The fish bone that was lodged in Taraneh Bahrampour’s throat
WASHINGTON – A D.C. court has ruled in a case against Trader Joe’s that customers can sue over bones in fish, if there’s a chance there was a belief they would have been removed.
The D.C. Court of Appeals on Oct. 15 reversed a trial court ruling that said bones are an inherent risk when eating fish, deciding instead that consumers could have different expectations based on different products.
A “whole baked fish” or a raw fillet could be found to have more of a threat of bones than a frozen, “oven-ready” breaded piece “that appears manufactured,” Judge John Howard III wrote.
“Some may believe one should always expect fish bones in any fish product at any production stage because they are simply too hard to remove and are a natural part of the meat,” he wrote.
“However, it is just as plausible that a jury could decide that Trader Joe’s had a duty to warn consumers that their product is a ‘whole fish fillet and ‘may contain bones’ because it is foreseeable that a person may not know this specific product, given its presentation, has bones and may cause injury.”
The ruling revives Taraneh Bahrampour’s lawsuit, filed in 2024 in D.C. Superior Court. Her lawsuit says in May 2023, she was eating a fish fillet when a bone became lodged in her esophagus.
It was so stuck that emergency room doctors at Johns Hopkins Sibley Memorial Hospital ordered a surgical procedure to remove it with forceps. The 22 hours before were especially painful, her lawsuit says.
The object was more than a half-inch long, though the box of breaded cod fillets did not include a warning that they may contain bones. Bahrampour stayed in the hospital for two nights. In addition to seeking compensation for medical care, she says she has suffered emotional distress.
“Not only did Ms. Bahrampour face fear about her own well-being surrounding this incident, but her young eight-year-old daughter was also eating the Fish Fillets out of the same box at the time the bone was swallowed by Ms. Bahrampour,” her lawsuit says.
“Ms. Bahrampour is frequently troubled by the thought of what could have happened if her daughter, who has a much smaller esophagus, had swallowed the fish bone. Additionally, Ms. Bahrampour is traumatized by the knowledge that the fish bone could have easily been aspirated into her own or her daughter’s windpipe, which could have been catastrophic and fatal.”
Superior Court judge Carl Ross agreed with Trader Joe’s that it owed no duty to consumers to warn them of the risks of eating fish. The Court of Appeals, however, cited a 1971 ruling that said a person injured by a bone while eating sliced chicken would be able to sue.
It would be different, that court said, if the person were eating a chicken leg. The ruling “suggests that the preparation of the dish or food item presents a factual issue that may change what is reasonable to expect in that product,” Judge Howard wrote.
