Family sues Japanese (Benihana chain) restaurant for tossing shrimp

MINEOLA, N.Y. A New York family has filed a ten (M) million-dollar lawsuit, claiming a Japanese chef who tossed cooked shrimp at a man caused him to die ten months later.

The family of the Long Island man (Jerry Colaitis) says he ducked away from the flying shrimp, wrenched his neck and died from complications caused by the surgery he had on his neck.

The family is suing the Benihana Restaurant in Munsey Park, Long Island. The restaurant is known for having its hibachi chefs slice, dice and toss food when cooking the meal in front of customers.

In the lawsuit, the man's wife says her husband was healthy until he went to the restaurant. She says the chain of events that led to his death began with the shrimp
http://www.onnnews.com/Global/story.asp?S=2609945

It may well be tossed out of court so fast the filing attorney gets whiplash.

in which case, Benihana would again be at fault. It all started with that shrimp.

Love the sig, btw!

can an event be and still carry culpability? If someone assaults me, can I sue their grandparents for having the sex that produced my attacker's parents, yadda yadda? TEN MONTHS? What the FUCK?

caused the "complications"....guesss that one was too weak ( non-existant) to pursue.

Hey , how about the taxi driver that drove them there?..he must be good for a few bucks??

So they went after the restaurant that has deep insurance pockets.
This will be thrown out.
How about a counter suit against the family? Perhaps if dad had exercised a bit, he wouldn't have hurt himself ducking out of the way of a flying fucking shrimp!!!
I mean really, what the fuck did this guy do to avoid the shrimp? a full back bend????

they'll yank your privileges for that.The MD probably had better lawyers.

That really is the essense of your question, isn't it? :D

:)

The test is whether the result/harm was "reasonably foreseeable."

The defendant's act must be not only the ACTUAL cause but the PROXIMATE cause of the plaintiff's injury.

Here, it ain't even close. No proximate cause, much less actual cause.

Bake, Esq.

the shrimp was tossed toward him and his table has asked the chef not toss any more their way. He was fine before the entertainment began. Just curious.

It looks like the proximate cause might have been something to do with negligence relating to the surgery.

People who wrench their necks don't all die.

I think in torts, generally you're responsible for all your damages -- even if the person you injure is extra sensitive and easy to hurt -- but you're only responsible for damages within the reasonably foreseeable scope of possible reactions to your action.

So, if you hit someone on the head with a certain degree of force, and their skull is unusually thin, you're responsible for all the damage you do if their skull cracks. But if you hit someone, and that person is hurt, and gets in a cab to go to the hospital, and the cab driver negligently gets into a car accident which breaks every bone below the neck of the person you hit, you'd only be responsible for the damages to the guys head and the cab driver would be responsible for all the injuries below the neck even though the injured person never would have been in the cab but for the fact you hit the person.

If the rule were any other way, then people would really have no duty of care if they weren't the person who knocked down the first domino.

so would the restaurant be responsible only for the medical injuries and pain and suffering related to ducking the shrimp? And, the doctor for his subsequent death?

at Benihanas.

When you go there, you're sort of conceding that people will be tossing food.

There might be an assumed risk.

But if tossing the shrimp were negligent AND the wrenched neck were a reasonably foreseeable consequence, then, perhaps, yes.

'a duty not to toss shrimp'! Thanks for the explanations.

10 months later and too many other possible causal factors involved - causality too remote to be "proximate". It could be they named everyone they could imagine as remotely having anything to do with the death, IOW Benihana may just be one of many defendants?

Seabiscuit, Esq.

Tossing his shrimp? No dice.

Frivolous only begins to describe it.

No one forced this guy to duck the shrimp anyway. Would it be the end of the world if a shrimp hit you? Benihana should countersue for the loss of shrimp.

that this shrimp tossing was a exceptionally bad idea. I figured it would only last until the first person choked to death. I cringe whe they do that.

They couldn't have got this far without some ambulance chaser whispering in their ear.
Do we need lawyers to go after company's that TRULY hurt folks?
Your damn skippy we do.
We don't need this kind of of lowlife looking for a quick buck.
Disbar his/her ass.

are known to toss shrimp. That is why people go to these restaurants - to watch the chefs! They couldn't have not known about the tossing, so it is their fault for going in the first palce!! This is a preposterous law suit.

If the shrimp had hit him then he would have suffered ____?

If he hadn't gone to benihanna's then he would have hurt himself the next time he looked both ways to cross a street?

I don't get it. They throw the shrimp at you? Or did the chef accidentally launch a shrimp towards him? Why would they throw shrimp at customers? Are you supposed to eat the shrimp that is thrown at you or what?

The teppan chef will usually pick one person out from the table and ask them to catch the shrimp with his mouth. Entertainment and all. Most people try, but you aren't forced to open your mouth or wrench your neck trying.

They also have tacky things like onion volcanos. The stack raw onion rings they have sliced for the meals into a conical shape on the grill, then pour in oil down the center and light it.

Hope that helps.

I think I prefer the Japanese restaurants I've been to where the chefs only toss food in the air. Boring but safe.

I used to go to a Benihana back in Ohio years ago. But those types of Japanese restaurants are everywhere. Some have decent food and it is interesting to watch them cook in front of you and it's usually a big group thing. Tables around the grills usually hold about 8-12 people. However, the two I have been to in the South were such poor quality food I was embarrassed I had taken people there (they wanted to "experience" it). Weak miso soup, iceberg so-called salad, smelly salmon and grisly steak and very little flavor. Very Americanized.

If you can find a high-quality one, they're not a bad way to pass the time with family or business associates. I don't think it's messy, because whenever the chef misses with the food (well, really it is the customer who usually misses) the water-girl or a waitress always runs over to pick it up. Dangerous? Until this story I've never heard of anyone dying from a shrimp being tossed gently in the air toward them.

I get it now. It sounds pretty stupid but hey, this is America...

.. THAT would be a bit more menacing! Wonder if the fish tossers in Pike Place have every accidentally whacked anyone..

Perhaps I'm more of a "there's a time and place for everything" type of guy then most, but this smacks as the kind of entertainment one experiences at the seal exhibit of the local zoo...

You're supposed to catch the shrimp in your mouth and eat it. One of the (dis)advantages to being raised by a doctor and a nurse is that you are schooled from a young age about all the possible ways one can end up in the ER. Catching food in your mouth like this is one of them.

I prefer the term "competitive little-person throwing" myself.



:eyes:

:party: :toast: :party:

This lawsuit is frivolous - it only serves to fuel the fire of the tort-reform crowd which will make it harder for people who have a legitimate case to collect from irresponsible companies.

Why aren't they suing the doctors? Do we know for a fact they aren't? Anyway, maybe because it is getting too hard to sue medical providers anymore.

the media is publicizing this to help the administration makes its case for legal reform.

Why not wait until all the facts are in to report this "news"? Such as reporting whether or not the doctors are being sued, whether the case is getting thrown out of court, how a jury decides etc.

This may never make it to court, but I bet that never gets reported. All people will remember is the jackass who sued over shrimp tossing....

"the media is publicizing this to help the administration makes its case for legal reform."

That's absolutely correct.

Every time someone files a dumb lawsuit, or even thinks about filing a dumb lawsuit, the echo chamber is there to trumpet the *filing* of a complaint as a flaw in our legal system. You'll never hear about the obvious *outcome* of a complaint such as this one (assuming the facts are as reported).

Then there are those lists which circulate, and which supposedly recite actual outcomes of frivolous cases, and which, when you try to nail down a single verifiable fact, simply lead to other recitations of the same fabled lawsuits.

The one exception is the fabulously-distorted story of the "McDonald's Coffee" lawsuit. This one generally precipitates a flame war, but the bottom line is that the McDonald's in question was serving coffee at an unconsumably and unreasonably high temperature in order to discourage free refills. So hot, in fact, that it could cause third degree burns through clothing in a matter of seconds.

The folks who flak these stories are definitely serving an agenda.

It's pointless to speculate about a lawsuit based on 100 not very descriptive words.

Those decrying frivolity need to think a bit more seriously about the American press; it delights in reducing complexities--particularly involving the rights of citizens--to soundbite entertainment.

/had to be done

I could see this coming, this restaurant is serving food not pleasing to the big Guy upstairs.

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

so every one of these rude, non-tipping heathens that i see go into Red Lobster after their weekly bathing is going to hell? Yet more proof THERE IS A GOD, HE LOVES US ALL SO MUCH!

Shrimp is good! Restaurants like that are fun, those chefs are awesome! This is the stupidest lawsuit I've ever heard of.

I'm sorry they lost their loved one.. but give me a break. Will all that money make them feel better? Will it keep them company? WTF is the point of the lawsuit? To protect other patrons?

This is the shit that kills us on the trial lawyers issue that the Repugs have so successfully wielded against us. The American mentality that MONEY solves anything... Remember the good old days when people simply had accidents?? Now everyone's first reaction is to figure out whom to sue. Disgusting.

<snip>

"The chef who was assigned to their table starts tossing food," said lawyer Andre Ferenzo, who represents Colaitis' widow, Jacqueline.

"He tosses a piece of shrimp, and it hits one of the children. They tell him to stop, he doesn't. He does it a second time, and it strikes the brother-in-law."

Fearing for their safety, Ferenzo said, Colaitis who lived in Old Brookville, and his family asked the chef to stop throwing shrimp because it was hot.

The chef smiled, then tossed a third piece at Colaitis, who hurt his neck trying to avoid the flying crustacean, Ferenzo said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/255965p-219084c.html

IMHO it's still a dumb case - a piece of hot shrimp in the face might give you a slight burn. And it wasn't the neck injury itself that killed him. Wonder if the hospital is being sued? And you know this will be the Repugs newest "McDonald's hot coffee" case.

I love the NY Daily News Title - The flying shrimp
of death suit

OK

Whenever I have eaten at those types of restaurants they toss (gently with their spatula) a small piece of shrimp or chicken or whatever they're cooking. It's not even like he slugger-style threw a fastball fully-shelled lobster at their heads!

This must be a joke.

Guess Mrs. Colaitis is having trouble keeping up with the Jones with her hubby gone. Seriously this is the type fo case that lends credence to their stupid tort reform drumbeat. "Fearing for their safety?" From a shrimp? Is he a closet Chasid or something?

Here is a sample page of real estate listings for Old Brookville (my old boss lived there)

http://www.realtor.com/FindHome/HomeListings.asp?mlsttl=&frm=bymap&pgnum=5&mls=xmls&js=on&poe=realtor&st=NY&ct=Old+Brookville&areaid=95614&typ=1&mnprice=0&mxprice=99999999&mnbed=0&mnbath=0&mnsqft=0&ss_mitm=n%2Fa&sid=03CC4F68797BC

DIED.

HE'S DEAD.

Want your wife or loved one to die and then think no one is to blame?

It wasn't an act of god. Seems like a reckless chef to me.

Just where is the chef's negligence? Part of the reason people go to places like Benihana's is for the food throwing demonstrations. How would it be even remotely foreseeable that someone would wrench their neck, necessitating some botched surgery, eventually leading to a death 10 months later.

Sometimes things aren't someones fault, they just happen.

Now if the Chef maliciously threw the shrimp with ill intent, it would be a different story. It's part of the reason people go there.

To me, it's frivolous and symptomatic to the blame someone else for everything mentality that's fucking up people and things today.

(other than that, Hey MR! :toast: )

Fucking unbelievable! If they were "fearing for their safety" and the "wrenched" neck happened AFTER, then THEY are wholly responsible. If you are fearing for your safety, you LEAVE! This is like saying, I was fearing for my safety, but I still poked the tiger with a stick...so now I am suing the zoo! These people need to be taken to a public square and have Nelson (from the Simpson's) "haw-haw" at them for about a day!

It would have simply been a nice meal.


http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

Micky D's was outrageously negligent in that case.


http://caoc.com/facts.htm

>snip<

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a Styrofoam cup at the drive-through window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebecks spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees Fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

>end<

This was overly simplified by the media to 'woman gets millions because her coffee was too hot'. bullshit. McDonald's deserved that punishment, plus some, IMHO.

Visualize Whirled Peas.

:freak:

It doesn't seem that frivilous to me.


He ate at the resturant.
The cook flung a shrimp that foced the guy to duck.
He hurt his neck ducking.
Had surgery.
Died from the surgery.

Its a few degrees seperated, but I think the resturant is at least slightly responsible. I mean, its not like the guy is faking his injury - HE FREAKIN' DIED!

The family has a right to sue. If he didn't eat at the resturant, he would still be alive.

how would the simple act of ducking cause one to wrench his neck so badly it would need surgery?

sounds like a prior condition - in which case anything could have snapped it. the restaurant is basically being sued for dumb luck, even if there was no prior injury.

if he never caught that shrimp none of this would have happened.

Or maybe it was his mothers fault for having the son that would grow up to catch that particular shrimp.

and when he discovered a problem, which sounded like it was 5 months later. Shrimp in January, Pains in June, Surgery in November. It's a shame that the man died, but I can't see how it took 5 months for him to realize that he had that type of injury.

Your post made my laugh so hard that I fell off of the couch and broke my wrist. You'll be hearing from my lawyer soon. Oh nad try not to be funny anymore, your hurting people and its not right. ;)

Nobody forced him to duck. Wrenching his neck was an unforseeable effect of ducking. I don't know the guy's medical history. Maybe he should have found a good chiropractor instead of a bad surgeon. Maybe he had a pre-existing tendency for wrenching his neck. The shrimp didn't kill him, the surgery did. Death is a possible conclusion to any surgery. There's no causality.

Yeah, he's dead, and that's unfortunate.

we can see what the result of this thing is going to be already. when you walk into a Benihana you'll have to pass by a sign that says by eating in this restaraunt you agree not to hold them liable for flying food. end of story.

Thats pretty damn ironic.

Guy dies from avoding something that would have been unlikely to cause any harm.

answer: a fucking lot.

big, hairy, fucking deal. this is not the norm.

First of all the media has to make a big deal out of what appears to be a laughable case to point out how stupid law suits are

Secondly, lawyers take cases like these and make it MUCH harder for people with legitimate injuries to sue.

Look, I'm sorry this guy died, but from the facts laid out by the guy's own lawyer, it certainly doesn't appear to me to be negligence on the part of the restaurant. How would it be foreseeable to them that a guy would end up dead 10 months later from surgical complications (sepsis no less) from a shrimp tosser at a hibachi table?


Cases like these are rare of course but they get the publicity that undermines legitimate lawsuits and gives more fuel to their ridiculous tort reform measures that are just one more "Take Our Rights Away" assault on this country.

Sue the doctor. He screwed up.

.... for my birthday the family and I go to Benihana's. We all love the place.

These people might as well sue for $10,000,000 because someone threw a paper wad at him. It is my sincere hope that the judge doesn't even let this waste time on a trial.

and someone bought some macadamia-nut cookies, and the clerk had to toss the bag over the counter because it was built too high and there were some nice little old ladies in the way ogling the falafel, and the bag hit another patron in the head, which dislodged their toupee which then fell to the floor causing another patron to slip and fall on it and sprain their buttocks...

...could the bakery be sued for tossing their cookies? :shrug:

On the face of it, this seems the most frivolous of frivolous lawsuits. Wouldn't it be delicious if the lawyer were a repug?

In any case, this is a great case upon which to rail. It is the defense of these kinds of lawsuits that puts all of them in a bad light. Even that Mickey D "hot coffee" lawsuit had more merit, but got all lawyers painted as evil with the same broad brush. Actively calling this one wrong might give us some credence as being for **at least** common sense about these things.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.