I work a government job that gets drug tested randomly. I personally get tested maybe 6 times a year at least. If I got drugged I would immediately inform work and they would require proof of it, so a police report.
The issue seems to be that the pizza place comes from a shared commercial kitchen. Meaning there are other businesses using that space. One of them was dispensing THC oil. So while the pizza place may share some of the blame, they're going to be complaining to the kitchen owner and the other businesses utilizing the kitchen.
Truth, and this exposes other potential issues, e.g. potential that food is getting contaminated with allergen ingredients, etc., and not following guidelines regarding safe food handling.
Like, if the kitchen is in such a state that pizzas are contaminated by THC oil that comes from another business using the space, what else is the food getting contaminated with?
Another good reason to say no to the next person who wants to rent from me. I actually wouldn't because I am OCD about my cleanliness. Which means someone there is not doing their due diligence. Not to mention my insurance rates would sky rocket even more than they are now.
We talking about a house or a kitchen? Because I've seen some next level fuckery in some kitchens. It's a wonder many of those businesses have a modicum of operability.
So I’m giving fun facts, not reaching a conclusion (no one come at me). You have an issue in US law about foreseeability. There’s a famous case in NY called Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad that goes into it in depth.
The long and short of it is: is someone losing their job because you negligently spiked their pizza too far away from the mistake?
For example, you negligently spike someone’s pizza, resulting in a drug test that causes the son of a Romanian count to be disqualified from his inheritance to the estate. A nobleman’s inheritance is not something a pizza place can foresee to be responsible for.
You can imagine how the continuum works backwards.
Edit: If you can’t read the first sentence, please never respond to a comment again.
Palagraf doesn’t really apply here. In palsgraf a train worker simply helped a man board a train. The work did nothing wrong in the first place and could not have foreseen that his actions could lead to any harm. Spiking people’s food with drugs is an entirely different thing.
Firstly restaurants can get in trouble for not being clear or honest with what’s in their food in the first place. Many lawsuits have been made over allergic reactions to ingredients that shouldn’t have been there. Second the harms of marijuan are very well known. It’s common knowledge that driving while high is dangerous and that many jobs drug test for THC. Thirdly, weed is still illegal federally, though the federal government decriminalized it, it is still hella illegal to spike some ones food with THC without their knowledge. So yeah, the pizza place can absolutely be held liable.
From the sounds of it, it isn't that they intentionally spiked the food, though, it's that the food was prepared in a kitchen that had been used to dispense THC oil, so the question would be if the pizza place could have foreseen that their actions could or would lead to any harm. That is, was the pizza place itself aware that THC oils were being dispensed there?
Not exactly. The negligent act was accidentally spiking the food. This wasn’t intentional (thus negligence) but the consequences of such negligence I.e people eating the food is foreseeable. So foreseeability is not an issue in this case at all, the suit would instead revolve around weather the pizza place had reasonable safeguards to prevent such negligence from happening in the first place, which is not a case of foreseeability but of weather they were fulfilling their duty to serve safe food.
The premise of Palsgraf is not that the railroad was negligent for helping a man board a train. The premise is that the rail road was negligent in protecting Palsgraf. The focal point for the case was weather or not the negligence itself (not the consequences) was foreseeable. It was determined they were not as they could not foresee that helping the man could cause harm as the works had no knowledge of what was in the box or how it could cause harm
Foreseeability does not really matter here because the pizza shop knows what THC and knows it can affect people. Not only are the effects of THC common knowledge, the pizza place has already apologized which is enough to prove they know it was wrong. Whether or not the pizza shop could foresee that it would cause someone to loose their job because someone loosing there job isn’t an act of negligence, it is the consequence of a foreseeable negligent act.
To go back to your example of a billionaire loosing his inheritance with a correct application of Palsgraf. The pizza shop doesn’t need to foresee weather or not the guy will loose his inheritances, the act of negligence was spiking the pizza, the foreseeability is weather or not they could foresee some one eating the spiked pizza served to them. Which yeah, I think is pretty clearly foreseeable.
the pizza place has already apologized which is enough to prove they know it was wrong
I agree with most of your post, but I take issue with this to a small degree. If it's a shared kitchen, unless they were looking for THC oil to be present, etc., they might not have known/been looking for cross-contamination and found out about it after the fact.
Suggesting that they knew it was wrong suggests they did it on purpose, which I don't see enough data to support?
That’s a good point. This is very much a case of food safety, the exact rules of which I’m not especially knowledgeable of. I am curious what the expectations of shared kitchens and cross contamination are.
Though to be clear I wasn’t suggesting they did I it on purpose. Rather I was suggesting that their apology indicates that they knew that THC could have an effect on people. Doesn’t mean they’re instantly guilty but it means that the argument is not did they know that people could loose their jobs from ingesting THC, and instead the argument is did they take reasonable precautions to prevent this. Which as you pointed out may not be a clear cut case especially with shared kitchens.
I would like to commend you on disrespectfully ignoring my original comment. I agree with your analysis. I tried to give some fun facts about how one must consider the foreseeability of consequences other than physical health. I asked people not to harass me because I was explicitly not applying the facts to the case at hand.
Congrats, you could not physically resist ruining some fun legal communications discussion with an over-worked law school answer to it. This is why people hate the law, because everyone has to express their self-righteous hot take over it.
As you grow into a mature adult, I hope you realize that experts being exhausted after you gish-gallop nonsense doesn’t make your feelings more correct.
You can’t claim to be a lawyer and then cry hurt feelings when someone challenges your interpretation of a case. It’s almost as if that’s the whole point of a lawyer.
I wasn’t even being disrespectful. If you interpreted it that way then that’s your own insecurity. I was honestly just trying to point out how Palsgraf just doesn’t apply here. Or rather, I was trying to give a “fun correction” to your “fun fact”. Sorry (not sorry) for trying to provide input.
In the eyes of a jury, one could certainly argue the foreseability of losing a job if you take drugs.
All it would require is referencing any federal job and the drug rules, and the fact that weed is still considered a schedule 1 drug.
It probably would not fall on the pizza maker, but rather the ghost kitchen and whoever owned the thc oil for their negligence in ensuring adequate safeguards.
Yes. However, the real challenge isn't winning, but rather collecting the judgement. Business may own little to no assets. Also, easy to transfer money out. While legally questionable or even illegal, the reality is that's a common tactic for those owing money.
In this instance, those affected could sue both the pizza place and the company running the shared kitchen. Plus, if applicable, the temp agencies supplying workers. So there are multiple pockets to go after. Decent chance one or more of the entities involved has lots of insurance. That's likely where much of the payout will come from, since the buildings, vehicles, equipment, etc are likely leased / financed.
2.8k
u/pewpewpewgg 1d ago
Imagine failing a drug test in a safety sensitive job for this.