Girl Dies From Allergic Reaction to Sesame Seeds

[Sheepshanks]

4x4Tyke said:

Unless there is something else, not being reported, this verdict seems completely perverse to me.

If the "prawn and nuts" comment had been prefixed with "no", "allergic" or similar there might be a case, but on its own it is entirely reasonable to think those are being actively requested and not being excluded.

My reading of it is that the main issue was they had no system in place for checking anyway and they didn't even know what the constituents of the ingredients were.

[JagLover]

poo at Paul's said:

Probably could have been avoided completely if they had actually spoken to the restaurant, ie called them, gone in etc. To stick "prawns and nuts" in an app is fking ridiculous and may have even resulted in them putting in MORE nuts and Prawns.
fking morons to leave it so ambiguous.

But, as pointed above, the English of the takeaway owners could be fairly poor in any case.

Mystified how they could be convicted of manslaughter.

[Shakermaker]

red_slr said:

Probably because you don't have a *fatal* allergy to even slight traces of certain foods. OK you want to allow your child freedom, you then ensure they are educated and take full responsibility.

Ordering a dish which CONTAINS the thing you are allergic too is just mental.

True, was just in response to "my daughter wouldn't be allowed in a place like that" - I don't think a parent can control a 15 year old to that degree, but I absolutely agree that you would hope to have raised them to that point to be aware of what to look out for etc.

[4x4Tyke]

Sheepshanks said:

My reading of it is that the main issue was they had no system in place for checking anyway and they didn't even know what the constituents of the ingredients were.

Yes, they had already pleaded guilty to various H&S and food safety charges.

My dismay is at the manslaughter verdict.

Pret never faced a manslaughter trial, the inconsistency stinks.

[red_slr]

Shakermaker said:

red_slr said:

Probably because you don't have a *fatal* allergy to even slight traces of certain foods. OK you want to allow your child freedom, you then ensure they are educated and take full responsibility.

Ordering a dish which CONTAINS the thing you are allergic too is just mental.

True, was just in response to "my daughter wouldn't be allowed in a place like that" - I don't think a parent can control a 15 year old to that degree, but I absolutely agree that you would hope to have raised them to that point to be aware of what to look out for etc.

Agreed, it sounds harsh but if you are not smart enough to think ordering takeaway might not be the best idea in the world then maybe it was just a matter of time before it happened anyway.

There should be a minimum age at which you can use these apps with some kind of parental control too, so parents see what their children are ordering. Even more so for children with serious allergies.

[Sheepshanks]

4x4Tyke said:

Yes, they had already pleaded guilty to various H&S and food safety charges.

My dismay is at the manslaughter verdict.

Pret never faced a manslaughter trial, the inconsistency stinks.

In Pret's case they were following the law - the Coroner blamed inadequate laws.

[superlightr]

Shakermaker said:

True, was just in response to "my daughter wouldn't be allowed in a place like that" - I don't think a parent can control a 15 year old to that degree, but I absolutely agree that you would hope to have raised them to that point to be aware of what to look out for etc.

A friends daughter has a severe nut allergy - diagnosed from a very young age. The daughter is now 22 at uni.

Friend would actively check in advance with whatever restaurant /chain what they served and if cross contamination. She would actively have a list of food her daughter could eat. They never ordered take-aways. The daughter is also super cautious and double checks everything with no doubt allowed to enter the equation. If there was a doubt she wont eat it.

She cooks a lot for herself - raw ingredients. she is happy and perfectly normal and fun girl - she know nuts may kill her.

[poo at Paul's]

JagLover said:

poo at Paul's said:

Probably could have been avoided completely if they had actually spoken to the restaurant, ie called them, gone in etc. To stick "prawns and nuts" in an app is fking ridiculous and may have even resulted in them putting in MORE nuts and Prawns.
fking morons to leave it so ambiguous.

But, as pointed above, the English of the takeaway owners could be fairly poor in any case.

Mystified how they could be convicted of manslaughter.

The poor English would have bene very apparent if they had called them or seen them, then you can decide to not risk any misunderstanding and move on to another place!
But I think younger people nowadays don't appreciate the benefit of a face to face or even person to person verbal exchange.
You can gain so much from a 2 min conversation that three days of emails and texts will never tell you.

[scenario8]

I’m guessing in my absence the moderators felt they had to do some deleting. That’s a disappointing state of affairs.

[Teddy Lop]

JagLover said:

poo at Paul's said:

Probably could have been avoided completely if they had actually spoken to the restaurant, ie called them, gone in etc. To stick "prawns and nuts" in an app is fking ridiculous and may have even resulted in them putting in MORE nuts and Prawns.
fking morons to leave it so ambiguous.

But, as pointed above, the English of the takeaway owners could be fairly poor in any case.

Mystified how they could be convicted of manslaughter.

there has to be something more to the conviction surely?

[Mojooo]

Is it not negligent to read the Just Eat notes section? one would assume you would anyway as i often put notes in there about delivery

if they read it and ignored it then surely that is negligent considering that is the way many would ommunicate with the restaurant.

[shakotan]

Mojooo said:

Is it not negligent to read the Just Eat notes section? one would assume you would anyway as i often put notes in there about delivery

if they read it and ignored it then surely that is negligent considering that is the way many would ommunicate with the restaurant.

On an issue as serious as allergies, its a pathetic way of communicating with the restaurant, even disregarding the ridiculous and ambiguous way the girls attempted to communicate it.

[Mojooo]

shakotan said:

Mojooo said:

Is it not negligent to read the Just Eat notes section? one would assume you would anyway as i often put notes in there about delivery

if they read it and ignored it then surely that is negligent considering that is the way many would ommunicate with the restaurant.

On an issue as serious as allergies, its a pathetic way of communicating with the restaurant, even disregarding the ridiculous and ambiguous way the girls attempted to communicate it.

Perhaps, but is is negligent of the restaurant to disregard it given that i nthe grandscheme of things its an accepted and infact THE way custoemrs using JE communicate with the restaurant

I am not doubting the girls actions were not ideal but that doesnt mean the business was not negligent

As I said before, if they were not so bad in terms of no compliance with food law at all then they may have had more sucessful with this argument (i.e we are good on allergens but this was the customers fault).

[turbobloke]

From the accounts on PH and the experience of people I know, there are few places which deal with this even close to mitigating the potentially fatal risk, regardless of the regulations.

Why is this potentally fatal risk then taken so frequently?

Could the lack of a much larger number of fatalities be due to a significant proportion of individuals/families not taking the risk?

[poo at Paul's]

Gareth79 said:

On the other hand, the restaurant could have just called them "what did you mean by prawns, nuts? You like them? Oh allergic, well I don't actually know what's in any of our stuff... the rats are the allergen book"

Again, though, the risk / reward ratios are heavily in the restaurants favour here! They could have done it, but didn't and the result was they are at least still alive! So surely the party with most to lose needs to take the onus and ensure it is unambiguous?
A talking parrot could have been dispatched to convey the message but that never happened either. This girl had a severe but allergy and is ordering a product made with nuts from a place of unknown quality without doing any due diligence herself on it, ie calling them, popping around. If she is not of responsible age, she should not be ordering. The responsibility for what she orders is hers. If she specifically orders no nuts, then gets nuts, then the restaurant is entirely at fault. If she calls them though, and tells them no nuts, and they do not acknowledge that, or acknowledge it in an unknown language, or she does not know if they acknowledge it, then she bears a whole load of the responsibility.

As I said earlier, there HAS to be more to this that is reported as on the basis of what seems to have gone on, this is not manslaughter.

[croyde]

This is like my teenage son's attitude to crossing the road without taking any care.

'If I get hit dad, they'll get sued'

'Yeah! but you'll be dead or badly injured' is my reply.

Still doesn't get it. Seems a whole generation or two since I was born, just can't take responsibility for their own actions and lives.

Boils my urine!

[Mojooo]

The guy read then note on Just Eat and ignored it

Judges comments

https://ufile.io/679cf