It has been a four-year wait for justice for a restaurant patron who swallowed a needle while eating a hamburger with her husband at their favourite restaurant in Stellenbosch.
Maxine Williams has been embroiled in a legal dispute at the Cape Town high court after a night out at the Beyerskloof Wine Bar in 2020 turned into a humiliating emergency.
“It has taken four years to finalise the merits, considering what Mrs Williams has been through. Recalling everything under oath and testifying has been like a sword hanging over her head,” said her lawyer, Menko Hoeksema.
Williams told the court that halfway through the meal she “experienced a sensation of discomfort, as though something were lodged in her throat”.
She rushed to the bathroom and “started to cough and [was] in a state of panic”. She “attempted to insert her finger into her throat to dislodge the object quicker”, reads a judgment handed down this week by the court.
She started crying after noticing blood in the washbasin. It was early October 2020, during one of the later Covid-19 lockdowns, and other patrons looked at her “in a strange manner”.
Williams was rushed to the emergency room at Stellenbosch Mediclinic by her husband, and an X-ray revealed a needle-like object was stuck in her throat
The restaurant, which has subsequently closed, denied responsibility, and she sued it for damages.
Williams told the court that an “ENT specialist attempted to remove or extract this object manually but could not succeed” when she was admitted to the emergency room.
“She could not be operated on that evening, as she had eaten food and drunk wine. However, she was kept in hospital overnight for monitoring. [She] underwent an operation [seven hours later], which was unsuccessful,” the judgment reads.
“To monitor the location of the foreign object, [Williams] was hospitalised, and X-rays were performed twice daily, morning and evening, to track the location of the foreign object.”
Williams was kept in hospital for five days.
“[She] testified about the extent of [the] pain, discomfort, anxiety and panic she experienced during this incident. It was exacerbated in her psyche when she realised [the needle] had not been successfully removed,” the judgment reads.
“She recounted her humiliation and embarrassment when she wet herself, [as well as her fear when she recalled] a family friend who passed away after swallowing a fish bone that punctured his intestines. In reality, she was apprehensive about the possibility of experiencing a [similar fate].”
She said “there [was] absolutely no possibility a foreign object came from her clothing, as she did not wear hair clips or pins, and so on”.
“She also maintained the object did not originate from her husband. The only way [it] could have entered her body was through the food served at the restaurant,” the judgment reads.
Her husband corroborated her story.
However, the restaurant said it “purchased its raw products for preparation of the food from reputable sources that provide raw food products free from any potentially harmful objects that can cause damages”.
One of the restaurant’s co-founders, Jacques van Straaten, said the restaurant had never before experienced a similar incident. He was responsible for the procurement of the ingredients for the food sold at the establishment.
“The patties were normally delivered to the restaurant, but on some occasions he would collect the order from the butchery. On the night in question, there were no signs [Williams] would swallow a needle-like foreign object [in] her food,” the judgment reads.
Judge Babalwa Mantame ruled in Williams’ favour, saying the claim “on the merits succeeds”.
“The [restaurant] is liable for such damages as the plaintiff may prove in due course to have suffered arising from the needle-like foreign object that was contained in the food that was served.”
Hoeksema said litigation was instituted in 2021, and the matter was still pending.
“I am awaiting a response from the defendant’s attorneys regarding their instructions on whether they intend to proceed with an appeal or settle the matter.”
Van Straaten said the judgment had been noted, but “we are in discussions with our insurance company’s lawyers, who have advised us that [we should] apply for leave to appeal”.
He added, “The legal process will therefore continue and, because the matter is the subject of ongoing litigation, we have no comments at this stage. I trust you will understand.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.