Gluten Free Pizza NOT Gluten Free!

marliepanda

I disagree. A student, bin man, MP, heart surgeon, lawyer, shop assistant, pilot all have the same ability to order pizza.

peachyprice

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

the fact that the person ordering the pizza was a doctor is relevant. It's far from a determining factor, but it is something that a solicitor or barrister would take into consideration when assessing prospects.

The person ordering the pizza was not ordering in her capacity as a doctor, therefore it is irrelevant. It would only be relevant if she were ordering for a patient, and if she were, she whould have been more thorough when ascertaining whether GF was available for her patient, but OP wasn't her patient, just a family member.

hollydays

I've got a friend who is a coeliac and he rarely eats out for these sort of reasons. What you can take from this is never let someone else order your food.i agree I'd be asking your friend to sort this out .

ThumbRemote

marliepanda wrote: »

I disagree. A student, bin man, MP, heart surgeon, lawyer, shop assistant, pilot all have the same ability to order pizza.

However not all of those people are likely to have the same understanding of coeliac disease that a doctor would. As a doctor understands the condition and the consequences of eating gluten, they will take it seriously. On the other hand someone who doesn't know about the disease may put it down to fussy eating and not be inclined to pander to their supposed whims.

peachyprice wrote: »

The person ordering the pizza was not ordering in her capacity as a doctor, therefore it is irrelevant. It would only be relevant if she were ordering for a patient, and if she were, she whould have been more thorough when ascertaining whether GF was available for her patient, but OP wasn't her patient, just a family member.

It's hardly irrelevant. Just because they are not in their surgery doesn't mean they suddenly forget everything they know - as per my response above.

In addition, should it come to a court the very fact that they are a doctor makes them (as Crazy Jamie says in post 11) a more 'credible witness'.

peachyprice

ThumbRemote wrote: »

It's hardly irrelevant. Just because they are not in their surgery doesn't mean they suddenly forget everything they know - as per my response above.

In addition, should it come to a court the very fact that they are a doctor makes them (as Crazy Jamie says in post 11) a more 'credible witness'.

Unless she phoned them and said 'I am a doctor, I have a patient with coeliac disease that I need a GF pizza for' it is irrelevant.

If her being a doctor was relevant she would have made better provisions for her coeliac guests rather than choosing a pizzeria that doesn't even have GF pizza on the menu and leaving it to chance, at least you would like to think.

If it came to court don't you think a judge would ask her what steps she took, as a doctor, to ensure her guests had GF food? Hardly a credible witness if she didn't even relay the importance of a GF pizza and didn't even bother to read the menu.

Exile_geordie

peachyprice wrote: »

They don't even have gluten free bases on the menu, only vegan. Maybe their vegan dough is GF?

http://hungryhouse.co.uk/village-pizza-eastcote?utm_source=11554&utm_medium=desktop-speisekarte&utm_campaign=rmtr&rmtr=11554&clid=rmtr

Are we sure its the Eastcote one? Theres a couple of different ones when googling.

peachyprice

That is OP's locality, so I would have thought so.

Crazy_Jamie

peachyprice wrote: »

Unless she phoned them and said 'I am a doctor, I have a patient with coeliac disease that I need a GF pizza for' it is irrelevant.

You are continually missing the point. The relevance of her being a doctor is that she is, as a matter of logic, more likely to be aware of the ramifications of the condition and therefore more likely to mention it over the phone. Given that we are dealing with what was said in relation to medical issues, her status as a doctor also makes her more credible generally. Therefore, in a dispute as to what was said in that phone call, her status as a doctor makes it more likely that she did seek specific assurances from the pizzeria that they would provide a gluten free pizza, and that in general her recollection of what was said is accurate. Would it be determinative in the case? No. Would it make a massive difference? Probably not. Could her evidence still be rejected despite her status as a doctor? Yes. But her being a doctor is relevant, and a solicitor/barrister would take into consideration when establishing whether the case had prospects, as would a judge when deciding on whether the case would succeed.

Cases like this come before the courts all the time where the Defendant has allegedly negligently caused an allergic or other medical reaction to the Claimant. Another classic example would be where a hairdresser or masseur has applied a product to a client's skin that has caused a reaction. In some of these cases there is written evidence as to whether the Claimant made the Defendant aware of their condition, but in many that was done verbally, and therefore oral evidence is used to determine that point. In such cases it is for the Judge to decide which evidence they prefer and which party is more credible. And in this case the fact that the person ordering was a doctor is a relevant consideration for the Judge to take into account when determining the credibility of her evidence. It's unlikely to actually make the main difference in the case either way, but to suggest that it is irrelevant and that a Judge would therefore ignore the fact that the person ordering the pizza was a doctor is simply wrong.

peachyprice wrote:

If it came to court don't you think a judge would ask her what steps she took, as a doctor, to ensure her guests had GF food?

No, a judge would not ask her that, because any steps that she took beyond that conversation that she had with the pizzeria would not be relevant to the issues in the case.

marliepanda

Unless the menu said GF then it's irrelevant.

I would suggest that if she is so aware, as a doctor, she would not ring and ask for a gluten free pizza on the 'off chance' and take their word for it despite not offering it on a menu.

I would not expect a random pizza shop to have gluten free dough based available, as they are a specialist and more expensive item. Even vegan is specialist, but they offer that.

If as a doctor she was so aware then any steps she may have took over the phone, which a barrister would be so interested as you say, would be completely negated by the fact it came through with vegan written on, and her as the worlds most coeliac cautious doctor did not stop her cousin eating it

Crazy_Jamie

marliepanda wrote: »

Unless the menu said GF then it's irrelevant.

I would suggest that if she is so aware, as a doctor, she would not ring and ask for a gluten free pizza on the 'off chance' and take their word for it despite not offering it on a menu.

I would not expect a random pizza shop to have gluten free dough based available, as they are a specialist and more expensive item. Even vegan is specialist, but they offer that.

If as a doctor she was so aware then any steps she may have took over the phone, which a barrister would be so interested as you say, would be completely negated by the fact it came through with vegan written on, and her as the worlds most coeliac cautious doctor did not stop her cousin eating it

You seem quite determined to continue this internet debate at all costs, but at this point you're well off on a tangent. I have no interest in debating the merits of this case or the arguments that may or may not be raised, because on a forum like this such a debate would be utterly pointless and would never reach a resolution. If I had more details I could make an assessment of whether or not the OP would have reasonable prospects, but I couldn't say anything beyond that.

This recent string has solely been in relation to whether the cousin's status as a doctor is relevant. Not whether it would be a major factor in the outcome of the case. Not what arguments could be used to undermine the cousin's evidence. Not whether or not there would be a way to use her status as a doctor against her. Just whether or not the status itself is relevant. And I have explained extensively why it is. That's it.