The complainants never established what the restaurant did wrong, or how it breached a legal duty, in the unfortunate episode of squirting garlic butter. [Marin Independent Journal, earlier]
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Cato Institute
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
Schools for Misrule
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.
{ 3 comments }
In a decision “laden with legal precedent and Latin jargon” I am somewhat surprised that the judge allegedly wrote that there is “reasonable expectation of the presence and, thus potential personal injury, due to hot grease in orders of escargot which are prepared and served with ‘hot garlic butter.’”
I wonder if anyone has looked into the question of whether the plaintiffs were shills for the manufacturers of hoi sin sauce or Chinese restaurants? The snails used in the Chinese dish “snails in hoi sin sauce” are safer since they are not stuffed with butter and have a hole drilled in the shell to make it possible to suck them out.
I’m disappointed this didn’t go further: it’s time for a new Donoghue v Stevenson
Comments on this entry are closed.