Speaking today about the latest food contamination problem, Liam Moloney Product Liability Solicitor in Naas said, “anyone who has consumed frozen lamb mince and has had an adverse reaction should immediately attend with their General Practitioner for treatment. Consumers who have suffered illness as a result of consuming this food would also be entitled to compensation under the law of product liability”.

No other products at this stage are known to be affected by this recall. The Authority has announced that the investigations at the manufacturing premises are currently underway.

Speaking today about this latest recall, Liam Moloney Product Liability Solicitor said, “Listeriosis is serious and can be life threatening in vulnerable individuals. Certain segments of the population would be deemed to be at a greater risk including pregnant women, the elderly and people with impaired immune function”.

The Authority has requested food  businesses who have the implicated batch of cheese in their premises to remove them from sale and clearly display a point of sale notice informing customers not to eat it. Consumers have been advised not to eat the implicated cheese.

The background to the case is that Mr. Hegarty developed ulcerative colitis in 2001. Between 2011 and 2007, he was treated for ulceration of his large bowel by his GP and a consultant gastroenterologist. The Plaintiff was hospitalised on a number of occasions and he was required emergency admission to the Mercy Hospital. The Plaintiff had to have extensive surgery which involved the repair of his rectal stump and the repositioning of the ileostomy.

The Court was told that the main liability issues were as follows:

• Whether or not the Defendant, its servants and/ or agents were negligent in failing to properly appraise the Plaintiff of the findings made in the course of the second surgical procedure, namely a leakage of the rectal stump which caused a pelvic abscess and wound infection; and/or

• Whether the Defendant, its servants and/or agents were negligent in failing to adequately advise the Plaintiff of the significance of the MRSA positive finding from the pelvic swab reported on the 1^st of March 2007.

The Plaintiff maintained that the Negligence on the part of the Defendant in failing to fully outline to the Plaintiff the complications of his initial surgery caused the Plaintiff to attribute all of his medical problems to MRSA infection following a positive report on the 1^st of March 2007 rather than to the real cause namely a leak of the rectal stump.

The Judge held that there was no failure on the part of the hospital to keep the Plaintiff fully informed regarding his medical conditions. The Judge also held that there was no duty on the Defendant to ensure that it was a member of the medical staff that first advised the Plaintiff of the MRSA infection.

The background to the case is that the Plaintiff, who was born on the 11^th of November 1975 sustained significant injuries when he was struck by a vehicle on the N6 roadway close to Rochfortbridge on the 11^th of November 2007.

The Plaintiff had earlier been amongst a party of about 30 members of a football club who had travelled to Tullamore to watch a football match on the same date. They travelled down by coach, owned and operated by the first named defendant. On the route back the driver of the coach pulled the coach onto the hard shoulder of the N6 carriageway after he was requested by  a number of passengers to stop so that passengers could go to the toilet. The Plaintiff got off to go the toilet. The next thing the Plaintiff knew the coach was driving off without him. He banged on the side of the coach to try to stop it leaving but to no avail.

The Plaintiff then walked on the carriageway in a very dark area and subsequently he became aware of life behind him. He turned around to see an oncoming car and at which stage he realised that he had veered from the hard shoulder and was actually in the fast lane of the carriageway. The Plaintiff immediately ran in the direction of the motorway but unfortunately was struck by the off side of the second named defendant’s vehicle as he got to the centre of the east bound carriageway. The Plaintiff sustained a number of serious injuries.

The Plaintiff sued the Defendants claiming negligence. He maintained that the first named defendant Eirebus Ltd. was negligent in a number of respects as follows:

• He claims that the coach driver ought not to have pulled onto the hard shoulder of the carriageway so as to permit himself and others to get off the coach.

• He claims that this was extremely hazardous due to inadequate lighting and that the coach driver ought to have stopped the coach at the earlier lay-by which was close to Rochfortbridge.

• Alternatively the driver should have driven on to the next lay-by.

• It was further maintained by the Plaintiff that having stopped the coach the driver was negligent in failing to ensure whether by way of conducting a head count or otherwise that all of the passengers were back on the coach prior to it taking off.

• It was further alleged that the failure on the part of the coach driver to open a locked toilet on the coach was negligent and in breach of contract.

The Plaintiff claimed negligence as against the second named defendant as follows:

• That she was not keeping a proper look out.

• That she was negligent in that she was driving with dipped headlights thus significantly reducing her ability to assess the safety of the road ahead.

• It was claimed that if she felt it was necessary to drive on dipped headlights that she should have reduce her speed to that which would have permitted her to stop in the distance she could see to be clear ahead.

• Alternatively it was maintained that had she been driving on full beam headlights that she would have seen the Plaintiff in sufficient time to allow her to take evasive action.

• The Judge found no liability on the part of the first and second named defendants. The Judge stated that this was a case that the Plaintiff was injured because of a series of actions on his part for which he must accept full responsibility. The Judge dismissed the case.

As part of its regulatory requirement the manufacturer has informed the MHRA of a bacterial infection in two batches of the spray. The two bacteria identified are commonly found in soil, water and hospital environments and human infections are rare. The bacteria shouldn’t affect healthy people. However, those who suffer from existing sinus or nasal problems or who have recently undergone surgery may be at risk. The possible symptoms exhibited can be nasal or facial tenderness, discoloured mucous or a fever.

Consumers have been told that if they have any of the affected batches they should immediately stop using the product and return it to the retailer. If any persons exhibit any of the symptoms listed above they should also consult a healthcare professional. Speaking today about the latest product recall Liam Moloney, Healthcare Solicitor said “the two types of bacteria found in some of the affected batches are Pseudomonas stutzeri and Sphingomonas paucimobilis. It has an extremely limited role as an infectious agent and human infections are rare. Most infections are associated with immunocompromised people. Infections can be treated by using antibiotics”.