Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Quebec Waiter Arrested After Seafood Puts Allergic Customer in Coma


DonLever

Recommended Posts

I'm not going to get into the conspiracy theories being posted here, although I'd have to say that deliberately putting yourself into anaphylactic shock seems like a rather poor money making scheme...

 

I'm with Jimayo on this one. It's seems obvious to me that in this case the waiter was extremely negligent. As someone working in the food service industry, dealing with customers who have allergies is vital part of the job. If you can't, or won't pay attention to customers' health requirements, you, at the very least, deserve to be fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HerrDrFunk said:

Payment is not a form of thank you. Payment is compensation for the cost of ingredients and the labour that went into making and serving your meal. Try saying "thanks for the meal" instead of paying the next time you go out to eat. Let me know how that goes down. 

 

I was a cook for five years. I made meals for people with death allergies on a regular basis. Know how many people the restaurants I worked at put in a coma? None. Because the front and back of house staff did their f***ing jobs properly and made sure that didn't happen. 

I ate KD and lived.  See, I'm an expert too.  Thank you is payment, when no money is due.  If a food allergy is so bad you will die, then eat at home.  Being blunt works both ways. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

I ate KD and lived.  See, I'm an expert too.  Thank you is payment, when no money is due.  If a food allergy is so bad you will die, then eat at home.  Being blunt works both ways. :)

You ate KD once? Ah, man. Sorry to question someone with such a culinary background. 

 

You want bluntness? I think you're a complete imbecile. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

I ate KD and lived.  See, I'm an expert too.  Thank you is payment, when no money is due.  If a food allergy is so bad you will die, then eat at home.  Being blunt works both ways. :)

That's a bit cold, IMO.

 

Let's change things a bit. Say a disabled person wanted to go to the movies, but the theatre refused to accommodate the wheelchair. Would you be comfortable telling them to wait for the DVD to come out and "watch it at home".

 

There are small, easy things that businesses can do to insure that they are fully inclusive. Not everyone is lucky enough to be able to do whatever they please, worry free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HerrDrFunk said:

You ate KD once? Ah, man. Sorry to question someone with such a culinary background. 

 

You want bluntness? I think you're a complete imbecile. 

Well thank you.  I wonder if all KD eaters are imbilciles?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

That's a bit cold, IMO.

 

Let's change things a bit. Say a disabled person wanted to go to the movies, but the theatre refused to accommodate the wheelchair. Would you be comfortable telling them to wait for the DVD to come out and "watch it at home".

 

There are small, easy things that businesses can do to insure that they are fully inclusive. Not everyone is lucky enough to be able to do whatever they please, worry free.

The disabled person is not putting herself in grave danger, is she?  The person with the food allergy is entrusting his life to those preparing his dinner.  That's a big difference, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alflives said:

The disabled person is not putting herself in grave danger, is she?  The person with the food allergy is entrusting his life to those preparing his dinner.  That's a big difference, no?

That's not the point. The point is that a business can and should do whatever it takes to make their operation inclusive, rather than telling those with allergies that "they should eat at home".

 

The president of Quebec's Restaurant Association seems to agree: 

Quote

 

Claude Gauthier, president of Quebec's restaurant association, said at least one employee in every restaurant kitchen needs to have taken a course offered by the province on hygiene and food safety.

The course includes a section on food allergies. Gauthier said servers would also benefit from such training.

He added that restaurants should always have an EpiPen on hand in case of an allergic reaction.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a criminal suit is a bit much, they both have a part to play in this.

 

The waiter was negligent when he didn't write anything down or tell the kitchen staff about this mans allergies.  But at the same time the customer should have made 100% sure he wasn't eating seafood.  Poor lighting is a poor excuse.  He wasn't alone, he could have gotten his friend to try a piece of the meal when it arrived or when he noticed the waiter hadn't written it down he could have asked him again if he'd told the kitchen staff and put his mind at ease.  If you have an allergy so bad that it could kill you then these are the extra steps you take.

 

I'm glad the guy ended up being okay.  The waiter should probably go through some re-training (if he didn't lose his job).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, moz said:

I think a criminal suit is a bit much, they both have a part to play in this.

 

The waiter was negligent when he didn't write anything down or tell the kitchen staff about this mans allergies.  But at the same time the customer should have made 100% sure he wasn't eating seafood.  Poor lighting is a poor excuse.  He wasn't alone, he could have gotten his friend to try a piece of the meal when it arrived or when he noticed the waiter hadn't written it down he could have asked him again if he'd told the kitchen staff and put his mind at ease.  If you have an allergy so bad that it could kill you then these are the extra steps you take.

 

I'm glad the guy ended up being okay.  The waiter should probably go through some re-training (if he didn't lose his job).  

I tend to agree that a criminal act is a stretch, but here's an analogy:

 

You're first at an intersection, put on your turn signal and turn left. An oncoming vehicle either doesn't see, or ignores your turn signal and hits your car broadside.

 

Are you at fault for assuming that the turn signal was sufficient warning that you were about to turn, or should you have waited to see if the other driver was going to ignore the rules of the road?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I tend to agree that a criminal act is a stretch, but here's an analogy:

 

You're first at an intersection, put on your turn signal and turn left. An oncoming vehicle either doesn't see, or ignores your turn signal and hits your car broadside.

 

Are you at fault for assuming that the turn signal was sufficient warning that you were about to turn, or should you have waited to see if the other driver was going to ignore the rules of the road?

Not to be pedantic but it depends on what kind of intersection we're at :lol: 4 way stop, sure he should wait his turn.  Intersection with a filter arrow, again he should wait his turn.  Intersection where you have to cross traffic with no arrow and there are cars oncoming, then it's up to you to make the decision of whether or not it's safe to make that turn.

 

Which leads me back to the restaurant, obviously non of us were there but from that article I still feel they both have a part to play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I tend to agree that a criminal act is a stretch, but here's an analogy:

 

You're first at an intersection, put on your turn signal and turn left. An oncoming vehicle either doesn't see, or ignores your turn signal and hits your car broadside.

 

Are you at fault for assuming that the turn signal was sufficient warning that you were about to turn, or should you have waited to see if the other driver was going to ignore the rules of the road?

As described you're at fault for turning when it wasn't safe. If someone runs a red light/stop sign that obviously changes things though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, drummerboy said:

Maybe, when someone tells you they have a major seafood allergy, don't bring the guy a piece of freakin fish.  

it doesn't say they sat around and chatted about it.  It says he but the fish, said it was salmon, and they left.   

 

How are people defending the waiter?  

The guy f'd up and almost killed a guy. 

That is his fault.  Do your job you tip monkey. 

Well it did say that they spoke to the servwr and told.him they had the wrong food. Dont wait. Get to thecar, get the drug. But yeah i dont know the timeline. Poor guy. they presribe epipens for a reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Alflives said:

If you are a skydiver, do you pack your own chutes, or rely on someone not familiar with your methods?  The guy is an adult, and clearly an expert on his affliction.  Why would he trust someone with his food preparation?  Have a coffee and dessert.  

 

Everyday, rookie skydivers rely on other professionals to pack their chutes and guide their diving.  What a perfect analogy to show how stupid and wrong your position is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with passing judgement to he server so quickly is that according to the customer he is totally at fault. However since none of us were there how do we know the guy actually told the server he had an allergery? Maybe he just assumed that he would be fine ordering the beef tartar and didn't mention it. Maybe he forgot to bring his epipen all together.  Maybe the server just accidentally punched in salmon tartar. Or maybe the kitchen made a mistake and didn't make beef tartar and made the salmon by mistake ect ect ect. 

 

I know that when i worked in a pizza place when I was in college we had a customer have to use an epipen but it was entirely their fault. They had some kind of brutal allergy to tomato products so they ordered their pizza with no sauce and didn't bother informing the server that it was because of the allergy. The kitchen made a no sauce pizza but obviously there was some cross contamination and the customer had a reaction. 

 

It makes me wonder why someone with such a bad seafood allergy would risk ordering any kind of tartar while at any restaurant period. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

Totally inappropriate, a man's life was at steak.

 

This reminds me of a time I was at Quiznos.  A couple orders 2 subs, a meat sub for the man and a veggie sub for the lady.  The lady doesn't say a word about being a vegetarian.  She waits until the Quizno lady cuts her sandwich with the same knife she used on her boyfriend's sub and then spazzes out on the employee about not eating any trace of meat.  Everyone else in the restaurant, myself included, went verbally ballistic of this cow for berating the employee.  It had nothing to do with allergies mind you but this cow thought she could milk it for a free sub, man the look on her boyfriends face said it all, he was so embarrassed.  Don't get me started on peanut ban in schools... 

Peanut ban....one of my kids was in a class one year...it was like every kid in the classroom had an allergy.  I couldn't send cherry tomatoes,  strawberries, milk, eggs, fish, cheese....it was crazy. I dont remember these being common issues when I was a kid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...