Allergic Reaction

[Titus Shih]

Jurisdiction

Pennsylvania

I had an allergic reaction after purchasing food from an Indian restaurant. I think it has nuts in however it was not stated in the menu.

 

[cbg]

I hope you're feeling better.

When you have a legal question, be sure to let us know.

 

[adjusterjack]

My ESP tells me that the question is "Can I get money from the restaurant for my pain and suffering?

 

[adjusterjack]

I had an allergic reaction after purchasing food from an Indian restaurant. I think it has nuts in however it was not stated in the menu.

When you have a allergy to nuts it's up to you to ask the question wherever you eat.. So many fried foods are made with peanut oil that nobody in restaurants thinks about it.

I see one item with almonds. A wise person would question all the items.

 

[cbg]

A wise person would not file any kind of lawsuit without some kind of evidence that it was this restaurant's food that he reacted to and not something else.

 

[Redemptionman]

Frivolous lawsuits are frivolous and will not be filed by a normal responsible attorney.

 

[adjusterjack]

Frivolous lawsuits are frivolous and will not be filed by a normal responsible attorney.

A lawsuit is not frivolous if a person believes he has a cause of action for which he is entitled to compensation, even if he is wrong.

"Responsible" attorneys file lawsuits every day that they lose. Does that mean all their lawsuits were frivolous? Of course not.

I suggest you read the following explanation about frivolous lawsuits. It's one of many found in a search.

What are the Consequences and Penalties for Frivolous Lawsuit | LegalMatch

 

[flyingron]

A lawsuit is not frivolous if a person believes he has a cause of action for which he is entitled to compensation, even if he is wrong.

I'm sorry AJ, but that's not true. Mere personal belief that your claim is true doesn't make it a non-frivolous claim. You have to have factual basis that have some basis rather than being the products of delusion or fantasy, and not based on some indisputably meritless legal theory.

Here we fail that two ways:

1. There's no proof that the plaintiff has any proof that the presence of nuts in the meal prepared from the restaurant was the cause of his allergic reaction. He only "thinks" it had nuts in it.

2. It's not clear what obligation the restaurant has to warn their customers of the food ingredients. Unless they specifically claimed the food was nut free, and negligently included such, it's not clear how this was actionable.

My mother had many food allergies in her life, quite a few by ingredients that would be latent in prepared foods: peanuts, mustard, and eggs. She learned to inquire what she was eating and she actually developed the ability to take small samples to see if she got a tolerable reaction before diving in to an amount that would make her really ill.

I had an engine blow up in my plane due to what I believe was a manufacturing defect. Unfortunately, I have no basis to proceed with such a claim. I have more belief and factual basis for the government's handling of the investigation resulted in the failure to uncover what really happened. This I have factual basis for. However, there is no legal principle that would allow me to take action against the government on that. To proceed with either even though I BELIEVE them to be true is frivolous.

 

[stealthy1]

Indian cuisine uses a lot of different nuts, and I would expect that even dishes prepared w/o them have cross-contamination. It really is incumbent on the diner to be aware and inquire closely.

My Dad had a severe allergy to shrimp. I always called ahead to any restaurant to be certain there were options that would not be cross-contaminated in any way. I stopped getting fried chicken from the best place in town when I discovered that they fried shrimp in the same oil. Not worth the risk.

 

[adjusterjack]

You have to have factual basis that have some basis rather than being the products of delusion or fantasy, and not based on some indisputably meritless legal theory.

On that I agree.

 

[Redemptionman]

such as a duty owed, or a negligence that was provable broken in order to proceed in personal injury claims