Court: Man Burned By Fajitas While Praying Can’t Sue Applebee’s

[tblue37]

85. From Wikipedia (yes, I know--but for something like this, it will do):

In many restaurants, the fajita meat is brought to the table sizzling loudly on a metal platter or skillet, with the tortillas and condiments.[/div class="excerpt"]

Maybe he would know this--unless he had never had fajitas before, and, yes, it is rare to order such a dish without prior knowledge, since usually one would have been encouraged to order it by a knowledgeable companion that first time, and said companion would issue the common "Careful, that's hot!" warning.

It is also possible that the server issued a warning, as well. Almost always any unusually hot dish is served with such a warning, and it might be the case that there was evidence that this man was warned, and that is what swayed the judge.

However, unless such a warning was issued by the server, I think the man might have had a reasonable case, since any approach to the dish or the food could have caused injury. I have never eaten fajitas, so until reading that Wikipedia passage above, I had no idea fajitas were served *that* hot. I don't pray, but if I am eating out with someone, I am focused on conversation and could easily touch or taste my food without realizing that it is much hotter than food I normally eat. I would hope for a warning from either the server or my companion before digging in to an unfamiliar dish that is so much hotter than I expect and that has hot grease popping up above the plate!

I am reminded of that poor woman who suffered such severe burns from overheated McDonald's coffe that she required plastic surgery on her nether parts. People sneer at that lawsuit, but McD's had been warned that it was too hot, and since she was in the drive-through, placing the cup between her knees as she did was, though perhaps unwise, a move that is common enough to be predictable.

As Wella says, a child, a distracted person, or someone unfamiliar with how fajitas are often served in restaurants is genuinely (and *predictably*) at risk of popping hot grease droplets from such a dish, so it should always come with a warning by the server. If this man was warned, then I can understand the judgment. And as an atheist I find the physical posture of praying *so* close to one's plate absurd. But I have beloved and elderly religious relatives. I could imagine one of them leaning a bowed head to pray over a meal this way without realizing the danger, unless they had been warned.

If the case (and thus the judge) was in a region where *everyone* is assumed to be fajita familiar, then I could see that assumption influencing the conclusion that he should have known better. But since people don't always eat food they are familiar with in restaurants, I do think superheated food should come with a warning, *especially* if they hot parts are not guaranteed to stay on the plate until the diner uses a utensil to lift them to his face!