Sarah Katz, 21, had a heart condition and was not aware of the drink’s caffeine content, which exceeded that of cans of Red Bull and Monster energy drinks combined, according to a legal filing
Sarah Katz, 21, had a heart condition and was not aware of the drink’s caffeine content, which exceeded that of cans of Red Bull and Monster energy drinks combined, according to a legal filing
Charged could represent electrolytes. Naming schemes can be nonsensical sometimes. What is the “extreme” in extreme burrito? Would that also be caffeine? Or more cheese, a different type of cheese? Some other ingredient? What about chocolate delight? Is delight an ingredient? Is there an ingredient that specifically makes the “delight” part? Sometimes naming schemes are about the process used to create it rather than what is in the food itself; see Triscuit
Someone with food restrictions absolutely has some due diligence on their plate, but calling out a name to divulge or suggest a specific ingredient (when the ingredients name iself is not used) is a hindsight “obviously that’s what it means” take.
Bugles is another great example where I do not expect instruments in my food. But there is the sweet sweet music of the crunch
It’s a bullshit lawsuit, there are signs in front of the lemonade which clearly say “contains as much caffeine as our dark roast coffee” also it’s in all their in store advertising of the product. These parents just want someone to blame, that’s it.
honestly the statement “contains as much caffeine as our dark roast coffee” is misleading since that would be comparing an 8oz coffee to 8oz of lemonade. if you drink the coffee you’re most likely getting a cup that is 8-16oz. however the standard soft drink size is 20-30oz which would mean one cup is basically your daily serving of caffeine.
if i saw the sign saying “same strength as our coffee” i would assume it’s one cup of coffee is equal to one cup of lemonade. who would only fill their cups half way? it’s insane to sell one cup that is almost 100% the daily value while it’s known bad side effects can happen after 400mg.
That cup is the largest available. I think other large coffee beverages might be in a similar quantity. There are smaller cups and sizes you can order.
The root of everything here is that hidden heart condition. Isn’t there a way we can make screening for it more common or mandatory?
Panera sells their coffee is a 16 and 20 fl oz sizes, not 8-16. For the dark roast coffee in a 20, it has 268 mg of caffeine.
They sell the charged lemonades in 20 and 30 do oz sizes. The 20 size generally has 260 mg of caffeine, slightly less than an identical volume of coffee, with the exception of the drive-through servings which is even lower due to ice.
What reasonable person would not consider a nearly identical caffeine per volume to be a fair interpretation of “contains as much caffeine as our dark roast coffee” when both can be ordered in the same 20 ounce size?
Source
And there’s pictures going around of stores where those signs are missing.
I’m defending Panera in a lot of my replies here, but it’s because we don’t know if it’s a bullshit lawsuit. All we know is that the OP article is bullshit and I caught it in a lie.
Ok well even if somehow this particular Panera was devoid of any information about the lemonade, which let’s be honest that is going to be hard enough to prove since the person who was there that day is dead. That doesn’t negate the fact that if you have some kind of health problem associated with certain foods, in this case caffeine, then you should be checking every ingredient of anything you eat especially from a restaurant. If you are buying a product called “charged lemonade” you shouldn’t just expect its going to be standard fare when you had no hand in making the product. Literally anyone with a food allergy deals with this shit on a daily basis, and the only time the restaurant should be to blame is if you specifically asked if said ingredient was in the food and they lie or forget to omit it from the dish.
Sure. I bet there are witnesses who would say one way or the other, but you’re mostly right.
In fairness, that’s not realistic. If I order a lobster and it has lobster in it, that’s on me. If I order french fries and they secretly infuse it with lobster without advertising it, then it’s on me.
The argument many people are making is that Lemonade “doesn’t have caffeine in it”. And she wasn’t restricted and unable to consume caffeine, she was restricted from large quantities (enough that some folks aren’t sure she even died from the drink, but that’s another discussion). Expecting a random beverage to have coffee-level caffeine with NO notice is definitely unreasonable.
As many have said, “charged” is often used to refer to electrolytes. I mean, look at this.. The word "charged "alone really is not enough, just like the word “house special” added before fries doesn’t mean I should expect there might be lobster in them.
Except still happens, and if I did my due diligence, the restaurant is usually responsible. That’s why they have nutritional-content menus and a well-trained restaurant worker takes you VERY seriously if you mention a food allergy. The issue is that sometimes it shouldn’t be on you to mention food allergies. I like lobster allergies as an example. Should I immediately say “I have a lobster allergy” when I walk into an Ice Cream Parlor? Is it my fault if I have an allergic reaction to lobster when I order the Chocolate Chunky Monkey?
It did have a notice, they are advertised as having caffeine. So one of two things is going on here: either she just didn’t think it was going to harm her, or she was completely oblivious to all the marketing for it. There is really no proof that the lemonade is what killed her; this is just her parents wanting someone to blame. Unless they can prove without a doubt there was negligence on Panera’s part and that it led to their daughter’s death, then this lawsuit is frivolous.
Or three, there’s more to the case than was reported to us. If the marketing was missing (some stores it is) she might have a case. The article makes no mention of that.
You don’t need to look for “proof” in civil cases. If the lemonade is more likely than not to have killed her, that’s enough. And I think any good lawyer can push a case like this across that bar for a typical jury.
Maybe. We don’t know all the details. I’m the one arguing in favor of Panera in most comments, but I’m really arguing in favor of common sense and not inventing a clear win for either side off a small article that was lying to us.
That’s not how the law works. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a criminal standard. “Preponderance of evidence” is the civil standard, and it’s a low bar. Honestly, if we ignore all other evidence and only point out other reasonable people in this thread who were confused about the caffeinated nature of this beverage, we would have it.
So if it hit court (it won’t), Panera would likely show evidence of its marketing. The girl’s parents would perhaps show evidence the marketing collateral was placed wrong or (from the article) suggest they were misleading with the “Dark Coffee” claim in the way quoted. There’s several tactics they could take, honestly.
I would say this lawsuit is a lot of things, but frivolous isn’t one of them. It’s not intended to harass or delay. It’s intended to win.
Tbh, that’s what I assumed from the headline. Expected something like that “water” that accidentally included Hydrazine due to the woo-woo they did to make it special