[Germanauto]

Your first mistake was eating at a low quality establishment like Panda.

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

[infinitekidM2C]

they should have insurance for stuff like this so i'm surprised they're playing hard ball.

id write a letter explaining the situation in detail, providing medical bills, and then explaining you will file a lawsuit if not recompensed for $x

doesnt sound like ur trying to sue on some BS but get the bills paid for which is only reasonable

[Mingwan]

Yeah man, I think you’re sol.

Pics of wife or it didn’t happen.

[Sea-Tac]

Don't bother with Panda any further. Go thru small claims. Jurisdiction would be the county seat of the city where damage occurred. Check county court system web sites for instructions on filing, service of process, etc. Pretty simple to do.

[NemesisX]

Originally Posted by infinitekidM2C

they should have insurance for stuff like this so i'm surprised they're playing hard ball.

id write a letter explaining the situation in detail, providing medical bills, and then explaining you will file a lawsuit if not recompensed for $x

doesnt sound like ur trying to sue on some BS but get the bills paid for which is only reasonable

I don't think it's reasonable at all to ask Panda Express to pay for the $1300. It's absurd.

I don't know how to assess the legality of the situation; it's way outside of my field. I just think from a moral and fairness standpoint it's absurd to ask Panda Express to pay for the OP's wife's tooth repair.

[UncleWede]

<soap box>
This is a sad symptom of the frivolous lawsuit mentality of today's society. Look around even this board, and you will find people asking things similar to "How can I fake my insurance into paying for when I faqed up my rims" , etc. So, to maintain a business, business has to play hardball and weed out those who would bilk them. $1300 to a large business should be petty cash. But multiply that by 100s of similar BS claims and pretty soon it is a significant business expense that needs to be minimized.
</soap box>

OP, sorry for your wife's suffering/pain. With $300 from them, plus dental insurance coverage of the crown, aren't you about whole? Consider the value of your time chasing this around. . .

[SakhirM4]

Originally Posted by Tfscypress

She got $10million, and forever change the coffee cup and coffee sleeve industry!

That is not correct. She ended up getting less than $600k in an out of court settlement.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebec...7s_Restaurants

The case is considered by some to be an example of frivolous litigation.[4] ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits".[5] Jonathan Turley called the case "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit".[6] McDonald's asserts that the outcome of the case was a fluke, and attributed the loss to poor communications and strategy by an unfamiliar insurer representing a franchise. Liebeck's attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defended the result in Liebeck by claiming that McDonald's reduced the temperature of its coffee after the suit, although in fact it did not.

A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994.[17] Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.[2] The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[

[catcher22]

Originally Posted by anglo

OP: We want $1 million.

Panda Express HQ: $300 is the best i can do.

[King Rudi]

Originally Posted by catcher22

Well, it is used and the market for kidney's isn't what it used to be. He's going to be left trying to sell this to a very small, select market and it's going to sit on his shelf for a while. He probably called a buddy of his down to take a look at it so he's know what he was talking about.

[infinitekidM2C]

Originally Posted by NemesisX

I don't think it's reasonable at all to ask Panda Express to pay for the $1300. It's absurd.

I don't know how to assess the legality of the situation; it's way outside of my field. I just think from a moral and fairness standpoint it's absurd to ask Panda Express to pay for the OP's wife's tooth repair.

Well if their negligence caused something foreign to be in her food, then it's their fault. It's part of a business risk when you sell food. I mean if she chomped on her fork or something that's on her.

[xander_g]

Originally Posted by SakhirM4

That is not correct. She ended up getting less than $600k in an out of court settlement.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebec...7s_Restaurants

The case is considered by some to be an example of frivolous litigation.[4] ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits".[5] Jonathan Turley called the case "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit".[6] McDonald's asserts that the outcome of the case was a fluke, and attributed the loss to poor communications and strategy by an unfamiliar insurer representing a franchise. Liebeck's attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defended the result in Liebeck by claiming that McDonald's reduced the temperature of its coffee after the suit, although in fact it did not.

A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994.[17] Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.[2] The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[

Originally, all she wanted were her medical bills paid. BTW have any of you seen actual photos of the injuries? Have a look, they're available online.

[xander_g]

Originally Posted by Honda

Hi Everyone,

Looking for some advice on how to handle this case. Back in June 15, 2018 my wife was eating chow mein at Panda Express and chew something very solid that was inside food which broke one of the molar tooth.

I called Panda Express HQ in California and they asked me to provide dental records, x-rays picture of tooth broken and what I am looking for. Long story short, I provided all what they asked for and just asked them for cost of breaking the tooth which needed a crown for ~1300 dollars. The case took more than two months and it was extremely frustrating just trying to follow up as they don't seem want to solve the problem. Then last week I got call from Risk Management department asking for the piece that was in the food that broke the tooth. I didn't have that piece as it was left at the store and I have told them that in the beginning when I opened the case.

One day later (last week) they called me and told me that store manager didn't have the foreign object and "does not recognize" this incident at his store so they wont proceed with claim and offered me (to make customer happy from what he calls) a check of $300. Of course I refused and asked for full payment for my wife's crown repair. They told me you have 1 week to think about it and they cannot do anything more than that.


I am not sure how to proceed now whether to fight it more or not. Do I stand any chance of winning this further or should I accept $300 and swallow the rest of the costs?

Seek legal advice. In your case, the damages are too low for a lawyer to take on. Most practitioners in the personal injury field work for a percentage of the settlement plus disbursements but I am sure there are law students/newly minted lawyers that work in legal clinics that would be willing to take this on pro-bono.

In the end, only you can tell whether it's worth the time and effort - if your dental insurance will cover the crown, take the 300 and take your wife to a nicer restaurant.


In the future: when it comes to the law, if it's not on paper or if there is no record of something - it's like it never happened. If faced with a similar situation - take photographs, obtain witness names, contact info and statements, keep receipts, invoices, etc.

[King Rudi]

Originally Posted by xander_g

Originally, all she wanted were her medical bills paid. BTW have any of you seen actual photos of the injuries? Have a look, they're available online.

Whoah!!! Bless her!!!! Yowza!

[DETRoadster]

Originally Posted by infinitekidM2C

Well if their negligence caused something foreign to be in her food, then it's their fault. It's part of a business risk when you sell food. I mean if she chomped on her fork or something that's on her.

Prove she didn't chomp down on her fork. I'm sure the OP is telling the truth but look at it from Panda Express' point of view. Also, let's say the rock (or whatever it was) was in the rice. You think Panda Express is in control of their supplychain right up to the rice patty? Sourcing rice exclusively from Panda Express owned farms? I doubt it. They are just cooking up someone else's rice that they buy tons of. Isn't the rice supplier ultimately responsible in this frivolous case?

I would imagine the OP would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Panda Express was negligent in their duties to protect the customer by, what, inspecting every ingredient, every meal, with a microscope? A little rock got through in the rice. Happens all the time. Sucks but that's life. if you eat out at restaurants you will eventually get a rock or a bug in your food. You'll eventually get food poisoning. It's just how the world spins.

[infinitekidM2C]

Originally Posted by DETRoadster

Prove she didn't chomp down on her fork. I'm sure the OP is telling the truth but look at it from Panda Express' point of view. Also, let's say the rock (or whatever it was) was in the rice. You think Panda Express is in control of their supplychain right up to the rice patty? Sourcing rice exclusively from Panda Express owned farms? I doubt it. They are just cooking up someone else's rice that they buy tons of. Isn't the rice supplier ultimately responsible in this frivolous case?

I would imagine the OP would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Panda Express was negligent in their duties to protect the customer by, what, inspecting every ingredient, every meal, with a microscope? A little rock got through in the rice. Happens all the time. Sucks but that's life. if you eat out at restaurants you will eventually get a rock or a bug in your food. You'll eventually get food poisoning. It's just how the world spins.

beyond a reasonable doubt is for criminal cases, just needs to prove by a proponderance of the evidence. when preparing the food they have to inspect the food reasonably. let's agree to disagree. i agree that at this point it is a he said she said, so if it was in court at trial (lol) she'd have a tougher time. Guess what, i'm just asking her to write a letter and rely on some good ol' customer service.

[jgoens]

Just to put a perspective here, being in the restaurant industry, and I am by no means saying the OP is at fault for anything here. But here it goes: people make up stories and plant things all the time.

Two days ago guy sends back a dressed salad with a large moth on the side of the plate. Salad and meal were comped, yet the odd thing was is that the insect was completely dry while the salad was coated with dressing.

Upon finishing, the other customer with him gives a plate to the server with a hair on the side of the plate. Customer did not say anything and that meal was not comped, however, it seems odd when two items are found at the same table. Foreign objects appear in 1 in many thousands of plates. It happens.

Once again, I have no judgement on the case in this thread or what should happen, just stating on the other side we like to have evidence in a world of scammers.

[xander_g]

Originally Posted by DETRoadster

Prove she didn't chomp down on her fork. I'm sure the OP is telling the truth but look at it from Panda Express' point of view. Also, let's say the rock (or whatever it was) was in the rice. You think Panda Express is in control of their supplychain right up to the rice patty? Sourcing rice exclusively from Panda Express owned farms? I doubt it. They are just cooking up someone else's rice that they buy tons of. Isn't the rice supplier ultimately responsible in this frivolous case?

I would imagine the OP would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Panda Express was negligent in their duties to protect the customer by, what, inspecting every ingredient, every meal, with a microscope? A little rock got through in the rice. Happens all the time. Sucks but that's life. if you eat out at restaurants you will eventually get a rock or a bug in your food. You'll eventually get food poisoning. It's just how the world spins.

Reasonable doubt - criminal
Balance of probabilities - civil (more likely than not, so out of 10 people, 6 need to say yes)

The issue here will be, has panda express taken all the reasonable and necessary steps to ensure that no harm comes to their patrons via the food they serve(in this case), if she fell on the property it would go a little differently.

For something like a foreign object in a food item, cases like this are settled at the adjuster level with a little bit of pressure and pestering. As long as your paperwork is in order and your representative knows how to talk to insurance company reps, you can get some "fuck off" money in the ballpark of 3-5k.

[xander_g]

Originally Posted by jgoens

Just to put a perspective here, being in the restaurant industry, and I am by no means saying the OP is at fault for anything here. But here it goes: people make up stories and plant things all the time.

Two days ago guy sends back a dressed salad with a large moth on the side of the plate. Salad and meal were comped, yet the odd thing was is that the insect was completely dry while the salad was coated with dressing.

Upon finishing, the other customer with him gives a plate to the server with a hair on the side of the plate. Customer did not say anything and that meal was not comped, however, it seems odd when two items are found at the same table. Foreign objects appear in 1 in many thousands of plates. It happens.

Once again, I have no judgement on the case in this thread or what should happen, just stating on the other side we like to have evidence in a world of scammers.

Very good point, usually the point of saving the foreign object to preserve for evidence purposes is motivated by the need to do a chem/bio analysis to determine that the foreign object was in fact part of the food served and was not "added" later.

The problem lies with the fact that it's costly and often outweighs the compensation being sought. Even in a case where damages are substantial, it is still a risky proposal since the lawyer will likely be working for a percentage of the settlement and will have to invest his/her own resources to get this evidence(which can go either way) so you could spend 2-3k on a report that will say that their client is full of shit.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by Tfscypress

She got $10million, and forever change the coffee cup and coffee sleeve industry!

No she didn’t and no it didn’t. It is still served just as hot in cups that are just as easy to spill on yourself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieb...7s_Restaurants

[minn19]

Originally Posted by SakhirM4

That is not correct. She ended up getting less than $600k in an out of court settlement.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebec...7s_Restaurants

The case is considered by some to be an example of frivolous litigation.[4] ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits".[5] Jonathan Turley called the case "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit".[6] McDonald's asserts that the outcome of the case was a fluke, and attributed the loss to poor communications and strategy by an unfamiliar insurer representing a franchise. Liebeck's attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defended the result in Liebeck by claiming that McDonald's reduced the temperature of its coffee after the suit, although in fact it did not.

A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994.[17] Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.[2] The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[

You beat me to it, sorry for the repost and good info by the way!

[minn19]

Originally Posted by SakhirM4

See my post #31

I just responded and saw it. That’ll learn me to read all the way through a thread.

It’s amazing how this myth has persisted forever.