Who do you think would win the lawsuit and why ?

Question

After a chocking incident ending with death of drunk customer at a restaurant the the attorney claims that the restaurant did not exercise reasonable care to save the customer.It is claimed that not only the manager have used the "Heimlich" maneuver on the customer, but the restaurant's staff knew that the customer had ordered chicken so the manager should have looked into the decedent's mouth to make sure throat was lodged in his throat. Plus consider managers attempt to save the victim during the incident while the doctor continued eating his food unconcerned by the health of his patient.

Answer 1

To win this lawsuit, the plaintiff would have to prove that the restaurant owed the deceased some duty that was breached, which led to the death.

I don't think restaurants have any duty to know the Heimlich Maneuver. The fact that they knew he ordered chicken is irrelevant. Almost everyone in the place ordered something, and they were given knives to cut it into small enough pieces to eat safely.

Even if you could prove the restaurant did have a duty to know the Heimlich Maneuver, you'd never prove that he'd have survived had it been used on him.

Answer 2

The plaintiff should win. I am a paralegal and first of all, the deceased was exposed to pain and suffering. Regardless how much the manager tried to save the customer, the manager's attempts were unsuccessful in saving the deceased. On the other hand, a blood alcohol content level should be done to see how drunk this man really was. The plaintiff could argue that because this man ate at the restaraunt where he died, the final act of eating a chicken, which caused his death from the restaraunt, would make the food chain responsible. The defense could argue that the circumstances of the man being drunk caused his death, but we do not know this till a result from blood work is finished.

Now I have a question for you: If an intruder breaks into someone's house and is shot to death, is the homeowner guilty of murder?

Answer 3

This is probably going to depend on how drunk, if he/she was served the alcohal at the restarant, and whether the server had stopped serving alcohol to the cusotmer. If the restaraunt was continuing to serve the customer after he was clearly intoxicated they will likely find themselves in at least some part liable. In terms of whether they should have used the Hiemilch, or that a doctor was there is not the issue that would result in damages (otherwise every restaruant that served food would be in danger of such of suit and it would be an unreasonable burden to place on the restarant). Unless the state had a good samaritan law, I don't believe the doctor was required to act.

Answer 4

Well if administering CPR on a chocking victim. One of the first steps is to check the airway, then clear the airway with the finger sweep move if possible(regardless of what he had to eat), then proceed with the Heimlich