|
Mr. Wookums posted:Why would allergies of all things be a protected class wrt the ADA as a consumer? IANAL but to my understanding the ADA covers medical conditions that impair some function of life without making an exclusive list of what is and is not considered a "disability" for obvious reasons. In general a severe food allergy is considered a disability legally for the purposes of things like, say, what kind of food you can ask a school to not serve your child. Or what kind of legal protections you have for if someone negligently fails to provide you with a reasonable accommodation for your food allergy when you're eating in a restaurant. What a "reasonable accommodation" might be tends to be somewhat flexible - it would be unreasonable for someone to ask a bakery to magically produce a gluten-free scone on the spot, or compel them to include gluten-free options on their menu as the consumer does have a choice of where to go and they're not going to starve without a scone (though we could invent a thought experiment about what if the bakery is the only source of food for 300 miles but whatever). Where that line falls is a matter of debate in this thread pretty frequently and we're probably about to have that entire conversation again, which is cool because it's something that waiters should put some thought into so they're prepared for providing service to people who are different in some way. However, informing a waiter of a food allergy with the expectation that he will help guide you to existing menu items or substitutions that will not kill you is a reasonable expectation. I mean poo poo, if the waiter was unable or unwilling to guarantee his customer's survival of the dining experience, he could have just politely turned him away with the excuse that there was no way to reasonably prevent cross-contamination.
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I am not a lawyer, but it, um, does. The overwhelming standard for negligent homicide in common law jurisdictions has three elements: awareness of the risk, an act or omission, and causation. The server's pay and the location of the epipen wouldn't come into it. If the client hadn't disclosed the allergy, awareness wouldn't have been met. The terms used would be different in Canada, but the same rough analysis would apply. Quebec is civil law (unlike the rest of Canada which is common law).
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
unknown posted:Quebec is civil law (unlike the rest of Canada which is common law). All bets are off. I declare Martian Law, the only legal food is now human flesh. Okay I went and read a bunch about it, and here's what I found. While there are specific cases relating to food allergens in schools, I'm not seeing much relating to allergens and restaurants. So, while I stand by my argument that a severe food allergy should be subject to the same kinds of laws as wheelchairs etc, the courts in the US haven't tested that. Instead, the harm that occurs to restaurant patrons due to food allergies is considered a civil matter, and you should be taking precautions in order to not be held liable in a lawsuit, not because the ADA says so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Seems to me he was just served the wrong dish and did not confirm the dish because it "was dark" which is a common environment and occurrence in a restaurant. The same argument he will use as to why he isn't negligent for his own reaction will have to apply just as well to the server as the tartar wasn't cross contaminated with salmon. The casual behavior of the waiter isn't negligent as a salmon allergy isn't relevant to an order of steak tartar. Granted, I don't know if they use the same prep surface or w/e, but I'd assume not. I knew the ADA applied to schools, we (the cafeteria) collectively poo poo ourselves when we had summer camps come in with allergies, but they were entirely under our care as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
I don't know how I feel about an individual being criminally charged over that kind of thing as opposed to a restaurant getting sued, but I do know that if any customer ever let me know about a potentially fatal allergy concern I would put it on the ticket in big bold writing (or font or whatever) and go and tell the kitchen myself after sending the ticket their way. If that server really did nothing to warn the kitchen then that server is an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Waiter arrested for serving allergic customer fish. Which put the customer in a coma. So...yeah...be careful guys? Okay I get that it's dumb that the waiter didn't take notes, like if you are in a restaurant and have a death allergy then really what good is an epi pen if it's left in a car. literally everyone I know who has a death allergy has an epipen with them basically all the time, especially when eating out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
In all, I think the waiter sounds like a dipshit, the dude shouldn't have left his epipen in the car, and I'm troubled by the idea of criminally charging a specific individual in these circumstances for what was evidently not a malicious act. If this were the US, dude could be looking at 10-15 years in prison for a mistake that would, in ordinary circumstances, result in at most a comped meal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
yeah this troubles the gently caress out of me because even though I take extremely reasonable precautions and talk to the kitchen it's just the thought about some duder with the death allergy coming in and suing your rear end and your balls because of something they ate. Actually it's people who come in and ~don't~ inform you of an allergy and then like it's just that they just don't like $food so
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
That guy won't be ably to get a hospitality job for basically the rest of his life now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
moonsour posted:That guy won't be ably to get a hospitality job for basically the rest of his life now. At least some good came out of this situation. Now he'll have to find a job that isn't terrible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Verisimilidude posted:Vinyl, latex, or rubber gloves? The vinyl keep ripping, and the rubber is a pain in the butt to put on when your hands are wet. Neoprene exam gloves. Only choice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
ADA isn't relevant. The restaurant has the right to refuse service to people with allergies. unknown posted:Quebec is civil law (unlike the rest of Canada which is common law). Quebec's civil code only applies to civil cases. Criminal law still applies the common law. Mr. Wookums posted:Seems to me he was just served the wrong dish and did not confirm the dish because it "was dark" which is a common environment and occurrence in a restaurant. The same argument he will use as to why he isn't negligent for his own reaction will have to apply just as well to the server as the tartar wasn't cross contaminated with salmon. The casual behavior of the waiter isn't negligent as a salmon allergy isn't relevant to an order of steak tartar. Granted, I don't know if they use the same prep surface or w/e, but I'd assume not. I knew the ADA applied to schools, we (the cafeteria) collectively poo poo ourselves when we had summer camps come in with allergies, but they were entirely under our care as well. Duty of care is on the server, not the customer. The negligence was in bringing the wrong dish. The server is at fault. JawKnee posted:I don't know how I feel about an individual being criminally charged over that kind of thing as opposed to a restaurant getting sued, but I do know that if any customer ever let me know about a potentially fatal allergy concern I would put it on the ticket in big bold writing (or font or whatever) and go and tell the kitchen myself after sending the ticket their way. If that server really did nothing to warn the kitchen then that server is an idiot. The restaurant would probably also be vicariously liable under civil law if the server's failure was in part due to a failure of training on their part. It would be more complex to argue. Hauki posted:In all, I think the waiter sounds like a dipshit, the dude shouldn't have left his epipen in the car, and I'm troubled by the idea of criminally charging a specific individual in these circumstances for what was evidently not a malicious act. If this were the US, dude could be looking at 10-15 years in prison for a mistake that would, in ordinary circumstances, result in at most a comped meal. This is the definition of criminal negligence- it doesn't require intent to harm, it requires carelessness. Even under these circumstances, the guy was in a coma. Food allergies are serious. Recoome posted:yeah this troubles the gently caress out of me because even though I take extremely reasonable precautions and talk to the kitchen it's just the thought about some duder with the death allergy coming in and suing your rear end and your balls because of something they ate. The first element is awareness. There wouldn't be a duty if the restaurant weren't made aware of the risk. If the guy hadn't told them, they wouldn't be liable under these circumstances. Cases where the allergen is everywhere (the usual example is cross-contaminated surfaces or places with so much peanut oil it's practically in the air) would give the restaurant a duty to warn before people even get in the door. Five Guys is a good example of this. vvv Better example, yeah- I forgot the bakery scenario. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Aug 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The first element is awareness. There wouldn't be a duty if the restaurant weren't made aware of the risk. If the guy hadn't told them, they wouldn't be liable under these circumstances. Cases where the allergen is everywhere (the usual example is cross-contaminated surfaces or places with so much peanut oil it's practically in the air) would give the restaurant a duty to warn before people even get in the door. Five Guys is a good example of this. Also why we had warnings on the door at the bakery. Peanut dust and flour in the air 24/7.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:ADA isn't relevant. The restaurant has the right to refuse service to people with allergies. If you call that criminal negligence then you have to admit that leaving his Epi pen in the car is just as negligent, even more so. Giving the wrong food was an accident, but the allergies guy should have his pen strapped to him at all times. It's very stupid not to and just inviting risk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
goodness posted:If you call that criminal negligence then you have to admit that leaving his Epi pen in the car is just as negligent, even more so. Nope- that's not how it's considered under criminal law, and especially not in the context of a restaurant where there's a well-established duty of care on the part of the server. The server is the direct and proximate cause of the harm. In a civil suit, depending on the state, there might be an argument(under a standard called "comparative responsibility") made to reduce damages, but it wouldn't usually fly. The exception is Alabama, which has a strict rule called "contributory negligence"- but even there, It'd be surprise. We don't legally obligate people to carry epipens for their allergies if they take other precautions. Part of this is that they cost ~600 dollars for people not eligible for rebates. Looking at recent changes, if anything the lawmakers are considering obliging institutions that are a frequent location of allegric reactions (like schools) to carry epipens-though that development is still ongoing. It's messy because epinephrine is a prescription drug. Otherwise, restaurants would keep them in their first aid kits. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Aug 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
I got really drunk and started making out with the head chef tonight. Im a little bit attracted to him i guess and hes so hosed in the head that hes down with anything even though hes not really that gay.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Thank God this thread is getting back to its roots!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Slaapaav posted:I got really drunk and started making out with the head chef tonight. Im a little bit attracted to him i guess and hes so hosed in the head that hes down with anything even though hes not really that gay. 5 stars
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Part of this is that they cost ~600 dollars for people not eligible for rebates. Not in Canada; here they're locked at about 120 CAD.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Slaapaav posted:I got really drunk and started making out with the head chef tonight. Im a little bit attracted to him i guess and hes so hosed in the head that hes down with anything even though hes not really that gay. So you're saying he Get's Down? I got a 2% raise at work. Not super amazing, but hey, I'm making a little under 14/hr for relatively easy work. I've got no complaints about that. Aside from it being kinda boring.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
Slaapaav posted:I got really drunk and started making out with the head chef tonight. Im a little bit attracted to him i guess and hes so hosed in the head that hes down with anything even though hes not really that gay. well ok, user avatar and post combo for the month I guess. That being said, do you homie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
i'm glad that forums poster Discendo Vox is here and knows all the facts to this case to set us straight
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
Recoome posted:i'm glad that forums poster Discendo Vox is here and knows all the facts to this case to set us straight I'm glad forums user Recoome is here to rebuff the pretty accurate legal observations of forums user Discendo Vox for some reason. Crimes have elements, you dolt, they don't just make these things up on the fly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Nope- that's not how it's considered under criminal law, and especially not in the context of a restaurant where there's a well-established duty of care on the part of the server. The server is the direct and proximate cause of the harm. In a civil suit, depending on the state, there might be an argument(under a standard called "comparative responsibility") made to reduce damages, but it wouldn't usually fly. The exception is Alabama, which has a strict rule called "contributory negligence"- but even there, It'd be surprise. I was saying this considering it from a decent person standing, not criminal. The guy is an idiot for not having his Epi pen on a necklace if he's that careless to leave it in the car.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
I don't get how forgetting an epi pen in your car gives others a free pass to put you in a coma. I don't know how I feel about the criminal prosecution, but it's not like the loving guy deserves to die because he forgot something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Invisible Ted posted:I don't get how forgetting an epi pen in your car gives others a free pass to put you in a coma. I don't know how I feel about the criminal prosecution, but it's not like the loving guy deserves to die because he forgot something. That's not what I was saying. My point was that the coma dude was just as negligent in not having his pen on him. That's something he should always be thinking about, always on him. The server is thinking about a million other things and is getting paid minimum wage. Trusting him is negligent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
If the server is criminally liable then it's possible they could sue the restaurant for damages. If that is successful I wonder if most restaurants will stop serving people with allergies?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
goodness posted:That's not what I was saying. My point was that the coma dude was just as negligent in not having his pen on him. That's something he should always be thinking about, always on him. You can't negligently endanger yourself. It's not a crime to be trusting or forgetful if the only person affected is yourself. And are you saying that if I can't afford an epipen, I'm being negligent for being a poor?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 21:43
|
|
Thurin posted:If the server is criminally liable then it's possible they could sue the restaurant for damages. If that is successful I wonder if most restaurants will stop serving people with allergies? It was already mentioned that allergies fall under reasonable accommodations, refusing to serve people because of allergies would be illegal, same as refusing access to the handicapped.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
TheSnowySoviet posted:I'm glad forums user Recoome is here to rebuff the pretty accurate legal observations of forums user Discendo Vox for some reason. Crimes have elements, you dolt, they don't just make these things up on the fly. Yeah because we know all the facts from like one article which interviews the guy who is suing the restaurant now and like someone who says it's never been done before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Pile of Kittens posted:You can't negligently endanger yourself. It's not a crime to be trusting or forgetful if the only person affected is yourself. And are you saying that if I can't afford an epipen, I'm being negligent for being a poor? Negligent is failing to take proper care in doing something. You can definitely negligently endanger yourself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Coma guy is dumb and deserves to be in a coma and I wish my gig had more random make-out times.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
Don't sleep with staff. Sleep with your customer base.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:It was already mentioned that allergies fall under reasonable accommodations, refusing to serve people because of allergies would be illegal, same as refusing access to the handicapped. Time to reasonably accommodate with a special allergy menu, serving only pre-packaged food that doesn't require cooking. If a chef or waiter can get sued (successfully, which is yet to be seen), this dude just ruined US dining for all people with allergies severe enough to declare them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Here's a video for front of house staff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhlR5WKDkC8
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Canuck-Errant posted:Here's a video for front of house staff: actually pro-click
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Canuck-Errant posted:Here's a video for front of house staff: i respectfully disagree. this is for back of house staff too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
A couple of weeks ago my former head chef got done for DUI for his 4th time. This being the wonderful country of Australia means you go straight to jail for that kind of thing. I feel bad for his parents who now have to find a chef capable of doing what they have on the menu with a pair of apprentices as their only cooking staff. I helped out the first weekend it happened but didn't help out for the second cause a full time teaching gig combined with additional study makes for a tight schedule. Thankfully the apprentice who has a year under her belt has stepped up to the plate but she doesn't yet have experience cooking meat at all and things being what they are in Australia they are supposed to work under a qualified chef for the first 4 years of their career while they complete first their trade qualifications then gain experience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:i respectfully disagree. this is for back of house staff too. Yeah, is asking for a box really that egregious? As a dishwasher, I HATE seeing all the food that gets wasted by not only customers but the kitchen staff. (The other day I helped cut 500 lbs of potatoes, then went to pots and pans, where the first thing they threw at me was 5 shotguns of cooked potatoes. I cut potatoes on Wednesday just so I can throw them out on Thursday. KP Lyfe =  ) Also, does anyone remember my posts about the guy I had to work with who made my life miserable with stuff ranging from juvenile pranks to outright threats of personal violence? If you're wondering whatever happened with that: it became moot, because he suddenly wasn't at the DFAC anymore, I guess he got transferred or deployed or something. Welp, he's back. Dr. Garbanzo posted:A couple of weeks ago my former head chef got done for DUI for his 4th time. This being the wonderful country of Australia means you go straight to jail for that kind of thing. Er, sorry mate, but my DUI was my first offense, ever, and I did 45 days jail time here in the good ol' USA. This is why I have a Master's degree but wash dishes for a living. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
JacquelineDempsey posted:Yeah, is asking for a box really that egregious? As a dishwasher, I HATE seeing all the food that gets wasted by not only customers but the kitchen staff. Nah, it's not the asking for a box that's egregious, the video's making fun of the way white girls ask for it. I found it funny (and accurate).
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:17
|
|
