Being surrounded by hot food and other guests is unavoidable in a restaurant dining area, that’s kinda the point of the space. Yes actually hot food can be spilled onto a customer by a different customer walking through the dining area for any reason at all, not exclusive to this scenario. I’m not concerned at all with who was “meant” to do the work, as long as the employee in question still gets paid the end result is the same. It’s weird behavior for sure, but not necessarily harmful or malicious.
I’m not concerned at all with who was “meant” to do the work,
Yes, but the court probably would be when someone inevitably sues the restaurant. What if you spill your hot food on a third party? Some guest that was dining and had nothing to do with your stupid little gesture? Who do they sue when their genitals are burnt off?
Not half as weird as the commenters here making shit up to justify getting mad about a relatively innocuous behavior, yourself included. He could just as easily bump into someone and spill food on them while walking across the dining area for any reason, him carrying his own plate changes absolutely nothing. And if the food was hot enough to geld someone then the restaurant is going to get sued for serving it at absurdly unsafe temperatures, and they’ll deserve it, that also has fuck all to do with this guy carrying his own plate.
It’s a simple as doing everything in your power to lower the chances of being sued for anything. And allowing untrained, random people to come in and upset the workflow, get in the way of actual employees, handle food that they’ve not been trained to handle, etc. etc. etc., then you’re adding to that liability. It’s really that simple.
The food doesn’t need to be unsafe to get burned by it, or have you never seen fajitas served at a restaurant? Do they deserve it for flaunting their extra hot foods?
Nothing in this wiki article proves me wrong, any injury to himself or other customers could just as easily occur without him carrying his own plate and the legal liability sitiation for it would be completely unchanged. And it is absolutely not simple, try actually reading the article you linked.
There is no evidence that he was carrying fajitas or anything else served on a scalding hot piece of metal, you can plainly see a normal plate in his hand. And yeah actually serving food on a scalding hot piece of metal is fundamentally fucking unsafe. There is no evidence he got in any employees way or disrupted any workflow. There is no evidence that he isn’t trained, dude could just as easily be a food service employee himself. Quit making shit up and just admit you don’t know enough to judge.
There must be negligence—a breach of the duty of care—or some other wrongful act. In recent years, the law of premises liability has evolved to include cases where a person is injured on the premises of another by a third person’s wrongful act, such as an assault. These cases are sometimes referred to as “third party premises liability” cases and they represent a highly complex and dynamic area of tort law. They pose especially complex legal issues of duty and causation because the injured party is seeking to hold a possessor or owner of property directly or vicariously liable when the immediate injury-producing act was, arguably, not caused by the possessor or owner.
It’s about a business owner reducing liability. It’s really that simple. It doesn’t have to make sense to you, and it might even be overcautious. But it’s how you protect your business from stupid bullshit like that.
You’re also seemingly missing the fact that people don’t necessarily need some airtight case, just being sued costs time and money in and of itself even if you win as a defendant. Which is why you do things to reduce the possibility of being sued. Such as not allowing non-employees to deliver food to tables, regardless of how hot it might be.
“they represent a highly complex and dynamic area of tort law. They pose especially complex legal issues”
Like I said, not simple at all. If the business owner wants to reduce liability they should definitely not be serving anything on a scalding hot piece of metal. A customer spilling any amount of non-scalding food onto another customer will absolutely not result in a successful lawsuit, at worst they might have to comp a meal or two. Feel free to try finding even a single example to the contrary, I’m open to being proven wrong.
They also reduce their liability by only allowing trained employees to handle food.
I am not a lawyer, I have no idea if the lawsuit would be successful. But the outcome isn’t really important to this discussion when the act of being sued in and of itself costs time and money and business owners do everything they can to avoid it.
I can’t speak with confidence about the legal situation in other countries, but in the US frivolous lawsuits are routinely punished by having the plaintiff cover the defendant’s legal costs plus compensation for their trouble. Avoiding liability in general is still best practice, but there’s no significant risk of liability from actions taken by a customer in the dining area, customers are supposed to be there and nobody could reasonably expect the restaurant owner/management to predict and/or control the behavior of all of their customers. The customer would be held responsible for their actions and would be on the hook for any damages.
Being surrounded by hot food and other guests is unavoidable in a restaurant dining area, that’s kinda the point of the space. Yes actually hot food can be spilled onto a customer by a different customer walking through the dining area for any reason at all, not exclusive to this scenario. I’m not concerned at all with who was “meant” to do the work, as long as the employee in question still gets paid the end result is the same. It’s weird behavior for sure, but not necessarily harmful or malicious.
Real weird hill to die on…
Yes, but the court probably would be when someone inevitably sues the restaurant. What if you spill your hot food on a third party? Some guest that was dining and had nothing to do with your stupid little gesture? Who do they sue when their genitals are burnt off?
There’s a reason why liability insurance exists.
Not half as weird as the commenters here making shit up to justify getting mad about a relatively innocuous behavior, yourself included. He could just as easily bump into someone and spill food on them while walking across the dining area for any reason, him carrying his own plate changes absolutely nothing. And if the food was hot enough to geld someone then the restaurant is going to get sued for serving it at absurdly unsafe temperatures, and they’ll deserve it, that also has fuck all to do with this guy carrying his own plate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premises_liability
It’s a simple as doing everything in your power to lower the chances of being sued for anything. And allowing untrained, random people to come in and upset the workflow, get in the way of actual employees, handle food that they’ve not been trained to handle, etc. etc. etc., then you’re adding to that liability. It’s really that simple.
The food doesn’t need to be unsafe to get burned by it, or have you never seen fajitas served at a restaurant? Do they deserve it for flaunting their extra hot foods?
Nothing in this wiki article proves me wrong, any injury to himself or other customers could just as easily occur without him carrying his own plate and the legal liability sitiation for it would be completely unchanged. And it is absolutely not simple, try actually reading the article you linked.
There is no evidence that he was carrying fajitas or anything else served on a scalding hot piece of metal, you can plainly see a normal plate in his hand. And yeah actually serving food on a scalding hot piece of metal is fundamentally fucking unsafe. There is no evidence he got in any employees way or disrupted any workflow. There is no evidence that he isn’t trained, dude could just as easily be a food service employee himself. Quit making shit up and just admit you don’t know enough to judge.
It’s about a business owner reducing liability. It’s really that simple. It doesn’t have to make sense to you, and it might even be overcautious. But it’s how you protect your business from stupid bullshit like that.
Here is an entire wiki article on slip and fall, a type of premises liability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slip_and_fall
You’re also seemingly missing the fact that people don’t necessarily need some airtight case, just being sued costs time and money in and of itself even if you win as a defendant. Which is why you do things to reduce the possibility of being sued. Such as not allowing non-employees to deliver food to tables, regardless of how hot it might be.
“they represent a highly complex and dynamic area of tort law. They pose especially complex legal issues”
Like I said, not simple at all. If the business owner wants to reduce liability they should definitely not be serving anything on a scalding hot piece of metal. A customer spilling any amount of non-scalding food onto another customer will absolutely not result in a successful lawsuit, at worst they might have to comp a meal or two. Feel free to try finding even a single example to the contrary, I’m open to being proven wrong.
They also reduce their liability by only allowing trained employees to handle food.
I am not a lawyer, I have no idea if the lawsuit would be successful. But the outcome isn’t really important to this discussion when the act of being sued in and of itself costs time and money and business owners do everything they can to avoid it.
I can’t speak with confidence about the legal situation in other countries, but in the US frivolous lawsuits are routinely punished by having the plaintiff cover the defendant’s legal costs plus compensation for their trouble. Avoiding liability in general is still best practice, but there’s no significant risk of liability from actions taken by a customer in the dining area, customers are supposed to be there and nobody could reasonably expect the restaurant owner/management to predict and/or control the behavior of all of their customers. The customer would be held responsible for their actions and would be on the hook for any damages.