Victim Who Swallowed Wire While Eating Chicken: "It Feels Like Begging the Perpetrator for Forgiveness"

The Price of Eating Chicken: Two Years of Legal Battles
A Desire to Expose How Corporations Handle Accidents

Victim A of the 60 Chicken 'Wire Contamination' Incident.

Mr. A, who suffered an accident in which a piece of wire became lodged in the posterior pharyngeal wall (the back wall of the throat connected to the esophagus) while eating boneless chicken he had purchased from a 60 Chicken franchise in Incheon, expressed his frustration in an interview with The Asia Business Daily.

We asked Mr. A about what he has gone through and how he feels about the incident.

The following is a Q&A with Mr. A.

-For two years after the foreign object contamination incident, you were subjected to a criminal complaint and police investigation, and the trial is still ongoing. How do you feel now?

▲It feels as though the victim is being made to beg for forgiveness from the perpetrator. I cannot believe that buying a single chicken has cost me two years of legal battles and tens of millions of won in litigation expenses. While the wire that was embedded in my body has been removed, the distrust and wounds left in my heart remain unhealed. I question every night why a victim of a food safety incident must be treated like a criminal, and whether our society is truly just.

-Did you not notice the wire at all before swallowing the chicken?

▲If it had been chicken with bones, I would have eaten it carefully, picking out the bones. But since it was boneless chicken, I ate it without suspicion, and that trust led directly to the accident. The thin wire was deeply embedded inside a piece of chicken and was not visible from the outside. By the time I felt something unusual while chewing, it had already gone down my throat. The moment I briefly wondered, "Is this a bone?" the wire was already lodged in my throat.

-What kind of treatment did you receive?

▲It was not simply a matter of removing the wire. I had to undergo urgent medical care for nearly a month to check for possible organ damage or infection. The doctor warned me that if I developed a fever or persistent pain, I would need to go straight to the emergency room at a major hospital. My entire family spent a month anxiously monitoring my condition. The shock of the accident and the fear that my 10-year-old child could have eaten it as well led me to seek psychiatric care.

-The head office said the settlement amount of 10 million won was excessive.

▲It was not about the amount of money, but about the seriousness of the accident and the irresponsibility of the head office. I did not initiate the settlement amount; rather, employees from the company persistently came to my house over several days, repeatedly asking, "How much do you want as a settlement?" The amount I mentioned reflected not only the mental anguish I experienced, the need for future treatment, and the gravity of the incident, but also the fact that the company, which had upended an entire family, failed to propose any standards and simply kept waiting for my response. If the company believed the amount was excessive, it should have made a sincere counteroffer and tried to negotiate. Instead, the company drew its sword of "lawsuits and accusations" rather than seeking compromise. It is not about the "actual medical expenses incurred," but about considering the "potentially fatal consequences" that could have occurred. If a 10-year-old child had swallowed the wire and suffered a perforated esophagus, would the company still claim it was merely a matter of a few hundred thousand won in medical bills?

-Why did you hold the head office responsible rather than the franchise where you bought the chicken?

▲Although the company verbally distanced itself from the franchise, in reality, it brought lawyers and even secretly recorded conversations, trapping me in a legal snare. The day after the incident, I contacted the company’s customer service center and asked them to determine whether the problem originated from the headquarters or the local franchise. If the company had no responsibility, all it needed to say was, "This matter falls under the franchisee’s management, so please communicate directly with the owner." Instead, the company sent its employees and lawyers three times to handle the situation directly. In such a situation, what consumer wouldn’t see the company as the responsible party? The company did not come to apologize. On the third visit, accompanied by a lawyer, they secretly recorded my statements and submitted them as evidence in a civil lawsuit. Just five days after the lawyer’s visit, they filed a lawsuit as if they had been waiting for the opportunity. This made it clear to me that their intention from the outset was not to resolve the issue, but to "silence me through litigation."

Furthermore, after the incident, the company even updated its website to state that "the head office’s quality control team will directly investigate in the event of a foreign object accident." Normally, the company promotes itself as having control over everything, but when an accident occurs, it claims in court that the franchisees are independent business operators and that it bears no responsibility. This is the classic case of cutting ties to avoid accountability and deceiving consumers.

-After this experience, what institutional changes do you think are necessary in the restaurant franchise industry?

▲I believe that the law must correct this distorted structure, where the head office wields powerful control over raw material supply but refuses to take responsibility when something goes wrong. According to current franchise contracts, key ingredients such as chicken must be purchased exclusively from the head office as "mandatory purchase items." The company thus monopolizes logistics, reaps huge profits, and exercises strict product control, but when an accident occurs, it hides behind the "franchisee’s cooking process" and claims the franchisees are independent business owners. If the company has the authority to force the sale of goods, it should also bear joint responsibility for accidents caused by those goods. This is common sense.

Consumers do not buy chicken based on the individual franchisee, but because they trust the brand. For the company to collect brand royalties and logistics margins but shift accident responsibility onto small franchisees is a cowardly evasion of legal responsibility. The law should require both the head office and franchisees to share joint responsibility for food safety incidents. In addition, measures must be put in place to prevent large corporations from using their financial power to silence victims through "strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs)."

-Any final comments?

▲If I were a so-called "black consumer" only after money, would the police have decided not to refer my post for prosecution, recognizing its "public interest purpose"? Would the court have ruled that "wire was mixed into the chicken and caused physical harm to the consumer"? I am not after money; I want the world to know about the "cowardly methods" used by large companies in handling such incidents. Chicken is the favorite food of our children and a beloved comfort snack for adults, paired with beer after a long day. The fact that a sharp piece of wire was found in such a national staple is a threat and a fear that could strike anyone.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.