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

  • mommykink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    42
    ·
    1 year ago

    had a heart condition

    Does personal responsibility not exist anymore? The menu and advertising for the drink clearly show that it has a high caffeine content.

    and was not aware of the drink’s caffeine content, which exceeded that of cans of Red Bull and Monster energy drinks combined

    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.

    • xkforce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also, even just 260mg of caffeine is WAY more caffeine than anyone needs in one drink, even if its considered “safe”.

        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 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

        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.

    • anon_8675309@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It does. But we still have safety stickers and ingredient lists, etc for a really damn good reason.

      • Changetheview@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

        • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Panera missed the opportunity for splashy marketing (at least where I was)

        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.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        400mg is where the fda says adverse effects begin for normal people.

        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.

    • rigatti@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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…

      • papalonian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • rigatti@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.