Gluten Free Pizza NOT Gluten Free!

ThumbRemote

marliepanda wrote: »

OR she had no duty of care because she was just ordering pizza for her friends. I think the second is much more likely, and better for her as a doctor as in that case she would not be under such constant pressure to provide medically correct food.

You clearly have no understanding of 'duty of care', and really ought to stop contributing about things you don't understand.

LilElvis

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Actually, I'm trying to keep this particular strand on the issue of relevant facts in a personal injury claim, and stop it from descending into a standard internet forum tit for tat, something which is very common but not at all useful for the person actually asking for advice. A battle which I am quite clearly losing.

The relevent facts would be whether they could prove that they have actually suffered any injury as a result of eating the pizza.

This is what the OP posted right at the very start:

bigp26 wrote: »

The next morning, we both suffered from stomach pain and diarrhoea. We have also been feeling rather fatigued over the last few days.

Nowhere have they said that they have sought any medical treatment, only that they didn't feel too 'clever' the next day. So, where is the proof of any injury or of its degree on which any claim could be based?

Crazy_Jamie

LilElvis wrote: »

The relevent facts would be whether they could prove that they have actually suffered any injury as a result of eating the pizza.

Nowhere have they said that they have sought any medical treatment, only that they didn't feel too 'clever' the next day. So, where is the proof of any injury or of its degree on which any claim could be based?

The symptoms described by the OP would be sufficient to bring a claim, albeit if it's simply to the extent stated in the first post the injury would be minor and the resulting damages somewhat nominal. There could then be an issue as to whether the claim would be suitable for the small claims track or the fast track, though if there is an issue as to causation requiring expert evidence the fast track may be determined as the most suitable track in any event irrespective of the value.

Crazy_Jamie

marliepanda wrote: »

Either you continue with your stance 'Crazy Jamie' that as a doctor she was more aware when ordering. Therefore she would have a duty of care as a doctor towards the OP to provide him with gluten free, as she, as you say, was so aware of the ramifications.

No, she wouldn't.

marliepanda

I agree of course that she doesn't, because it does not matter at all that the person ordering pizza was a doctor!

Anyway I believe this is a case of agree to disagree, as this would never get to a court for us to find out who was right so we could argue the toss all day. The OP has no proof of anything, no case, and hasn't been back to the thread anyway!

LilElvis

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

The symptoms described by the OP would be sufficient to bring a claim, albeit if it's simply to the extent stated in the first post the injury would be minor and the resulting damages somewhat nominal. There could then be an issue as to whether the claim would be suitable for the small claims track or the fast track, though if there is an issue as to causation requiring expert evidence the fast track may be determined as the most suitable track in any event irrespective of the value.

Based on what legal foundation? They do not appear to have sought medical attention (corroboration) and the 'injury' is akin to the after-effects that countless people have every weekend after having a 'dodgy curry' or similar. Or do you advocate that all these people also lodge a claim on a Monday morning?

Crazy_Jamie

LilElvis wrote: »

Based on what legal foundation? They do not appear to have sought medical attention (corroboration) and the 'injury' is akin to the after-effects that countless people have every weekend after having a 'dodgy curry' or similar. Or do you advocate that all these people also lodge a claim on a Monday morning?

Proving the after effects and a court finding that the after effects warrant an award of general damages are two different things. The evidence in support of the after effects occurring would come from the OP and her father directly. Corroboration in terms of medical records are not a requirement to succeed in a personal injury claim, though of course if the OP and her father are not believed as to the symptoms that they suffered afterwards their claims would fail.

In terms of whether those symptoms would warrant an award of general damages, Chapter 13 of the Judicial College Guidelines 12th Edition specifies brackets for minor injuries. Symptoms resolving within one week have a bracket of up to £500, which as I said would be somewhat nominal in the grand scheme of things. There are numerous examples of cases where damages have been awarded for food poisoning and such where symptoms include the like of vomiting, stomach pains, diarrhoea. I'm not sure what legal foundation you're looking for beyond that.

chocoholic123

Village Pizza are a chain, albeit a small one.
They offer a special vegan base and vegan cheese - but have no GF on the menu.
http://www.villagepizzauk.com/order.php

peachyprice

Yes, that's the menu I already posted a link to.

chocoholic123

peachyprice wrote: »

Yes, that's the menu I already posted a link to.

Sorry - didn't spot that.