Sarah Katz, 21, had a heart condition and was not aware of the drink’s caffeine content, which exceeded that of cans of Red Bull and Monster energy drinks combined, according to a legal filing
Sarah Katz, 21, had a heart condition and was not aware of the drink’s caffeine content, which exceeded that of cans of Red Bull and Monster energy drinks combined, according to a legal filing
Does personal responsibility not exist anymore? The menu and advertising for the drink clearly show that it has a high caffeine content.
The drink has about 260mg of caffeine which, while high, isn’t outrageous or unsafe to most healthy adults by any means.
Maybe someone can show me how I’m being a heartless arsehole but I can’t find any negligent action on Panera’s part that would make them to blame.
You either did not read even half the article, or you did and then completely forgot or ignored the contents. Which was it?
I have a lobster allergy. I am very, very vigilant about it because I don’t like being rushed to the ER. I had imitation crab meat that happened to have lobster in it once. Didn’t even think to ask. That was my fault.
I’d love to see a picture of that. At my local Panera it’s right next to the ice tea and has a giant sign on it about being highly caffeinated. There’s a few pictures around about them behind the counter with no visible sign, so lacking more info this above quote works in Panera’s favor for me.
Let me complete the sentence. It’s advertised as “Plant-based, clean caffeine powered by guarana & green coffee extract”. The quote provided in the article comes from the posted caffeine notice. The other ones are advertised as “Plant-based and Clean with as much caffeine as our Dark Roast coffee”. And the plaintiff is trying to argue “it has more caffeine than the dark roast”, which is one of those “misleading truths” I’ve gotten into elsewhere. It’s less caffeinated per ounce, and not the highest caffeine drink they sell.
For guarana, it’s on the sign but not advertised as well. If the entire complaint was that she couldn’t have guarana, they might have a point. If the complaint is that the sign was missing or hidden, they would have a point. Every piece of signage online or in-store I’ve seen they have the word “Charged”, they mention that it’s caffeinated.
I don’t want to say personal responsibility… fuck that. Somebody died. It’s a tragedy, but short of more info than in the article, not wrongful death. Thing is, this could be like the McDonalds coffee thing where a lot of people left out that the coffee temperature was calibrated wrong and the lady got third degree burns from it.
Exactly, there are a billion things that might have happened, accidental or intentional, local or systemic. Which is why when people immediately presume it was her fault for not checking, it’s pretty gross. Especially when it’s clear they would only have to have read less than half the article to know there were potential failures on Panera’s part which may justify discovery, which means the case needs to be filed to find out. That is, reading the linked article might have even partly answered their question, assuming it was genuinely asked.
All we really know for sure is that she wouldn’t have drunk it if she knew it were caffeinated + guarana, and certainly wouldn’t have poured a whole 30oz for herself if she suspected it, and that she clearly has a habit of checking already. So either something went tragically wrong at the wrong time, or multiple things did. And it clearly extends further than the tired “personal responsibility” talking point implying the victim’s laziness and/or incompetence.
Agreed. Even if it were a simple mistake, somebody died and that fact should be taken seriously. Never blame the dead person. The question, then, is whether to blame anyone at all.
That said, the article is not very convincing to me that Panera did anything wrong. It could be because the argument is truncated, but some of the quotes in the article are dead guilty of giving a fairly one-sided view of the reality.
What I see as a failure would have been missing or hidden signage, as some Panera locations keep that drink behind the counter. The quote directly states that’s not the case here. And in the same move, pointing out it was near “less caffeinated” drinks, it’s obvious that dispenser was near at least the iced tea and sodas. IF it was sitting next to iced tea and had the standard signage (posted by others here), I don’t see Panera having done anything wrong. But we don’t know if those statements are all true, that’s just what I extrapolate from quotes and explanations about the complaint.
“Gone wrong” can still be a tragic mistake. As a lot of people said “I don’t read signs if I’m in a hurry”. I’ve ordered food items before that the menu clearly said had ingredients I was dangerously allergic to and I missed it until I received the food item. Short of verbally asking “are you able to consume 200mg sugar? Are you able to consume 360mg caffeine?” of every ingredient of every food product in every restaurant, tragic things will still occasionally happen. And if we did THAT, someone might well say “yeah yeah whatever”. And if THAT did happen and someone died, it’s still not appropriate to bring up personal responsibility.
Ah yes “personal responsibility” the rallying cry of empathy free assholes everywhere. And yes you are an asshole for that victim blaming shit opinion of yours.
I mean, personal responsibility IS a thing, it just depends on context. In this case, there seems to be plenty of reason to think the company is at fault.
There’s a gulf between “personal responsibility” and “wrongful death” called “tragedy”.
I don’t think anyone should be blaming the dead girl. But the limited evidence I’ve seen so far doesn’t make Panera look guilty either.
It does. But we still have safety stickers and ingredient lists, etc for a really damn good reason.
Absolutely. Legally speaking, the warnings/labeling are crucial. And they depend heavily on context. Using a common name like lemonade in a unique way puts the threshold even higher.
Also legally speaking, people blaming the heart condition fail to understand US tort law. The responsibility falls to the provider, not the victim, even if they are unusually fragile (have a heart condition). This is the eggshell skull aka eggshell plaintiff doctrine, very well established in US law.
And if you dive deep into the train of thought of what happens without it (companies blame everything on too fragile/frail of people), most people find it to be reasonable.
The provider must make it safe for everyone OR place adequate protections/warnings that make it very clear who it’s not safe for. Seems like Panera failed on both accounts.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eggshell_skull_rule
If there’s a big sign that says “Plant-based, clean caffeine powered by guarana & green coffee extract” with “30 fl oz | 530 cal | 389 mg caffeine” on the sign she was staring at when she poured her drink, that might make things a bit complicated.
The Panera signage seems obvious enough about caffeine that (assuming the signage was in place) I can’t imagine any more correct action Panera could have taken short of having a person stand there asking people if they have heart conditions.
I mean, imitation crab meat often has trace lobster in it and nobody advertises that. It falls under “let our associates know if you have any dietary restrictions or food allergies”. Did she say “I can’t have caffeine” and then they let her fill her cup with charged lemonade? This is a beverage that is marketed on being caffeinated, and every piece of advertising, signage, etc features the caffeinated nature prominently because it’s a major selling point of it.
Nobody should be blaming her. But unless this Panera did stuff very different from the Panera standard, it was sufficient.
And you’re right about the legal implications of her medical condition. But I don’t see many people suggesting it’s her fault because she had a heart condition.
260mg is in the 20oz version, but I’m pretty sure you can get whatever giant sized drink you want. The article said she had a 30oz drink which has 390mg of caffeine. Also, even just 260mg of caffeine is WAY more caffeine than anyone needs in one drink, even if its considered “safe”. There’s literally no reason for it. Something that’s self serve and has that much caffeine should have a giant warning on the front and require a waiver to be signed first. I looked up the picture of the machine where the drink is served, and it says at the very bottom how much caffeine is in it, but if someone is on their way to work or class then they probably aren’t stopping to read the literature on what they thought was just plain lemonade
That’s the caffeine content in a large hot coffee from Dunkin Donuts, one of the most popular orders in the my region of the world. Putting it proportion, this lemonade is about 2/3 of the caffeine, oz for oz, of black coffee. Have you seen a 30oz drink? They’re fairly massive.
I’ve accidentally ordered food I was allergic to, so I get it. There’s absolutely nothing a company can do to be 100% sure nobody will ever order food that will harm them.
A waiver for a 260mg drink? A large monster can is close to that. A Bang Energy is 300mg.
Should they be that strong? Up to you to decide. But saying you need a waiver for something that’s already widely available is nonsense.
My googling says 160mg for a 500ml monster. I wouldn’t call that close.
The larger Monster is 24oz/700ml - the one with a screw top - and it has 240mg.
I’ve never seen a 700ml energi drink. Must be a regional thing.
All of those should require a waiver. Better yet, they shouldn’t exist at all at that strength. Just because they are widely available doesn’t mean they are safe. There is literally no reason anyone ever needs to consume 260mg of caffeine in one sitting. If someone can’t wake up with less than 300mg of caffeine in their system then they need to seek immediate medical attention because they are into full on addiction at that point.
I also made the mistake. Personally I don’t care, especially since I was looking for a flavor shot with soda, but these are in the same dispensers that used to hold juice, in the same spot, and there probably still are some regular juices there. I suppose we should read every sign, but it’s not in human nature. Who would think to check the caffeine content of what appears to be juice?
I imagine that signs are posted, but it’s set up to be misleading. Panera missed the opportunity for splashy marketing (at least where I was) which could have both sold more and communicated better
Interesting. All I knew about this stuff before this article was that it was highly caffeinated. I haven’t tried it (and don’t plan to. I like coffee) but it’s really obvious in some areas.
The marketing was factually wrong and very misleading.
The complete quotes in the marketing (the article made the odd decision to quote PART OF the caffeine description out-of-context) are:
and
I would call that marketing accurate and correct. Except one thing… It’s a fact that one ounce of their lemonade has significantly less caffeine (about 2/3) than one ounce of their dark roast coffee, and dramatically less than their light roast coffee. Could you have guessed that from the quotes? Because my first point of note is that they’re incorrect about it having “as much caffeine as our Dark Roast”.
This is also both misleading and carefully worded. It’s comparing a 16oz cup to a 30oz cup, both sold with unlimited refills, and leaving out that the Charged Lemonade is not even the highest-caffeine item on the menu.
I would say the article is factually wrong and misleading. The problem is, we don’t know the full details of the complaint, which might actually be valid. The article, however, is not doing it justice.
The article claims it has 390 mg and was sold alongside noncaffeinated drinks, though I’m not clear exactly how misleading they were about the amount of caffeine in there. I agree with you – it seems wild to me that an adult with a heart condition like that wouldn’t check any caffeinated drink to see the caffeine quantity before drinking it…
The issue is that she didn’t know it had caffeine, presumably because it wasn’t obvious when ordering it. She may have just thought “charged lemonade” was the name they gave their regular lemonade drink and didn’t think anything of it. I wouldn’t think to ask for the caffeine content of a lemonade, either.
I suspected this at first, but the article put its foot in its mouth clearly pointing out that these are in the self-serve section. The pics going around show standard marketing on the dispenser saying it’s high caffeine. If THOSE were missing, now you’ve got a valid complaint. But the article says nothing about that.
Does it change your mind if there’s a large sign on the dispenser saying it’s highly caffeinated and including big bold caffeine content numbers?
We don’t know if the sign was there in this tragedy, but we know it’s standard Panera marketing to have it there.
If there’s a sign clearly indicating high caffeine content, sadly I think that’s on her. If there isn’t, then I can see Panera being somewhat liable. It seems similar to food allergies, where people who are allergic to, say, peanuts have to check food labels and food companies have to clearly label the presence of peanuts.
When I hear “charged” lemonade I assume it’s caffeinated but maybe not everyone has that understanding.
If I were on a Jury (never happen), “charged” wouldn’t be enough for me, but clearly visible signage would.
I don’t know how much responsibility I’d put on her, honestly. There’s a lot worse things that have gone un-remarked for decades. Like, did you know that “imitation crab meat” often has lobster in it? And is often sold in things with “crab” in the name? I’m highly allergic to lobster and not allergic to crab. I still only get things with “crab” in them at places I know I can trust not to use said imitation meat.
So I look at that, and it’s hard for me to fault Panera for it especially because I can see how much they’re marketing it as highly caffeinated online and in my local Panera. Not impossible to fault them (I’d have to see/hear the whole story), but difficult.
I’d say it depends. I’ve never seen an ad for panera lemonade, and I don’t need to look at a menu to know what lemonade is. Many drinks sometimes have caffeine, like root beer or orange soda. You have to be careful about which brand you’re getting. There are zero caffeinated lemonades on the market besides lemonade flavored energy drinks and Panera.
260mg is the small. The large has 390mg. 400mg is where the fda says adverse effects begin for normal people. That is a lot of caffeine under any circumstance.
Did she order a lemonade and get a max dose energy drink, or did she specifically order a max dose energy drink?
That’s not exactly right. 400mg is the line the FDA says NO adverse affects happen for normal people. They’re not saying >400mg is dangerous, they’re saying <400mg is safe and healthy.
Considering the drinking patterns of caffeine (one big boost, not something you drink all day unless you’re from New England), that makes sense to me. When I walk into a Dunkies and get a large Iced, it’s 400mg of caffeine.
deleted by creator
Because the people who have even only skimmed the article or the quotes in this thread know the article already answers basic questions about personal responsibility.
You did read the linked article, right?
Correct. Same goes with allergies etc.