthe environment in which the sashimi was exposed, served, and eaten. If the sashimi becamecontaminated, then it had nothing to do with the Supermarket's handling of the sashimi.Additionally, there is no scientific analysis of the sashimi or evidence ofunsanitary practices.The sashimi in question was never scientifically analyzed or examined, and therefore there is nodirect proof of contamination. There is no evidence showing what type of bacteria may haveinfected the Customer. Furthermore, the Customer offers no evidence that he visited a doctor orwas given a diagnosis of food poisoning. No evidence of blood, urine, or stool samples whichwould provide a causal link between the sashimi and Customer's illness were ever proffered.Therefore, Customer's claim that the cause of his illness was due to the sashimi from theSupermarket is pure speculation and conjecture.Also, there are numerous other potential causes of the Customer's illness. As the [redacted] courtstated, "if the plaintiffs' illness is explainable on grounds other than unwholesomeness, it may benecessary to exclude such causes." ([redacted], supra, 67 Cal.App.3d at p. 1009-1010.) Here, itwould have been just as logical for the contamination to have resulted from other food eaten atthe same time or earlier in the day, or it could have resulted from a source besides food. TheCustomer could have touched a dirty door handle at home or from a different location, and thencontaminated the food himself.There is no evidence that any other persons became ill from eating the sashimi other than theCustomer. Multiple other people purchased sashimi from the Supermarket on the day Customerpurchased his sashimi, but the Supermarket received no other complaints. Moreover, this is thefirst and only time the Supermarket has received a complaint regarding its sashimi despitepreparing and selling numerous daily orders of sashimi, all of which were prepared in the samemanner as the sashimi which Customer alleges caused his food poisoning. Because other patronswho ordered sashimi the same day had no complaints, it cannot be inferred from the evidencethat the sashimi was unwholesome.For the reasons stated above, the Customer cannot meet his burden of proving that the sashimi inquestion caused his illness as a matter of law. Therefore, while we sincerely feel bad that theCustomer became ill, we do not believe that the Supermarket should be held liable in any mannerfor the Customer's illness.Please feel free to contact me at [redacted] or via email a [redacted] if you wouldlike the further discuss any of the issues set forth above.[redacted]General Counsel, Hannam Chain USA, Inc.