Hi Forum, who do you think is responsible for the food?
I mean, if you eat at a restaurant, and their supplier decided to send in a batch of chicken contaminated with salmonella, the restaurant is still responsible for serving the food.
Does this extend to food delivery platforms?
Does it take five hours for your door dash guy to cycle to your place or something?
Whoever you can prove is responsible
I figure the Coroner is responsible.
The main word in your heading is IF.
Yes, it's a shower thought.
Was wondering what restaurant is “Ubenudash”
u mean restpubfastfcafhop
u mean gobbledygook
Ube(r)(Me)nu(log)(Door)dash for anyone curious
Who did you pay?
That's what I thought. But the delivery companies would be the same as Auspost in this scenario in the actual function, except the liability is not the same because they took the money.
Would they though? Common carriers aren't making the sale.
Common carriers aren't making the sale.
The person you pay is the person you are buying it from.
There is a food safety standards bureaucracy that would investigate in a case like this. If it was possible from the evidence still available, like someone had refrigerated a sample before it was thrown out, they would determine if it was the delivery process, the restaurant or the suppliers of the ingredients that was responsible. Here in SA it is the Food Safety and Regulation Branch of the Health Dept. I've called them myself on an issue, and they have acted. The issue was animal carcasses for human consumption being picked up and delivered to his store by the owner of a small business lying on the carpet in the boot of his SUV. Hardly hygeinic.
I tried to get similar action after a medical incident which the evidence suggested was due to a defective ingredient in a medical product. But it was harder to find someone who'd take a consumer complaint seriously enough to even investigate whether it had happened. That would have required the treating doctor to lodge a complaint, and what's in it for them.
I can't quite imagine the amount of work that would need to go into this. They would have to test everything in the process, provided they haven't deteriorated.
Interesting story on the medical product. It's probably easier than food to investigate, though, because they are well-packaged and hard to spoil. Probably need to track down the same batch to make a case.
Found out years later in regard to something else that the TGA (Therapeutic Goods Administration) offers the facility to report issues with medical products. But they weren't helpful. They'd record a member of the public's report of a problem, but not investigate it or give any helpful information on pursuing it elsewhere. The one organisation that fell over itself to be helpful as they could on that matter was the drug company itself. They genuinely wanted to know if they had a problem with their product.
The thing is that there's a small risk associated with all medical products and procedures. Like the colonoscopy I had, which results in about 1 in 2000 patients getting a punctured colon. If the risk a lot smaller than the benefit of the product its considered acceptable, and the product can be sold/used. Officially that product only killed 16 Australians. It helped a lot more. Restaurants aren't allowed to kill any of their customers.
The drug companies are probably trying to avoid class-action lawsuits by acting proactively. I guess the TGA is the same as FDA in this, in that it relies on the drug companies to tell them their products are safe, without further testing themselves, so their capacity to investigate would be going back to the drug company and say 'Hey, look into this and report back'.
I had no idea colonoscopy has risks that high. Would not have done it myself willy-nilly… I don't understand the lack of disclosure when it comes to western medicine in general, and it seems to be quite a risky undertake, the more I look into it. Funny thing is, I used to believe the ends justifies the means, throughout the years witnessing the issues of people who are in the tail end of the statistics, I have changed to believe that the means are ends.
Thanks for the info, it's very enlightening.
The local public health unit would usually start with the restaurant. At that point it wouldn’t be so much about liability as ensuring that others aren’t also poisoned. Salmonella can be fatal so they take it pretty seriously. They’ll go out and look and their processes, food storage, hygiene etc and sometimes will identify a source. If the public health unit identified the source the restaurant would most likely be fined and I’d imagine the effected party could sue the restaurant. Unlikely to be the delivery service.
If you ever have had Hainanese Chicken, you would know Salmonella is more or less an eventuality. It isn't a problem if you have in Hainan, because the chicken is probably killed in the morning by the restaurant, and everything has followed a certain tradition to ensure it's safe. The way it's cooked and prepared in restaurants here is inherently unsafe, even though it has followed all the safety procedures. And that, coupled with the time it takes for the delivery service to ship and drop off the food, in an ideal environment for the pathogens to party, I don't know if they can be off the hook.
It isn't a problem if you have in Hainan, because the chicken is probably killed in the morning by the restaurant, and everything has followed a certain tradition to ensure it's safe. The way it's cooked and prepared in restaurants here is inherently unsafe,
Written by someone who has never lived in Asia.
You should contact the restaurant, even if Uberdash technically buys the food off the restaurant and sells it to you.
Looking for a payday? 😁
No, the opportunity cost of being ill is high. Not to mention the stress associated with these kinds of scenarios just to get a dollar.
ultimately … liability (in a court of law) - would lay with the delivery platform.
As they are the ones who you initially engaged with.
Ubereats + doordash have an option - to contact them regarding poor food quality/food-temperatures/etc.
I guess … if you weren't happy with outcome of their investigation … then could pursue further.
there is a reason why in early 2000's … many many places stopped allowing you to ask for a "doggy bag" or providing a container for leftovers (I often remember - trying to smuggle leftover pieces of steak - wrapped up in serviettes - in my GF's or mum's handbag).
Restaurants were trying to minimise legal action - way back then.
But yeah - in OP's scenario above == delivery company.
They seem to have alot of $$$ to combat the small amount of complaints that they get.
If you are vocal … about poor delivery/food +++ sick … they seem quite quick to give to voucher/free for next purchase through them.
I guess … it would take someone to get hospitalised … before it were to get to legal/courts with these delivery companies.
[EDIT] … but then … If restaurant served up poisoned food to begin with …
Ubereats/Doordash could potentially start legal action against them (after state food authority cites them for a breach notice).
Chain of responsibility - and all that.
But OP's "contract" is with the delivery company - and should be first point of contact … it would only be after an investigation to prove exactly points of failure.
[EDIT] … but then … If restaurant served up poisoned food to begin with …
Ubereats/Doordash could potentially start legal action against them (after state food authority cites them for a breach notice).
Chain of responsibility - and all that.
hard to prove unless the restaurant has had previous complaints or actions against them for food safety violations. restaurants are inspected, chefs undergo food safety training. The training and paper trail would shit all over door dash or ubers uni student delivery people who have done a 1hr e-course in food safety (not fact, but I assume surely they need to?)
door dash or uber…..how can they confirm each and everyone of their delivery people are taking the proper care to ensure food is delivered in a safe to each fashion (pro tip; its impossible, soon as it leaves the restaurant, good luck buddy).
I bet (again not statement of fact), those delivery drivers have multiple apps on the go at the same time, maybe some even do multiple pickups and deliveries at the same time, how long is the last orders food sitting around getting nice and food poison(ey)
So the liability is with the contractual party, which is the food delivery platform. They then have the option to investigate the restaurant to recover their cost, and the restaurant can chase up their supply chain, etc and sort everything out amongst themselves. I imagine everyone would want to figure out what has gone wrong, in cases like this.
Did you wash your hands before eating?
and their supplier decided to send in a batch of chicken contaminated with salmonella
How can you prove they deliberately sent contaminated food?
The sentence you are misinterpreting says the supplier made a decision to send something. It doesn't say or imply that they knew what they were sending was contaminated when they decided to send it, only that it was.
says the supplier made a decision to send something
Read it again…
It's not about intention. If they had the intent to poison people, that's a whole different story and too dark for a weekend, I'm afraid.
But that is exactly what it say…
Salmonella can occur anywhere in the food chain at Farm Level, Processing Facilities, Distribution or at Retail/Restaurants and for multiple reasons dont assume its just the suppliers fault.
If You Are Poisoned by Food from Ubenudash - Who Is Responsible?
You, for playing Food Delivery Roulette.
Ipso fatso, start singing in the shower instead.
Nothing to do with delivery platforms, but a personal experience does show how investigations as to causes can go down all sorts of avenues.
I was working out in SW Qld for the Health Service District. The facility where I was based (though ttavelled through the whole district) had a few cases of gastro ? Food poisoning. Initially, all cases had had KFC, so they attributed the local KFC as the cause. Then cases were coming in that had not been to KFC. Then it appeared that the commonality was the bowls club. It was discovered that the delivery boy for the IGA had gone to the wrong door, could not get any attention, so just left the food delivery at the door. It can get pretty hot out there, so it was thought the likely cause. The delivery boy got the sack as well. I was away for a while so missed out on the trail for a while. However by the time I got back there had been so many more cases and no one central food source. That is when they started to look at the water supply. One of the water towers was found to have a long dead frog and the water tested +ve for the causative organism that the patients had tested +ve for. Source of the issue finally identified and appropriate action taken. Sadly, contaminated water was a common issue on the SW. Several other towns had issues in the year i was out there. I'm not sure why they didn't look at water much earlier, though many people in that town don't drink or cook with the water, so that was why I wasn't affected.
It was interesting watching the whole thing play out and the hospital was working on finding the cause. I'm not sure what the council and the health inspectors were doing.
That's pretty curious, thanks for sharing. I think the townspeople who didn't use the local water makes a very interesting documentary, I'd want to look into that if I were investigating.
Glad you weren't affected.
I'm not sure why they didn't look at water much earlier, though many people in that town don't drink or cook with the water, so that was why I wasn't affected.
If they didn't drink or cook with water, did they use Brawndo instead?
The person who ordered it, because they didn't go there and eat, or pick it up, and make suren it was food safe. ;)
are you talking about french fish?
No.
Standard practice in civil suits of this nature is to sue everybody and let them sort out where the responsibility lies. That means delivery service, the delivery driver, and the restaurant. If the restaurant employs subcontractors with their own ABNs, you sue them too (that's why the driver is on the list).
If you sue separately, or in a sequence, the burden of 'it wasn't me, it was the other guy' is much harder to deal with.
The responsibility isn't for 'the food' though, just like it isn't for a restaurant you eat in at. The responsibility is for 'the service'. If a restaurant serves you food that is contaminated, but on the balance of probability it wasn't something that could reasonably be picked up or prevented, then they aren't responsible - even if it was definitely and provably their food that made you sick. You would need to identify something about what they did to establish liability - unsafe prep, unsafe storage, recklessness with suppliers, etc. This idea people have that there is an absolute liability in food service is just not true. There's a very short list of things where that is the case. For example, there were a bunch of hepatitis cases where filthy countries fertilised their fruit with human poo. The restaurants and supermarkets that supplied the end users weren't held liable - the importer was.
The biggest issue though is pretty much zero delivery drivers using the insulation bag like they're supposed to, or even if they are using it they leave the top loose so they can go faster. So my money would be the restaurant being off the hook, then Uber and the other scum trying and failing to throw the rider under the bus for it.
I didn't realise you have to sue the entire chain altogether, just assumed that would take care of itself like a domino, once the contractual party are aware of them being sued.
I recall a hepatitis wave a couple of years back in a nearby rural town, and my neighbours were telling me not to go anywhere near it. 'The whole town is infected!' That's what they told me lol Now that you mentioned it, I wonder if that's a food-related case.
Personally, I use the insulation bags, especially for pizzas. And for oversized pizzas that doesn't fit, I cover them with a sleep bag. However, I am seriously overqualified for the job, it's not something I do for a living, just to help me get to know a new area whenever I moved — easiest way to find cheap eats and posh/bogan areas. It is a sole trader business, and everyone is entitled to run it as they see fit. Doesn't work out that well in this country because it's not a tip-based service economy.
Never assume that the law follows logic, or that it makes it easier on anybody in any way - closest the law gets to something that's always true.
Where is the driver in this situation? I have seen tens and tens of certain driver pick their nose, pick their feet, toes, some even scratch their arse while waiting for an order. I don't see them wash their hands before handling food.
You'd have a lot of trouble proving it, even if that's the case. That's why your food comes in a stapled/taped bag. For drinks in a holder without any bags though, good luck :P
I guess best option is still drive or walk to your favourite shop.
They don't handle food, they handle carry bags.
It good you believe that
You are responsible.
This is OzBargain, and cooking at home is the Bargain!
Not for everyone, and depends on how good you are at substitution. If you aren't experienced or happy to cook a whole batch at a time, you aren't really saving much, considering the time it takes to shop, prep and cleaning up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhYfKdpvaR0
The rule of comparative advantage says you should pay someone else to do it and spend the time to do what you are good at to finance that. You don't build wealth by saving; you do it by making. It's a popular misconception on this site.
oh no
the restpufascahop is the first point if call u mean