 Food allergies are a growing public health concern in Canada, affecting over 1.3 million Canadians. As there is no cure for food allergies, these individuals must avoid the foods they are allergic to in order to stay safe and prevent a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction (anaphylaxis). Food allergic consumers and those who care for them, look to the restaurant and foodservice industry for support—both when dining out and purchasing food products. In July 2011, a precedent setting ruling was made in Saskatchewan, creating significant implications for the Canadian restaurant and foodservice industry. A judge ruled that a local hotel restaurant owner and a server were liable after an American tourist suffered a severe anaphylactic reaction in 2006. The judge also ordered the restaurant to pay $25,000 in damages. Brian Martin was on a hunting trip in Melfort, Sask., when he stopped for lunch at a local restaurant. He told the server that he was allergic to nuts and asked if there were any nuts in the cheesecake he planned to order. The server told him there weren’t any nuts in that dessert and served it to him. After the first bite, Martin knew there were walnuts in the cake. He rushed to the local hospital, where he went into anaphylactic shock. Fortunately, Martin recovered from the incident after receiving medical treatment. Duty of care The judge found that the server and the restaurant were responsible to provide ‘a duty of care’ when serving a customer who identified himself with food allergies, but failed to do so. The ruling* stated: “The standard of care for (the server) was to ascertain that the cheesecake did not contain nuts, something that Mr. Martin would have done himself if he had been acquiring the cheesecake directly.” It further indicated that, “Determining whether the cheesecake contained nuts would have been an easy task. (The server) could have asked the head cook at the restaurant, or she could have read the ingredients listed on the packaging.” As such the judge ruled that the server breached the standard of care and that the anaphylactic reaction was caused because of it. |
