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 represent a highly complex and dynamic area of tort law. They pose especially complex legal issues”
Like I said, not simple at all. If the business owner wants to reduce liability they should definitely not be serving anything on a scalding hot piece of metal. A customer spilling any amount of non-scalding food onto another customer will absolutely not result in a successful lawsuit, at worst they might have to comp a meal or two. Feel free to try finding even a single example to the contrary, I’m open to being proven wrong.
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.
I can’t speak with confidence about the legal situation in other countries, but in the US frivolous lawsuits are routinely punished by having the plaintiff cover the defendant’s legal costs plus compensation for their trouble. Avoiding liability in general is still best practice, but there’s no significant risk of liability from actions taken by a customer in the dining area, customers are supposed to be there and nobody could reasonably expect the restaurant owner/management to predict and/or control the behavior of all of their customers. The customer would be held responsible for their actions and would be on the hook for any damages.
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.
“they represent a highly complex and dynamic area of tort law. They pose especially complex legal issues”
Like I said, not simple at all. If the business owner wants to reduce liability they should definitely not be serving anything on a scalding hot piece of metal. A customer spilling any amount of non-scalding food onto another customer will absolutely not result in a successful lawsuit, at worst they might have to comp a meal or two. Feel free to try finding even a single example to the contrary, I’m open to being proven wrong.
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.
I can’t speak with confidence about the legal situation in other countries, but in the US frivolous lawsuits are routinely punished by having the plaintiff cover the defendant’s legal costs plus compensation for their trouble. Avoiding liability in general is still best practice, but there’s no significant risk of liability from actions taken by a customer in the dining area, customers are supposed to be there and nobody could reasonably expect the restaurant owner/management to predict and/or control the behavior of all of their customers. The customer would be held responsible for their actions and would be on the hook for any damages.