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
I would be curious to know if the caffeine content is listed by Panera just for the sake of being curious. They could actually make an argument in court stating she should have seen the caffeine content at the time ordering.
I think the next argument to be made is that the caffeine content is for consumers without those conditions. They could simply state, “how could the company have known, because our beverages and the contents of caffeine are risky as is.”
I would like to know how much God damned caffeine has to be in something to cause someone like this to die. That is wild to me. I mean I wouldn’t drink more than one Red Bull in a day and things like 5-Hour Energy legit made me paranoid and gave me the shakes. I know where my body tolerance is.
I think I would be curious to know if the risks were posted or rather the caffeine content was posted. Most people with peanut allergies are not peanut experts but they stay aware of not being able to eat things deep fried in peanuts.
What has happened to her is really sad it’s not a question of whether she is collateral damage. It is a question of whether legally companies like Panera are posting warnings and caffeine content listings. I would also like to know if this is an employee mistake. Did someone accidentally over caffeinate the beverage.
Lots of questions here. I feel sorry for the family and it is unfortunate small things like this can kill a person. It makes you realize how small life can be and how vulnerable we are. I do feel like there is a responsibility on both parties sides but her responsibility is asking whether she knew the amount of caffeine content. Their responsibility would be determining whether that caffeine content was visible and there for her to see or even hear at the time of purchase or whether warnings should be posted by caffeine the same as they are posted by a boiling drink or food or whether something contains, nuts or eggs, etc. Additionally, should they legally be allowed to sell something with that amount of caffeine.
It’s absolutely about her being collateral damage.
If we weren’t living in a 24/7 internet/news world (say, even ~20 years ago), we wouldn’t have access to news articles about this kind of thing. The articles likely wouldn’t exist at all. The vast majority of consumers would have no idea that this girl died from this drink, and people who enjoy to consume it (heart condition or no), will continue putting themselves at risk. Panera would still sell this product, and the profit margin is massive. Why would they stop when literally nobody knows the drink killed a girl?
And this would keep happening until “the invisible hand” of the market corrects things, if it ever does. Because it only really could if enough people heard about the dangers of this beverage to literally put them out of business. And we’ve already established that these stories weren’t a common thing until recently.
How many people do you think would need to die for that happen?
This honestly isn’t even a great example, but it still works. Just look at any dangerous product that ruined or ended countless lives in the not so distant past, before the government was forced to step in to regulate (asbestos, thalidomide, lead, CFCs, etc etc). Note that all of those things would never have been outlawed/regulated if the government hadn’t stepped in. If we would have just sat back and allowed the free market to handle it, millions more would be dead, and there would still be an ever growing hole in the ozone layer.
All just collateral damage in the bullshit concept of free markets