DHG Legal, P.C. represented the claimant in resolving negligence claims against La Mar | Cebichería Peruana in San Francisco. This case highlights the critical importance of allergy accommodations in restaurants and the potentially life-threatening consequences when safeguards fail or are ignored.

Case Background

In October 2023, our client went out to dinner with family members. Before ordering, she specifically informed the server about severe allergies to several ingredients, including soy. She then asked whether menu items could be prepared without soy, and the server assured her that the restaurant could in fact accommodate her food restrictions.

When the appetizers arrived, our client again confirmed with the server that the food she had ordered did not contain the disclosed allergens. The server assured her that the kitchen had verified the food was safe to consume. Our client, trusting the server, consumed the appetizers the table had ordered.

The Incident

Shortly after consuming one of the appetizers, our client began experiencing symptoms of an allergic reaction. Despite having specifically requested the removal of soy and receiving confirmation from the server that this had been done, our client recognized the progressive symptoms of anaphylaxis had started to set in.

As the reaction worsened, our client experienced throat swelling, difficulty breathing, and eventually collapsed at the restaurant. Despite the immediate administration of an EpiPen, the reaction continued to progress, requiring emergency transport to a hospital via ambulance.

Medical Treatment

At the hospital, our client required multiple doses of emergency medications, including three doses of IM epinephrine, two doses of nebulized racemic epinephrine, a continuous epinephrine drip, steroids, antihistamines, and intubation to maintain breathing. Our client remained hospitalized for three days, with one day requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation. The medical bills our client received totaled nearly $85,000.

Ongoing Effects

Following this severe reaction, our client experienced persistent throat irritation, difficulty speaking, and had to "force" her voice to be heard. Medical examinations revealed postcricoid edema. The incident resulted in not only physical trauma but significant emotional distress, as our client now experiences heightened anxiety and continued fear of future reactions. She now refuses to dine out as she fears the onset of another allergic reaction, which each time has been worse.

Settlement Details

This resolution negotiated for our client provides compensation for her medical expenses, pain and suffering, and the ongoing effects of the traumatic incident.

Importance of This Case

This case serves as an important reminder to both restaurants and consumers about the serious nature of food allergies. For those with food allergies, this case underscores the importance of clearly communicating allergies to restaurant staff.

Conversely, restaurants have a duty to accurately communicate ingredient information and to take appropriate measures when informed of a customer's allergies.

In California, restaurants have a duty to ensure that its employees have adequate knowledge of major food allergens, as they relate to the specific food preparation activities that occur at their particular food facility. (Health & Safety Code § 113947).

Although restaurants have different food preparation methods, which could potentially limit their ability to accommodate requests to prepare food without allergens, such inability to accommodate a preparation request must be clearly communicated to the customer at the time the customer places an order. Had such inability been communicated to our client, she would not have suffered such significant trauma.

Allergic reactions can have a wide range of consequences. While some reactions can be minor, others, as in the case of our client, can be quite debilitating or even lethal.

Food allergies appear to be on the rise in both children and adults. According to FoodAllergy.org, food allergy prevalence among children has been increasing for decades, up by 50 percent between 1997 and 2011, and again up by 50 percent between 2007 and 2021. Taking nut allergies for example, the prevalence of self-reported peanut or tree nut allergy in children more than tripled between 1997 and 2008 and an analysis of health insurance claims data found that annual incidence of peanut allergy in one-year-olds tripled between 2001 and 2017. Across the country it is estimated 3 percent of the adult population is living with a peanut allergy in 2015–2016, compared to less than 1 percent in 1999.

As food allergies become more prevalent, they also grow to be better understood, recognized, and respected. Across the country, this can be seen in legal claims related to allergies. For instance, in 2024 a jury in Massachusetts awarded a girl $200,000 after she had a severe anaphylactic reaction after eating a burrito containing peanut sauce. In another case, a patron received a $44,000 settlement after he was served a burger with tomatoes despite ordering it without them, causing the patron to have a severe allergic reaction.

In yet another recent case, a woman allegedly suffered a fatal allergic reaction after dining at a Walt Disney World Resort restaurant. She had allegedly informed her server of her allergies, but despite the warning, the food served to her reportedly contained the allergens nonetheless. This case gained notoriety after Disney attempted to have the case tossed out of court and into arbitration based on the ludicrous argument that the woman had agreed to arbitrate any and all claims against Disney when signing up for a Disney+ trial for streaming services years prior. After significant public backlash, Disney agreed to allow the woman’s estate to proceed with wrongful death claims in court. As of the date of this article the case remains pending.

We are pleased to have secured this resolution for our client and hope it contributes to greater awareness and care in accommodating food allergies in the restaurant industry.

——

This blog post discusses the general facts of a settled case. This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, an offer of representation, nor is it a guarantee of any particular result in any particular case.