Sarah Katz, 21, had a heart condition and was not aware of the drink’s caffeine content, which exceeded that of cans of Red Bull and Monster energy drinks combined, according to a legal filing
Sarah Katz, 21, had a heart condition and was not aware of the drink’s caffeine content, which exceeded that of cans of Red Bull and Monster energy drinks combined, according to a legal filing
And there's pictures going around of stores where those signs are missing.
I'm defending Panera in a lot of my replies here, but it's because we don't know if it's a bullshit lawsuit. All we know is that the OP article is bullshit and I caught it in a lie.
Ok well even if somehow this particular Panera was devoid of any information about the lemonade, which let's be honest that is going to be hard enough to prove since the person who was there that day is dead. That doesn't negate the fact that if you have some kind of health problem associated with certain foods, in this case caffeine, then you should be checking every ingredient of anything you eat especially from a restaurant. If you are buying a product called "charged lemonade" you shouldn't just expect its going to be standard fare when you had no hand in making the product. Literally anyone with a food allergy deals with this shit on a daily basis, and the only time the restaurant should be to blame is if you specifically asked if said ingredient was in the food and they lie or forget to omit it from the dish.
Sure. I bet there are witnesses who would say one way or the other, but you're mostly right.
In fairness, that's not realistic. If I order a lobster and it has lobster in it, that's on me. If I order french fries and they secretly infuse it with lobster without advertising it, then it's on me.
The argument many people are making is that Lemonade "doesn't have caffeine in it". And she wasn't restricted and unable to consume caffeine, she was restricted from large quantities (enough that some folks aren't sure she even died from the drink, but that's another discussion). Expecting a random beverage to have coffee-level caffeine with NO notice is definitely unreasonable.
As many have said, "charged" is often used to refer to electrolytes. I mean, look at this.. The word "charged "alone really is not enough, just like the word "house special" added before fries doesn't mean I should expect there might be lobster in them.
Except still happens, and if I did my due diligence, the restaurant is usually responsible. That's why they have nutritional-content menus and a well-trained restaurant worker takes you VERY seriously if you mention a food allergy. The issue is that sometimes it shouldn't be on you to mention food allergies. I like lobster allergies as an example. Should I immediately say "I have a lobster allergy" when I walk into an Ice Cream Parlor? Is it my fault if I have an allergic reaction to lobster when I order the Chocolate Chunky Monkey?
It did have a notice, they are advertised as having caffeine. So one of two things is going on here: either she just didn't think it was going to harm her, or she was completely oblivious to all the marketing for it. There is really no proof that the lemonade is what killed her; this is just her parents wanting someone to blame. Unless they can prove without a doubt there was negligence on Panera's part and that it led to their daughter's death, then this lawsuit is frivolous.
Or three, there's more to the case than was reported to us. If the marketing was missing (some stores it is) she might have a case. The article makes no mention of that.
You don't need to look for "proof" in civil cases. If the lemonade is more likely than not to have killed her, that's enough. And I think any good lawyer can push a case like this across that bar for a typical jury.
Maybe. We don't know all the details. I'm the one arguing in favor of Panera in most comments, but I'm really arguing in favor of common sense and not inventing a clear win for either side off a small article that was lying to us.
That's not how the law works. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a criminal standard. "Preponderance of evidence" is the civil standard, and it's a low bar. Honestly, if we ignore all other evidence and only point out other reasonable people in this thread who were confused about the caffeinated nature of this beverage, we would have it.
So if it hit court (it won't), Panera would likely show evidence of its marketing. The girl's parents would perhaps show evidence the marketing collateral was placed wrong or (from the article) suggest they were misleading with the "Dark Coffee" claim in the way quoted. There's several tactics they could take, honestly.
I would say this lawsuit is a lot of things, but frivolous isn't one of them. It's not intended to harass or delay. It's intended to win.