Devout Hindu's Sue Restaurant for Serving Meat Unknowingly

fourstringdrums · #1 07-21-2011, 04:41 PM

Edison restaurant can be sued after unknowingly serving meat to devout Hindu customers, appellate court rules | NJ.com

macaroni tony · #2 07-21-2011, 04:43 PM

EDIT: I'm not joining this after all; this thread is a bad idea. Religious thread

Stinsok · #3 07-21-2011, 04:46 PM

Shouldn't they just forgive the restaraunt?

fourstringdrums · #4 07-21-2011, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macaroni tony

EDIT: I'm not joining this after all; this thread is a bad idea. Religious thread

Ah, yes I forgot about that.

Mercy to be had from the moderators.

Mushroo · #5 07-21-2011, 04:58 PM

I agree 100% with the verdict. Restaurants have a responsibility to serve people the correct food that they ordered; if they were allergic to peanuts and requested a peanut-free meal but were actually served peanut butter samosas (for example) they could have died! The plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable damages for their pain & suffering IMHO and can spend it on whatever they like (a trip to India in this case).

I somewhat disagree with the theology that an action can be sinful even if you committed it completely by accident. However it is not my place to dictate someone's religious beliefs. The concept of cleanliness/purity is extremely important to many religions and I will not ridicule it.

jonathan_matos5 · #6 07-21-2011, 05:05 PM

i say it should mistrial on grounds of separation of "church" and state, but what do i know.

MatticusMania · #7 07-21-2011, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mushroo

The plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable damages for their pain & suffering IMHO and can spend it on whatever they like (a trip to India in this case).

Except that the cost of a trip to India is not reasonable damages for being served the wrong dish.

DwaynieAD · #8 07-21-2011, 05:20 PM

something about that story doesn't right with me

fourstringdrums · #9 07-21-2011, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

Except that the cost of a trip to India is not reasonable damages for being served the wrong dish.

More like a comped meal and maybe a freebie in the future.

rr5025 · #10 07-21-2011, 05:37 PM

Am I the only one that read that as Appetite Court at first glance?

kesslari · #11 07-21-2011, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinsok

Shouldn't they just forgive the restaraunt?

If dietary restrictions are not a part of your religion (e.g., if you don't think it's a sin and a violation of Divine will to eat the wrong thing) then it's hard for you to get it.

So (assuming you have strong religious do's and don'ts) - try to imagine a situation where you trusted someone else (like a restaurant) with something that should have been within your do's, and instead they made you violate your "don't".

You good with that?

fdeck · #12 07-21-2011, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan_matos5

i say it should mistrial on grounds of separation of "church" and state, but what do i know.

Courts have taken up cases related to the sale of Kosher food. They can be argued under contract law.

kesslari · #13 07-21-2011, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

Except that the cost of a trip to India is not reasonable damages for being served the wrong dish.

Purification from a violation of a religious rule is a reasonable damage for being made to violate that rule.
This isn't something the plaintiffs made up - this is, apparently, pretty much doctrine. "Violate this rule, need to be purified in the Ganges".

Again, this isn't a case of "I ordered potatos and you served me rice". It's not just "being served the wrong dish".
With that said - I know many really orthodox Jews won't eat in restaurants that aren't certified as Kosher - even though they can order foods that are technically Kosher - simply because of the possibility of a mix-up.

Mushroo · #14 07-21-2011, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

Except that the cost of a trip to India is not reasonable damages for being served the wrong dish.

It is difficult to put a price tag on someone's "emotional distress" but damages in the tens of thousands are not unheard of. It appears in this case that the plaintiffs were able to claim an exact dollar figure based on their specific religious practices.

MatticusMania · #15 07-22-2011, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kesslari

Purification from a violation of a religious rule is a reasonable damage for being made to violate that rule.
This isn't something the plaintiffs made up - this is, apparently, pretty much doctrine. "Violate this rule, need to be purified in the Ganges".

Again, this isn't a case of "I ordered potatos and you served me rice". It's not just "being served the wrong dish".
With that said - I know many really orthodox Jews won't eat in restaurants that aren't certified as Kosher - even though they can order foods that are technically Kosher - simply because of the possibility of a mix-up.

I do think it is a case of simply being served the wrong dish. Im a vegetarian, for my own personal reasons not related to any religion. EVERY time I eat in a restaurant I make sure sure my dish does not have meat in it. Sometimes the menu won't tell you that a salad is topped with bacon. Or that a soup uses chicken broth as a base. As someone who does not want to consume meat I make sure to check anything I eat before putting it in my mouth. At our wedding rehearsal dinner my wife, also a vegetarian, ordered a salad. Lo and behold it had bacon on it. We brought it up to our waiter, who was more than happy to take it back and bring her one without bacon. My wife apologized for sending it back, and our waiter said, "Dont worry about it, there was no way for you to know it had bacon before ordering"

So, IMO, it is a matter of being served the wrong dish.

Mushroo · #16 07-22-2011, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

At our wedding rehearsal dinner my wife, also a vegetarian, ordered a salad. Lo and behold it had bacon on it.

Shame on you; you blew a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for an all-expenses-paid honeymoon in India.

Phalex · #17 07-22-2011, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

I do think it is a case of simply being served the wrong dish. Im a vegetarian, for my own personal reasons not related to any religion. EVERY time I eat in a restaurant I make sure sure my dish does not have meat in it. Sometimes the menu won't tell you that a salad is topped with bacon. Or that a soup uses chicken broth as a base. As someone who does not want to consume meat I make sure to check anything I eat before putting it in my mouth. At our wedding rehearsal dinner my wife, also a vegetarian, ordered a salad. Lo and behold it had bacon on it. We brought it up to our waiter, who was more than happy to take it back and bring her one without bacon. My wife apologized for sending it back, and our waiter said, "Dont worry about it, there was no way for you to know it had bacon before ordering"

So, IMO, it is a matter of being served the wrong dish.

Why you gotta be hatin on the bacon man?

We should totally hang out! You can eat all the leafy green crap that shows up on my plate without provocation, and I'll keep your salad bacon free!

MatticusMania · #18 07-22-2011, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mushroo

Shame on you; you blew a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for an all-expenses-paid honeymoon in India.

But I had an all expenses paid honeymoon to Maui, so it was alright.

SMILEYSIXX · #19 07-22-2011, 01:39 PM

I'm kinda mixed on this one. While a fully understand the emotional distress this may cause, and do believe they are entitled to something, they took a pretty big risk. Simply being a vegetarian for the sake of being one and being a vegetarian out religious purpose are different. If I were them, I would just avoid the place completely or at least order something that doesn't have the chance of confusion. They took a pretty big risk, and from the way the article reads, the restaurant didn't know either. It's not like they could have known that this group of people would have to go to the Ganges for a small mistake.

MatticusMania · #20 07-22-2011, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMILEYSIXX

Simply being a vegetarian for the sake of being one and being a vegetarian out religious purpose are different.

There is a difference in the reasons for doing so, but not a difference at all in that neither of us eat meat. I'd say if it is against a persons religion to eat meat then one should be even more dilligent than I am in making sure there is no meat in the dish. IMO, the consumption of meat is a fail on part of the patrons, and the damages should not be awarded. The serving of the meat is a fail for the restaurant, and the party's meal should have been comped.