Olive pits, chicken cartilage, and Plexiglas

It is generally understood that a restaurant owner has an obligation to serve customers food that is fit for consumption and free of foreign bodies. A restaurant owner serving a meal at the request of a client is entering into a service contract under which they undertake to serve, in safe conditions, edible food free of foreign bodies or unexpected consistency likely to cause injury.

Quality Control

Case law has defined that a restaurant owner’s main obligation is to serve a dish with quality controls and which does not harm the health of its customers. This includes the obligation to serve healthy food that is free of any object, foodstuff, or substance that could cause potential harm.

However, the courts ruled in favour of customers who have suffered a tooth injury by biting into:

• a piece of glass hidden in a fruit salad or pizza; 1

• an unpitted olive hidden in an Italian salad; 2

• chicken cartilage in a burger-style sandwich; 3

• a piece of Plexiglass in a pita bread. 4 In the above cases, since it had been established that the customers had broken a tooth in circumstances such as the liability was imputed to the restaurateur, it was the latter who had to bear the burden of establishing not only that they had committed no fault, but that the accident was due to a case of force majeure or a fault of the customer.

Obligation Of Result

The restaurateur and the staff they employ, if any, assume an obligation of result. A restaurateur who fails in their duties will be responsible for any bodily, moral, or material damage suffered by their co-contractor, i.e. client, and they are obliged to make good on this damage.

Customers Must Also Be Careful

However, case law recognizes that when a person orders a dish in which solid elements such as bones, pieces of cartilage, pits, etc. are normally found, it is up to the customer to take special precautions to avoid suffering damage, in particular, not to break teeth when eating a meal.

Thus, the customer must guard themselves against any obvious and foreseeable dangers that certain ingredients in the food they are consuming may represent.

However, should an accident occur in a situation amounting to a trap, the restaurateur may be held responsible. The concept of a trap adopted by case law is generally of an inherently dangerous situation. The danger must be hidden and not obvious.

For the concept of a trap, there is generally a connotation of abnormality and surprise given all the circumstances. This evidence rests primarily on the claimant’s shoulders.

Contributory Negligence

In addition, there are cases in which there is contributory negligence among the victim and the restaurant owner. In such case, the responsibility must also be shared between them.

That said, should such situations occur, we recommend you promptly report them to your insurer who may be able to take up your cause, subject to the terms and conditions of your contract.