Anybody here have food allergies?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-salmon-seafood-allergy-1.3708615
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-salmon-seafood-allergy-1.3708615
Food Allergies
- Thread starter SkyRider
- Start date
Not me. I couldn't care less what ingredients are used. More seafood? Sure. More nuts? I'm in. Dairy? Sure. I enjoy yogurt and cheese.
But seriously, no restaurant should get dinged. It was a mistake. Of course, if it's proven he purposely tried to get the guy sick that's different.
The smarter thing to do is the patron avoiding places that have a possibility of allergies. No different then people I know with severe nut allergies.... yeah, the guys who carry that thing they have to inject if they eat a peanut..... they avoid places that serve peanut heavy foods..... often Asian places that cook with peanut oil or have nuts sprinkled on stuff. They can of course still go and request the cooks make something with zero nuts and clean pots and pans, but that's one big risk no matter how hard the cooks try to accommodate.
So they avoid those places outright. And voila! No big health issues.
If I was the lawyer defending the restaurant I would ask if the allergies were so severe it was the responsibility of the restaurant patron to carry the epi-pen with him at all times. Evidently he had one with him in the car. At the first sign of symptoms if he had injected himself he would have alleviated much of his own suffering.
Criminal intent is hard to prove, was it the waiter or the kitchen staff that made the mistake? Anyways, I do not think anyone should be eating tar-tar meat or fish.
Criminal intent is hard to prove, was it the waiter or the kitchen staff that made the mistake? Anyways, I do not think anyone should be eating tar-tar meat or fish.
Last edited:
It was in his car? That's irresponsible.
No wonder they guy is trying to get back at the restaurant. He's looking for an easy out and a payoff.
If he accidentally ate the fish, and was able to inject himself to resolve his allergy, I bet he wouldn't bother going after the restaurant.
I don't see how the waiter or cook can be charged with intent. It doesn't sound normal that staff (whether it's one person or both acting together) to purposely try to sicken a patron..... unless there's maybe some kind of background to this and there is history the restaurant, staff and patron know and hate each other. And the staff are purposely trying to get back at him.
Yeah. It's weird. I think when just about everyone on this board went to school, there were zero signs about nuts and allergies. I don't remember one kid growing up that had a nut allergy. Now it's everywhere.
So either kids are messed up (hormones, food, pesticides, anti-biotics etc...) and getting all kinds of new allergies, OR, people have had similar proportions of allergic reactions but schools, businesses and the government back then didn't care. And people who had severe reactions just had to live with it that people might eat nuts beside them.
What he said! I went to school in the 50's 60's EVERY kid had PB J or BPJ sandwiches. Can't recall anyone getting sick.
I spent my early childhood in Northern Ontario. Us Northern Ontarians are a lot tougher than these city folks.
It seems that city born and raised kids are allergic to everything. Do they not have an immune system? Did they never spend time in the great outdoors? Play with the pigs? Rub mud on their bruises?
P.S. I miss my little bags of peanuts.
Me too. Nothing major. I'm ok with milk products but not so much with milk itself. I don't think the milk to-day is the same milk from 20 years ago.
Yeah the Gov went after that farmer Schmidt that was selling raw milk like a fury.
As usual, the red fonted one has problems with basic comprehension, if he even bothered to read the article before yipping off! lol
The charge was Criminal Negligence. There is no intent in negligence.
As for your briliiant legal strategy...
First off, there has been no charge against the restaurant. The charge against the waiter. Again, you might want to actually read the story before proffering your legal wisdom.
Now, I know this is a bit complicated for you and you will likely reflexively cry about being "cackled" at but try to learn something here...
He has been charged for his negligence in serving the patron a food he was advised in advance, and therefore knew was dangerous to the patron. The victim did his part by advising him of the allergy before he was given the food.
It is laughable in a criminal court to claim a defence for your actions by blaming the victim for failing to, post facto, mitigate the consequences of your own negligence.
"Your Honour, if it pleases the court, I, Cat, initial "C " representing Mr. Loose Nutz, respectfully submit that although my client forgot to tighten the wheel nuts on the tractor trailer, the deceased who was driving in the opposite lane should have not driven on a public highway. And if he did indeed knowingly drive on the same highways as commercial vehicles, he should have swerved out of the way to avoid the wheel bouncing across the highway. Therefore, my client cannot be found guilty of negligence!"
Stick to your trivia and redflagdeals toilet paper sales.
The milk is the same. It is us that are aging that may gradually lose the ability to produce lactase to digest the lactose in the milk. If it is the milk itself that is troubling you, you might want to try higher fat milk if you are drinking skim or 1%. It may slow the passing of the yet-undigested lactose into the intestine and allow it to digest the sugars more before it starts fermenting in the large intestine and giving you gas etc.
