I’m not concerned at all with who was “meant” to do the work,
Yes, but the court probably would be when someone inevitably sues the restaurant. What if you spill your hot food on a third party? Some guest that was dining and had nothing to do with your stupid little gesture? Who do they sue when their genitals are burnt off?
It’s a simple as doing everything in your power to lower the chances of being sued for anything. And allowing untrained, random people to come in and upset the workflow, get in the way of actual employees, handle food that they’ve not been trained to handle, etc. etc. etc., then you’re adding to that liability. It’s really that simple.
The food doesn’t need to be unsafe to get burned by it, or have you never seen fajitas served at a restaurant? Do they deserve it for flaunting their extra hot foods?
There must be negligence—a breach of the duty of care—or some other wrongful act. In recent years, the law of premises liability has evolved to include cases where a person is injured on the premises of another by a third person’s wrongful act, such as an assault. These cases are sometimes referred to as “third party premises liability” cases and they represent a highly complex and dynamic area of tort law. They pose especially complex legal issues of duty and causation because the injured party is seeking to hold a possessor or owner of property directly or vicariously liable when the immediate injury-producing act was, arguably, not caused by the possessor or owner.
It’s about a business owner reducing liability. It’s really that simple. It doesn’t have to make sense to you, and it might even be overcautious. But it’s how you protect your business from stupid bullshit like that.
You’re also seemingly missing the fact that people don’t necessarily need some airtight case, just being sued costs time and money in and of itself even if you win as a defendant. Which is why you do things to reduce the possibility of being sued. Such as not allowing non-employees to deliver food to tables, regardless of how hot it might be.
They also reduce their liability by only allowing trained employees to handle food.
I am not a lawyer, I have no idea if the lawsuit would be successful. But the outcome isn’t really important to this discussion when the act of being sued in and of itself costs time and money and business owners do everything they can to avoid it.
While holding hot food? Surrounded by other guests? Doing the work that the restaurant employee was meant to do?
Just sit down and let them do their job. They don’t want your help, I promise you.
Removed by mod
Real weird hill to die on…
Yes, but the court probably would be when someone inevitably sues the restaurant. What if you spill your hot food on a third party? Some guest that was dining and had nothing to do with your stupid little gesture? Who do they sue when their genitals are burnt off?
There’s a reason why liability insurance exists.
Removed by mod
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premises_liability
It’s a simple as doing everything in your power to lower the chances of being sued for anything. And allowing untrained, random people to come in and upset the workflow, get in the way of actual employees, handle food that they’ve not been trained to handle, etc. etc. etc., then you’re adding to that liability. It’s really that simple.
The food doesn’t need to be unsafe to get burned by it, or have you never seen fajitas served at a restaurant? Do they deserve it for flaunting their extra hot foods?
Removed by mod
It’s about a business owner reducing liability. It’s really that simple. It doesn’t have to make sense to you, and it might even be overcautious. But it’s how you protect your business from stupid bullshit like that.
Here is an entire wiki article on slip and fall, a type of premises liability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slip_and_fall
You’re also seemingly missing the fact that people don’t necessarily need some airtight case, just being sued costs time and money in and of itself even if you win as a defendant. Which is why you do things to reduce the possibility of being sued. Such as not allowing non-employees to deliver food to tables, regardless of how hot it might be.
Removed by mod
They also reduce their liability by only allowing trained employees to handle food.
I am not a lawyer, I have no idea if the lawsuit would be successful. But the outcome isn’t really important to this discussion when the act of being sued in and of itself costs time and money and business owners do everything they can to avoid it.