And I applaud the fly for evincing good taste.

And I applaud the fly for evincing good taste.

>equal or higher quality than the original

>glass should be comped.

>

if we’re just having fun here, surely a full glass

shouldn’t be comped, but just up to the line

where the patron stopped drinking … to avoid

the morzal hazard of “fly seeking” behavior.

although, if the restaurant was so dark the

patron had to rely on his sense of touch or, god

forbid, taste, rather than sight to register the

fly …

perhaps “dives” and hole-in-the-wall restos

should include a sign “price of (cheep) wine

reflects the assume-risk-of-keeping-wine-fly-free

discount”.

James–I like the potential regulatory shift here–send in the health inspectors!….but I’m biased by my long time teaching admin.

The most fun question here, I think, is remedial. It’s easy to say that the restaurant should comp another glass of wine when the wine comes from the restaurant’s stock. On that logic, if the restaurant is out of that particular wine, then either a replacement glass of comparable type and equal or higher quality than the original glass should be comped. But what about at a BYOB restaurant? (And what if the customer B a particularly rare and expensive B?)

I like the BYOB hypo because it gets us away from the false attractor of products liability and to the real question at issue: what level of sanitary eating environment should the restaurant be deemed to have undertaken to provide?

Just trying to be helpful here.

Just trying to be helpful here.

Just trying to be helpful here.

Just trying to be helpful here.

I guess my view is:

–Resto has absolute obligation to deliver bug-free item to diner.

–If dining outside, diner assumes risk inherent in dining en plein air … although maybe that should not be absolute, say if the resto has contributed

to elevated bug levels [ant problem that should have been headed off, uncollected garbage, split liquids etc]

–If dining inside … hmm, this is the hard case. Dunno if the resto should be “strictly liable” or held to a reasonable standard of care

[screens on windows] then the resto is off the hook (although if no screens, that is observable by the patron, but he probably shouldnt

be forced to make that assessment). But of course this matter really exists in the realm of customer relations, rather than the legal pale.

–Is there some kind of HADLEY v. BAXENDALE “limit” to your claim? e.g. if you are drinking $4000 Chateau Petrus, are you supposed to take out no-fly insurance or self-insure via a coaster? Does it depend

on whether the resto provides you with a adequate cover? If you brought

the wine with you, does corkage include no-fly insurance? [presumably only a remedy at law and not equity would be avail?]

–Amazing the number of people who go into “what kind of bug was it?

in the CH thread. Is there a separate analysis for crawling and flying bugs?

Now it is interesting what happens in the repeat occasions.Do we have to worry about perverse cases like “I slam 75% of the wine and then swish it about getting the bouquet of the

remaining wine to attract a an ambient fly, so I can ‘sue’ for triple damages?” … I’d pay a lot of money to see the waiter yelling “unclean hands! unclean hands!” at a patron.

[for non-lawyer: ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_hands]

Obviously lots of Moral Hazards … “Hmm, why is one of the fly’s legs in your pocket, Mrs Palsgraf?”]

Can a resto offer you a N% discount to relinquish your legal claim to a second glass should a bug land in it?