Learning Activity: Discussion: Allergy

Background of Debra Thompson's allergic reaction

Learning Activity: Discussion: AllergyDebra Thompson, a registered nurse, was diagnosed with a peanut allergy when she was eightyears old. She was aware that exposure to even a trace amount of peanut could trigger anallergic reaction. Thompson had experienced allergic reactions after eating in restaurants andshe had previously been hospitalized because of an allergic reaction to walnuts. On the eveningin question, Thompson and her co-worker, Peggy Riley, decided to order food from GenghisKhan, a restaurant, to be delivered to their place of employment. Thompson did not consult amenu before ordering. Although in her deposition Thompson stated that she always tries tomake restaurant personnel aware of her allergies and tries to ascertain what is contained infood she orders,Thompson did not ask Riley to make these inquires. Riley placed the order over the telephonefor several dishes, including almond chicken for Thompson. When Riley placed the order, shedid not ask the Genghis Khan employee about the ingredients of the almond chicken dish nordid she make any special requests.When the order was delivered, Thompson ate a piece of the almond chicken. She immediatelyfelt the onset of an allergic reaction. She took the medication she had in her possession toarrest the symptoms, but they continued to worsen and she was taken to the emergency roomfor treatment.Upon arrival in the emergency room, Thompson lost consciousness and went into anaphylacticshock. She suffered respiratory arrest and had a heart attack. She was stabilized anddischarged from the hospital after nine days. Thompson’s treating physicians diagnosed herwith “anaphylaxis, felt secondary to peanuts.”Thompson and her family members filed suit against Genghis Khan Restaurant. GenghisKhan’s owner, manager and head cook stated that the orders from that day revealed no specialrequests for Riley’s order. He also described the restaurant’s recipe for almond chicken, whichdoes not call for peanuts.Thompson submitted a declaration from a physician stating that peanut allergy is a commonallergy that affects approximately two million people in the United States, and is probably themost common cause of death caused by allergic reaction. She also submitted a declaration ofJon Alberts, an owner of an Asian restaurant. Alberts expressed the opinion that it is “commonknowledge” in the restaurant industry that many people are allergic to peanut and peanutproducts. Alberts described the procedures used in his restaurant to prevent peanut and peanutproducts from contaminating other dishes.

Thompson’s primary argument on appeal is that Genghis Khan’s menu should have warned thatthe almond chicken entree might contain trace amounts of peanut due to cross-contaminationand the failure to give such a warning rendered the product not reasonably safe.[The court rejected Thompson’s arguments and decided in favor of the restaurant noting]Thompson did not inform the restaurant of her allergy....We affirm the trial court’s decision to grant Genghis Khan’s motion for summary judgment....al, M. E. Hotel, Restaurant, and Travel Law: A Preventive Approach. (p.511) [VitalSourceBookshelf]. Retrieved from https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781792400629/In your discussion groups. Answer the following questions.1)Do you agree with the decision? Why or why not?2)Would the outcome have been different if Thompson had advised Genghis Khan of her allergyto peanuts? Why or why not?3)Do you think restaurants should be required to ask patrons if they have food allergies? Why orwhy not?