4 ms·

has this happened?

323 4y ago
It's even a business model: > If you or a loved one gets sick after eating at a restaurant, contact OFT Food Safety & Injury Lawyers. > To successfully sue a restaurant for food poisoning, you must prove that they had a duty, failed to meet that duty with negligent action or inaction. As a result, you became ill, and you suffered financial damages. https://www.oftlaw.com/blog/can-you-sue-a-restaurant-for-food-poisoning/ https://www.oftlaw.com/blog/can-you-sue-a-restaurant-for-foo... > If the food is prepared with unclean cooking utensils https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/food-poisoning-and-the-law.html https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/food-poison...
- eesmith 4y ago
  The question was has your scenario happened. That said, it's a poorly phrased scenario. Anyone can sue for any amount. Like Jason Scott's talk "That Awesome Time I Was Sued For Two Billion Dollars" - https://defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-17-archive.html#Scott https://defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-17-archive.html... Even having a maximum doesn't mean that someone can't file a suit asking for more. So, who has won a case similar to what you described, and with a $5 million settlement? And, why was that gratuitously high? That's important, because we know there are decades of propaganda for why business owners need protection against excessive lawsuits, where the actual details show it was not excessive, most famously, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. That last one shows how the jury awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was reduced to $480,000 by the judge - and was still higher than what Liebeck sued for. That said, you should also address why there are lawyers with that business model, which might be less common elsewhere. 1) The US system prefers a more caveat emptor approach, where issues are resolved though civil lawsuits (or, alas, binding arbitration) than through government organization which can investigate cases of food poisoning. 2) The US's private health-care system means the poisoned person is by default obligated to pay for care, unless someone else can be forced to pay. If the food poisoning requires hospital care, this can be quite expensive. 3) The US does not have strong job security laws nor a strong social safety net. If someone get food poisoning which keeps them from working for a couple of days, they may easily be fired, and find themself in economically precarious circumstances. Because the US prefers lawsuits to resolve these things, there are lawyers who specialize in this area. Change the laws - have strong food inspections, switch to single-payer health care, improve job security, and strengthen the social safety net for unemployed people - and there will be significantly less call for this business model.

has this happened?

323 4y ago

It's even a business model: > If you or a loved one gets sick after eating at a restaurant, contact OFT Food Safety & Injury Lawyers. > To successfully sue a restaurant for food poisoning, you must prove that they had a duty, failed to meet that duty with negligent action or inaction. As a result, you became ill, and you suffered financial damages. https://www.oftlaw.com/blog/can-you-sue-a-restaurant-for-food-poisoning/ https://www.oftlaw.com/blog/can-you-sue-a-restaurant-for-foo... > If the food is prepared with unclean cooking utensils https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/food-poisoning-and-the-law.html https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/food-poison...

eesmith 4y ago
The question was has your scenario happened. That said, it's a poorly phrased scenario. Anyone can sue for any amount. Like Jason Scott's talk "That Awesome Time I Was Sued For Two Billion Dollars" - https://defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-17-archive.html#Scott https://defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-17-archive.html... Even having a maximum doesn't mean that someone can't file a suit asking for more. So, who has won a case similar to what you described, and with a $5 million settlement? And, why was that gratuitously high? That's important, because we know there are decades of propaganda for why business owners need protection against excessive lawsuits, where the actual details show it was not excessive, most famously, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. That last one shows how the jury awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was reduced to $480,000 by the judge - and was still higher than what Liebeck sued for. That said, you should also address why there are lawyers with that business model, which might be less common elsewhere. 1) The US system prefers a more caveat emptor approach, where issues are resolved though civil lawsuits (or, alas, binding arbitration) than through government organization which can investigate cases of food poisoning. 2) The US's private health-care system means the poisoned person is by default obligated to pay for care, unless someone else can be forced to pay. If the food poisoning requires hospital care, this can be quite expensive. 3) The US does not have strong job security laws nor a strong social safety net. If someone get food poisoning which keeps them from working for a couple of days, they may easily be fired, and find themself in economically precarious circumstances. Because the US prefers lawsuits to resolve these things, there are lawyers who specialize in this area. Change the laws - have strong food inspections, switch to single-payer health care, improve job security, and strengthen the social safety net for unemployed people - and there will be significantly less call for this business model.