Posted on 03/06/2015 11:25:32 PM PST by dennisw
According to a new court ruling
A New Jersey man who was burned by a plate of hot fajitas while dining at Applebee’s can’t sue the restaurant over his injuries, according to an appellate court.
Hiram Jimenez took the chain restaurant to court because he said his waitress failed to alert him that his meal was hot. After being served, the court ruling says he bowed his head to pray over the crackling plate, and some oil popped and burned his face. Jimenez says he then panicked and knocked the plate in his lap, causing more burns, none of which resulted in scars, according to court records.
He filed suit seeking damages on the grounds that he suffered “serious and permanent” injuries “solely as a result of (Applebee’s) negligence when he came in contact with a dangerous and hazardous condition, specifically, ‘a plate of hot food’.”
A trial judge dismissed the suit, finding Applebee’s had no duty to warn Jimenez “against a danger that is open and obvious” like a sizzling hot plate of fajitas. Jimenez appealed, but an appellate panel confirmed the lower court ruling, saying Applebee’s can’t be held responsible because the hot food posed an a risk that should be “self-evident” and thus “approached with due care.”
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
It’s time we ban assault fajitas!
Anybody who posts “I am not making this up”... is making it up.
Just sayin’
CC
“It’s time we ban assault fajitas!”
Out of my cold, dead hands...
Here is the legal standard:
A business owner owes its invitees “a duty of reasonable or due care to provide a safe environment for doing that which is within the scope of the invitation.” Nisivoccia v. Glass Gardens, Inc., 175 N.J. 559, 563 (2003) (citing Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426, 433 (1993); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 (1965)). “Th[is] duty of due care requires a business owner to discover and eliminate dangerous conditions, to maintain the premises in safe condition, and to avoid creating conditions that would render the premises unsafe.” Ibid. (citing O’Shea v. K. Mart Corp., 304 N.J. Super. 489, 492-93 (App. Div. 1997)).
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a2247-13.pdf
Applebee’s can avoid the harm by serving food that is at a temperature less than sizzling. Faced with this argument, tell me how you arrive at the conclusion that the case is “without any factual or legal basis” (frivolous).
Watch this documentary, or do a little research, and then tell me how the McDonald’s case was frivolous.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1445203/
I guess Applebee's will need to stop selling Fajitas to protect themselves...since no one will eat cold fajitas...
I would agree if the waiter did not tell the customer it was a hot plate, he MIGHT have a case...I would bet the waiter did, as everytime I get a plate of very hot food I am told so...
The fact that the plate was sizzling and the man did not claim to be blind or deaf so he was unaware of the condition of the food, he knew what was placed in front of him...
Appellate court rules for Applebees???
Obviously they are in cahoots.
I also might add, why don't restaurants put a warning label on their steak knives.
"Do not drop knives, potential cutting hazard, use with extreme caution"
All good points. The attorney for Applebee’s here did a good job of defining the issues favorably in favor of Applebee’s. There is no need to warn of an obvious danger.
Plaintiff’s attorney did a poor job - it was a lousy case anyway. But Applebees CREATED the danger by putting food on the table at a temperature that can cause harm. Why not put food on the table that is a few degrees less than sizzling? Why do they HAVE to serve food that sizzles in front of you?
In the face of these arguments, how is the case frivolous - i.e. without a factual or legal basis?
A case that seeks damages because of the lack of that warning is the very definition of frivolous.
But let's talk about our example, rather than changing the subject. Applebee's serves food that sizzles in front of you, which is a temperature that can cause harm. I don't know of another restaurant chain that does that. Why does Applebee's HAVE to serve food at that temperature?
Faced with this argument, tell me how this case is without a factual or legal basis, i.e. frivolous?
With your example, every restaurant that serves steak sets the table with steak knives. Now taking it to the absurd, what if one restaurant took away the steak knife and gave you a chainsaw instead?
I agree. And every gasoline station should have a sign that reads” Don’t Drink the Gasoline”/s
Agreed. Not very Christian.
In addition, I am willing to bet that the waitress did warn him. It seems to me that the waitresses in such places always remind customers to be careful of the hot dishes.
You must not eat fajitas very often
Virtually every restaurant the sells fajitas serve them on a iron skillet sizzling...
That's the way the meal is supposed to be served...
Ruth's Chris
Chili's
Outback Steakhouse
anyone who serves fajitas
WHAT?
Perhaps when he ordered off the menu, from the section accurately named “Sizzling Entrees”, the word “sizzling” should have been his first clue that it was “sizzling”.
http://www.applebees.com/menu/entrees/sizzling-entrees
Watch this documentary, or do a little research, and then tell me how the McDonald’s case was frivolous.
“How the infamous McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit and similar cases were exploited as part of a right wing crusade to weaken civil justice.”
No thanks.
There should have been a bilingual warning. How about Sizzler Steakhouse with many US locations. Are is steaks serves sizzling? I sure hope so
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.