New Guide Discussion: Restaurant Rights

PZH

nwilson101 wrote: »

I sued the restaurant chain and amazingly the judge said that even though there was nothing I could have done to see or strain the soup, and I couldn't have broken the shell (my lawyers tried it and it's impossible) even though the restaurant chain admitted they had served the broken shell, the judge would not fine the chain or award any damages for 'reasonably being in fear of my life/ in excruciating pain' for 24 hrs and then 2 weeks recovery time!

Therefore supposedly having had not even an apology, and willing to settle for a reasonable sum, I am now up for £14000 for their legal costs!

Without distracting from the seriousness of your experience - do you really expect them to appologise when you took them to court?

Did they offer a settlement? (from the way you describe it - it appears as if they did and you rejected it as unreasonable ?)

nwilson101 wrote: »

I find it shocking that the law seemingly allows this food product to be sold with absolutely no warning to 50,000 UK residents a day and it is the only product where one has such a risk of dying in appalling circumstances thru asphyxiation.
What is also appalling is that the way they cook the product there are at least 8 ways the restaurant chain can break the mussels or put broken mussel shells in, but they do no checks and so EVERYONE IS AT SERIOUS RISK.

When one adds in the risk of serious food poisoning from mussels not kept at the right temperature, this is surely a highly dangerous and possibly toxic food product?

Oh for heavens sake !!!!

You can choke on an bag of crisps!!! Do you want them banned as well??

And you can die from many foods not stored at the right temperature or conditions!!

nwilson101 wrote: »

NB I have eaten mussels with my family (3 young children)...

OMG - you mean you feed this KILLER food to your kids !!!!

nwilson101 wrote: »

...I find it absurd for the judge to claim that I and all consumers in the UK should assume they break the mussel shells and so we should have to stick our fingers into the soup spoon before putting it in one's mouth!!!!

The judge assumed that SHELL fish may contain traces of shell ? Shocking.

dmg24

nwilson101 wrote: »

A friend and I went into a well known chain and I ordered mussels. When the mussels in a tomato-based 'soup' arrived I took my first sip from the boiling top of the soup (and allowing time for the whole mussels to fall to the bottom) and a piece of mussel shell went straight over my tongue without touching it and down my throat and lodged there embedded in my throat and bled. Not only was it excrutiatingly painful but it was part blocking my windpipe so I feared asphyxiation. I was rushed by ambulance to one London teaching hospital and then to another, where I was operated on as an emergency case.
I sued the restaurant chain and amazingly the judge said that even though there was nothing I could have done to see or strain the soup, and I couldn't have broken the shell (my lawyers tried it and it's impossible) even though the restaurant chain admitted they had served the broken shell, the judge would not fine the chain or award any damages for 'reasonably being in fear of my life/ in excruciating pain' for 24 hrs and then 2 weeks recovery time!
Therefore supposedly having had not even an apology, and willing to settle for a reasonable sum, I am now up for £14000 for their legal costs!
I find it shocking that the law seemingly allows this food product to be sold with absolutely no warning to 50,000 UK residents a day and it is the only product where one has such a risk of dying in appalling circumstances thru asphyxiation.
What is also appalling is that the way they cook the product there are at least 8 ways the restaurant chain can break the mussels or put broken mussel shells in, but they do no checks and so EVERYONE IS AT SERIOUS RISK. When one adds in the risk of serious food poisoning from mussels not kept at the right temperature, this is surely a highly dangerous and possibly toxic food product?

I thought Martyn Lewis and MSE might like to try to get some action taken on this so called 'food' and the restaurant chain's surely cavalier and attrocious attitude.

NB I have eaten mussels with my family (3 young children) and had over 1000 covers and never had any broken shell and I find it absurd for the judge to claim that I and all consumers in the UK should assume they break the mussel shells and so we should have to stick our fingers into the soup spoon before putting it in one's mouth!!!!
Their 400 restaurant UK chain is wholly owned by the world's largest private equity company and reports profits in the billions each month!

I am guessing that you used some no win no fee type company? No decent solicitor would take on such a case.

Hintza

nwilson101 wrote: »

I am now up for £14000 for their legal costs!

You have spet £14k on legal costs or the court has awarded £14k of the restraunt's legal costs against you?

RadoJo

Am I to understand that you didn't detect a piece of mussel shell large enough to lodge in your throat in your mouth before you swallowed it? If so, then I suppose it comes down to a matter of to what extent it's reasonable to expect people to take responsibility for their own actions. Is it reasonable to expect a customer to accept responsibility e.g burning yourself on food you would assume is hot, choking through failure to chew sufficiently etc? From the information on here, it suggests that the courts believe there is an element of personal responsibility even when it comes to food purchased at a restaurant.

NWilson - out of interest, would you be happy to share the figure that you were suing them for?

bris

The way I read it you got greedy and wanted more. A judge will only offer compensation if he thinks the offer is unreasonably low, in this case the judge thought you were offered enough and therefor sided with the restaurant.
Perhaps you could let us know what the restaurant offered, that you thought wasn't enough.

dmg24

bris wrote: »

The way I read it you got greedy and wanted more. A judge will only offer compensation if he thinks the offer is unreasonably low, in this case the judge thought you were offered enough and therefor sided with the restaurant.
Perhaps you could let us know what the restaurant offered, that you thought wasn't enough.

I agree - given the legal costs involved I am guessing that this was outside the scope of the small claims court.

Equaliser123

The saddest thing about this is that there is a thread about "Restaurant Rights".

unholyangel

RadoJo wrote: »

From the information on here, it suggests that the courts believe there is an element of personal responsibility even when it comes to food purchased at a restaurant.

Thankfully we still have that. I've read countless stories about cases in america including:

- A old woman burning herself on a cup of coffee from McDonalds
- Someone slipping on a liquid in a restaurant......the liquid was a drink they had just thrown at their boyfriends face
- Someone tripping over a child in a furniture store......their OWN child
- A guy driving a motor home putting it on cruise control then leaving the drivers seat to make himself a cuppa
- A burglar getting locked in a familys garage while they were on holiday and having to survive for a week on crisps and juice.


Amazingly, every single one of these people sued and WON. Where the heck is the responsibility/common sense?

mo786uk

Equaliser123 wrote: »

The saddest thing about this is that there is a thread about "Restaurant Rights".

Perhaps people think they dont have the same level of rights with restaurants because the food is fresh and pretty gone within the hour and its quite a different beatst than many other consumer situations

that said i would question the validty of being able to ask for a service charge being removed from the set cost of food.

Equaliser123

mo786uk wrote: »

Perhaps people think they dont have the same level of rights with restaurants because the food is fresh and pretty gone within the hour and its quite a different beatst than many other consumer situations

that said i would question the validty of being able to ask for a service charge being removed from the set cost of food.

My view is that if people are having to research "restaurant rights", they are going to the wrong restaurants.