You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #26: Because she's a food server, not an attorney [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Because she's a food server, not an attorney
Come on now...think about what you're saying. This is policy set way higher up in the "food chain" (pun intended), and a mere server simply isn't going to be making those kinds of decisions. Besides, do you think she just happened to have some legally-binding releases laying around? Write 'em on a napkin, perhaps? Not to mention dealing with the other customers who are waiting for their tables -- "It will be just a moment while we review the liability agreement." Mmmm. Just what the people want to hear before sitting to eat.

You're correct about what the point is/may be, but it isn't realistic to expect it to be carried out by a probably-less-than-minimum-wage hostess or server.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Dedham, Mass. restaurant "Bamboo" demands a doctor's note for kid with allergies IanDB1  Mar-15-07 07:08 AM   #0 
  - That's Cheap  Crisco   Mar-15-07 07:14 AM   #1 
  - I disagree. Restaurants should absorb their losses on...  Eric J in MN   Mar-15-07 07:19 AM   #2 
  - The kid is 2 years old for God sakes...  trumad   Mar-15-07 07:22 AM   #3 
  - Most buffets don't charge for kids under two. n/t  IanDB1   Mar-15-07 07:27 AM   #7 
     - Most Does Not Equal All  Crisco   Mar-15-07 07:32 AM   #9 
        - I believe it as much a liability issue as anything else.  Atman   Mar-15-07 08:04 AM   #14 
        - I think the likelihood is greater that the restaurant might inadvertantly  pnwmom   Mar-15-07 09:06 AM   #19 
        - I Did Some Looking Up On the Restaurant In Question  Crisco   Mar-15-07 09:24 AM   #25 
           - We used to bring our kids to brunch all the time  Atman   Mar-15-07 09:28 AM   #27 
           - We Weren't Brought to Restaurants til We Hit a Certain Age  Crisco   Mar-15-07 09:41 AM   #28 
           - We took our children from the beginning, and made sure they were  pnwmom   Mar-15-07 04:41 PM   #38 
           - People have lots of reasons for travelling with small children, and  pnwmom   Mar-15-07 04:37 PM   #37 
           - Not a good place for children? Indeed not. n/t  lumberjack_jeff   Mar-15-07 09:52 AM   #32 
           - Of course it's the kind of place people can bring 2 year olds.  pnwmom   Mar-15-07 04:35 PM   #36 
        - You're Right  Crisco   Mar-15-07 09:12 AM   #22 
           - Then why didn't she just ask the people to sign a note saying that  pnwmom   Mar-15-07 09:19 AM   #24 
              - Because she's a food server, not an attorney  Atman   Mar-15-07 09:25 AM   #26 
                 - I don't see how a doctor's note about the child's allergy will  pnwmom   Mar-15-07 09:42 AM   #29 
                    - You Shouldn't, But  Crisco   Mar-15-07 09:48 AM   #30 
                       - That note wouldn't prove the child didn't eat restaurant-prepared food.  pnwmom   Mar-15-07 03:44 PM   #33 
                          - It Would Be Evidence, Nonetheless  Crisco   Mar-15-07 04:14 PM   #34 
                             - Much better than that would be a note signed by the parent saying that  pnwmom   Mar-15-07 04:26 PM   #35 
        - I would think that the restaurant should be HAPPY that they don't  pnwmom   Mar-15-07 09:05 AM   #18 
  - Yes, either be prepapred to risk your kid's life, or else lock him in the basement.  IanDB1   Mar-15-07 07:25 AM   #5 
  - Wow, Funny  Crisco   Mar-15-07 07:38 AM   #10 
     - True. The parents don't deserve to have normal lives, either.  IanDB1   Mar-15-07 07:44 AM   #12 
        - Funnier, Still  Crisco   Mar-15-07 07:55 AM   #13 
  - Are you kidding? Most restaurants wouldn't even have charged a  pnwmom   Mar-15-07 09:03 AM   #17 
  - Good idea. Leave the 2 year old home. Parent much? n/t  lumberjack_jeff   Mar-15-07 09:50 AM   #31 
  - Two points.  Eugene   Mar-15-07 07:23 AM   #4 
  - The kid should have a medic-alert bracelet anyway.  IanDB1   Mar-15-07 07:26 AM   #6 
  - We have food allergies in our family and I've never had a restaurant  pnwmom   Mar-15-07 09:09 AM   #20 
  - Sounds to me like they just didn't want you there. Their loss, IMHO.  dicksteele   Mar-15-07 07:27 AM   #8 
  - They needed proof a 2-year-old couldn't eat the food?  gollygee   Mar-15-07 07:41 AM   #11 
  - Exactly. Would this restaurant kick out every 2 year old with  pnwmom   Mar-15-07 09:10 AM   #21 
  - In another post they said there were 2 two-year olds and  HopeLives   Mar-15-07 08:16 AM   #15 
  - Probably there were 2 couples. And maybe there are two different  pnwmom   Mar-15-07 09:14 AM   #23 
  - The "bad blood" began with the disagreement over the opening time.  WinkyDink   Mar-15-07 08:30 AM   #16 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC