 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
Carletta visited a Mexican restaurant with her husband and was enjoying a margarita. Suddenly she felt something descending from the ceiling and bouncing off her forehead. She looked at her drink and saw a baby snake curling itself around the straw. While she was freaking out, a couple of restaurant workers tried to get the surprise visitor who’d just dropped by removed with a stick. Eventually, another customer was more orthodox in his approach, grabbing it with his hands and tossing it out.
Carletta — totally traumatized — noted she is not going to be eating out for a while.
Her event brings to my mind the iconic Donoghue v. Stevenson snail-in-the-ginger-ale case decided almost a century ago in Britain. I wonder how a judge would rule these days were Carletta to sue the restaurant. Given how legal systems are strained and judges supposedly overworked, are we far from the day when we see judges relax a bit and use artificial intelligence to render their decisions?
And if and when that day arrives, as AI information has often come up with bizarre content, you never know whether such rulings will be sympathetic to the plaintiff or not. In my view, this type of claim might not be a slam dunk. Well maybe a dunk. Neither of the following scenarios would surprise me.
Sympathetic J
This is an action for damages arising out of the unfortunate attendance by the plaintiff (Carletta) at the defendant’s dumpy restaurant where she and her husband intended to enjoy a fine Mexican dinner. The evening did not go as planned. Suddenly and without warning, a huge serpent, clinging onto a light fixture above and waiting in ambush, dropped down whacking her on the forehead, en route to her margarita.
The defendant denies liability saying that this was an act of God in that for reasons unknown the Almighty launched a plague of one snake on the restaurant. The defendant’s owner, Richards, claims that shortly before the incident, an elderly bearded gentleman wearing a robe and carrying a long wooden staff came up to him and said, “Let my people go.” Said owner told the old man he must be in the wrong place as they were in Virginia, not Ancient Egypt. He explained his name was Richards not Ramses. The gentleman then bellowed, “Oh yeah?” and proceeded to drop his staff to the ground. The staff suddenly turned into a snake.
The defendant denies liability saying that this was an act of God in that for reasons unknown the Almighty launched a plague of one snake on the restaurant. The defendant’s owner, Richards, claims that shortly before the incident, an elderly bearded gentleman wearing a robe and carrying a long wooden staff came up to him and said, “Let my people go.” Said owner told the old man he must be in the wrong place as they were in Virginia, not Ancient Egypt. He explained his name was Richards not Ramses. The gentleman then bellowed, “Oh yeah?” and proceeded to drop his staff to the ground. The staff suddenly turned into a snake.
Richards testified that the gentleman replied, “Oh well” and departed, leaving the snake behind. His evidence was that he was going to call an outfit, Norm’s Serpent Removal, ASAP, but unfortunately Leviathan slithered away before Norm could come to the rescue.
I can empathize with Carletta’s plight. My sentiments have nothing to do with the fact that I suffer from Medusa-phobia. I appreciate what Cleopatra must have felt like as that asp approached her bosom. Ugh!
I find that this is a clear case of strict liability. I take note of the pretend case of Henry v. House of Pancakes, where Dolittle J noted in a quite similar case, “Where one runs a restaurant, just like they must have a fire extinguisher handy, they have a duty to their patrons to have a contingency plan to deal with an invasion of escaping giraffes. This event is clearly reasonably foreseeable. Failure to do so is negligence. Badda bing, badda boom.”
True, we are dealing with a snake not a giraffe in the case at bar. But is a giraffe any different from a snake? I find that this case is on all fours with Pancakes.
I find for the plaintiff.
I find that this is a clear case of strict liability. I take note of the pretend case of Henry v. House of Pancakes, where Dolittle J noted in a quite similar case, “Where one runs a restaurant, just like they must have a fire extinguisher handy, they have a duty to their patrons to have a contingency plan to deal with an invasion of escaping giraffes. This event is clearly reasonably foreseeable. Failure to do so is negligence. Badda bing, badda boom.”
True, we are dealing with a snake not a giraffe in the case at bar. But is a giraffe any different from a snake? I find that this case is on all fours with Pancakes.
I find for the plaintiff.
But then again, AI may not be so sympathetic
Not-so-sympathetic J
The facts are simple. The plaintiff attended the defendant establishment looking for trouble. She claims she was traumatized by a snake landing in her margarita. The evidence is that she knew or ought to have known that this event may occur. There was a large sign in front of the establishment reading, “NOTE: Customer satisfaction is our number one goal. However, there is a good chance that while you dine here a snake might fall into your margarita.”
The minute this woman crossed the restaurant’s threshold, she voluntarily accepted the risk.
And after all, we are talking only a snake. I myself have two pet snakes: Slinky and Noodles. They are the gentlest and friendliest pythons around. They have a passion for hugging anything that moves. They wouldn’t hurt a fly.
In law, people are expected to have reasonable fortitude. And to the owner’s credit, he did immediately offer her the happy hour discount on that margarita. She declined this reasonable offer and is now going for the jugular. The problem here is that we are dealing with a vexatious litigant. People like her are putting a strain on our legal resources.
This action will be dismissed. Hiss hiss.
The minute this woman crossed the restaurant’s threshold, she voluntarily accepted the risk.
And after all, we are talking only a snake. I myself have two pet snakes: Slinky and Noodles. They are the gentlest and friendliest pythons around. They have a passion for hugging anything that moves. They wouldn’t hurt a fly.
In law, people are expected to have reasonable fortitude. And to the owner’s credit, he did immediately offer her the happy hour discount on that margarita. She declined this reasonable offer and is now going for the jugular. The problem here is that we are dealing with a vexatious litigant. People like her are putting a strain on our legal resources.
This action will be dismissed. Hiss hiss.
I’m retired from practice, fortunately. But I do look forward to watching the AI demons from the sidelines — while I sip my margarita.
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book, Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging, is available on Amazon (e-book) and in paper version. His new(!) book First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe is available on Amazon, Apple and other book places. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him on X: @MarcelsHumour.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.