What makes you say it would not fall under strict liability for food products? In most states, if a product was defective (the fish was), used as intended (it was eaten), and the defect caused injury (it did), then that is enough to prove strict product liability. The Turks and Caicos Islands are another derivative of the English system and they tend to follow trends from our hemisphere, so I would not be at all surprised if their law was similar.
Strict liability for food poisoning is the law in SOME states, however, this is far from a food poisoning case. In traditional food poisoning, the presumption under strict liability is that if the food was handled properly to the consumer, then there wouldn't be a problem and forestalls a lot of finger pointing between the various points in the food chain on how it got contaminated.
This is not the case here. This is a disease that is present in the fish in the wild and there is no way of detecting it or avoiding it.
Of course this is all 100% moot as I can't bend my mind around how US law would apply here. If this is the resort I'm suspecting it is, it is a operated by a Jamaican company and the Turks and Caicos are still a British overseas territory.
OP should consider placing a claim with the resort's insurance carrier. In reading about Ciguatera in the Eastern Caribbean, I have found numerous references to high insurance premiums to cover claims for Ciguatera poisoning.
have you contacted the resort? It is likely that they will cover expenses through their insurance in exchange for signing a nondisclosure/non disparagement agreement.
It is possible that the resort would offer some level of compensation, or even have insurance, to cover this type of situation; you won't know until you ask, but keep in mind that a settlement will likely foreclose any further claim.
I think there's a misunderstanding of what strict liability does. Under strict liability there is no need to prove anyone did anything wrong. The occasional widget coming off the assembly line is simply going to have a manufacturing defect regardless of the care taken in its manufacture. Or, it may have a design defect that was unknown or undetectable until the harm occurred. As a policy matter, legislatures implemented strict liability to allocate the risk of harm to the place best able to distribute the cost effectively rather than one individual or all of society bearing that cost.
No product can be made 100% risk free. Lawn mowers can still cause harm even though manufacturers exercise great care. If a bolt nevertheless comes loose and harm results, that is strict liability. So no, you would not have to prove where the food-borne illness was introduced. That would be necessary in an ordinary negligence case, not strict liability. And in the case of strict liability, you may be able to sue the seller as well as the manufacturer.
Yes, there is a misunderstanding of product liability law in relation to food -- but the misunderstanding is yours.
I do have to admit I have some apprehension here as it's impossible to know what future damages this may cause. Some people have symptoms for years.Quoting Mr. Knowitall
Here are some links that might be educational on the subject:
There are many others, but as you can see, establishing fault with regard to strict liability in food poisoning cases is not required.