Marketing Strategy
Impacts of poor loss-prevention planning in restaurants in Texas
General Introduction
Poor loss prevention planning can be detrimental to any business especially in the hospitality sector. This study shall focus on restaurants and the loss prevention planning/ policies that should be adhered to. It shall extend further to discuss Restaurant lawsuits in Texas over the last 10 years and the amount awarded in those cases as fines or settlements. These cases form the basis of the impact of poor loss prevention planning in restaurants.
Loss prevention planning in Restaurants
The 5 main loss prevention strategies include Fire prevention, Customer safety, products safety, employee safety and Crime prevention. Restaurants, just like any other business may incur losses either foreseeable or not. However, there are some losses that can be prevented or minimized when the measures mentioned above are put into practice. These measures would save the business from lawsuits and settlements and above all, would aid in the growth of the business
Factors that determine settlement in cases that involve poor loss prevention planning
Many factors can determine the settlement cost of a case that involves poor loss planning in a restaurant. However, we shall point out a few that a court can consider before awarding damages in such kind of a case. These factors include;
- The severity of injuries sustained
- Emergency care and expenses towards the medical bills
- Income loss especially when the recovery would take long therefore loosing wages or worse, losing a job
- Physical pain or emotional distress
Other important factors include the party at fault, the contribution of the party at fault towards the injury and the contribution of the plaintiff towards the injury.
Restaurant lawsuits in Texas
Justice department charged Chipolte, a Mexican chain fast food restaurant in Texas, with ‘‘adulterating food while held for sale.’’ The restaurant admitted to selling food which was tainted between the years 2015 and 2018. As a result, hundreds of people contracted Norovirus due to the contamination of food. The restaurant was forced to pay $ 25 million as fine to resolve the charges made against them.
In the case of Williams v. O’ Charley’s Inc. (2012) the plaintiff had eaten grilled chicken, rice, and a baked potato. The chicken had a bad aftertaste, stuck to the plate, and was dry. Early the following morning, the plaintiff suffered from severe diarrhea and vomiting and was afterward hospitalized for seven days due to food poisoning. A jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant restaurant on the negligence claim, but in favor of plaintiff customer on the claim for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability, and awarded $140,000 in damages for personal injuries. On appeal the court upheld the verdict as proper since causation could be established in light of the fact that the only meal the plaintiff had taken before the being sick and hospitalized was the food from the restaurant.
In the case of Hansen v. Texas Roadhouse Inc. (2012) the restaurant escaped liability for negligent supervision of its cook, but not the liability stemming from the plaintiff’s additional claim alleging breach of implied warranty of fitness for human consumption, when the restaurant employee purposefully placed strands of his hair on a replacement steak after the customer complained that the first served steak to him was improperly cooked. Thus, intentional placement of foreign objects in cooked food by a restaurant employee can be a basis for breach of warranty action. The plaintiff was awarded damages.
In the case of Spenser V Good Earth Restaurant, the plaintiffs claimed that the chow Mein that they had bought from the defendant’s restaurant contained pieces of glass and were injured as a result. The court granted the plaintiffs summary motion and allowed verdicts for the plaintiffs in regards to damages. The defendant appealed the decision by the trial court. The issues presented to the court on appeal included as to whether the food contained glass and as to whether the restaurant was liable for the plaintiffs’ injury. On appeal, the court affirmed the decision of the trial court and the plaintiffs were granted $750 each as damages.
In another case of Schafer v. JLC Food Systems the injured plaintiff employed the principle of res ipsa loquitur to recover damages after suffering throat injury caused by a defective pumpkin muffin. Although the plaintiff did not have ‘substantial’ proof that could be examined by the court, the res ipsa loquitur was allowed by the court therefore being awarded damages for the injuries that he had sustained.
In the case of Koster v. Scotch Associates the court ruled that the restaurant furnished food to the plaintiff, who suffered food poisoning, in violation of the state’s adulterated food statute and thus the violation of the statute itself was an act of negligence. The plaintiff in this case was awarded $ 50,000 as damages for the injury caused
In the case of Marshall V Burger King Corp, the plaintiff was the father and the estate of the deceased son who died as a result of poor design of the restaurant. The restaurant was designed to face the parking lot. As a result, a car drove and hit the son who was severely injured and died. The plaintiff blamed the restaurant for such exposure arguing that it was the responsibility of the restaurant to ensure the safety of its customers. The court awarded the plaintiff $4 million as damages.
In August 2017, the plaintiff and her husband went to Las Fuentes Mexican Restaurant in Texas for lunch. Marion, (plaintiff) slipped and fell on a slick wet surface and sustained severe personal injuries. She fell on her hip therefore she had to undergo surgery and physical therapy according to the medical examiners. Marion sued the restaurant for negligence upon which she was awarded damages as a result.
In another case of Kesselman v lever house restaurant, the plaintiff slipped and fall as she was going to the restroom. According to the design of the restaurant, the hallway floor to the restroom was dark, wide and shiny. A carpet with rubber backing had been placed on the floor but did not cover the entire width. The hallway was a busy one because waiters and waitresses including other customers would flood the hallway. This particular day, the plaintiff had to walk at the side of the hallway where the carpet had not covered the floor. As she stepped off the carpet, she slipped on a wet substance that was on the floor and was injured. The plaintiff sued the restaurant. The plaintiff was awarded $ 60000 in damages for the injury
A court of appeal upheld the decision of a trial court in Texas to compensate an employee after he suffered severe injuries after a slip and fall incident that took place when he was working. Wok This Way Restaurant was forced to pay $ 73,429.94 for medical expenses. Further, the employee received an additional $ 30,000 for emotional expense including $ 12,000 for pain and suffering and $ 6,000 for mental anguish. The employee was getting soup from a cooler to prepare it for a customer when he slipped and fell on a wet floor due to negligent acts of the restaurant.
It is not possible to recollect all the cases that might have been decided in Texas on poor prevention planning in Texas over the last 10 years neither is it possible to approximate the amount to that effect . Some of these cases are not yet published; some are still under review while others have not expressly mentioned the amount of damages awarded. However, it can be concluded from the few cases given that significant amounts have been spent as legal fees and damages among other fees in relation to suits and settlements.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.