A Chicago man is suing Shaw’s Crab House after passing a 9-foot tapeworm he contends came from consuming undercooked fish. Anthony Franz claims he became violently ill after eating the salmon salad at Shaw’s, and is suing the restaurant and its parent company, Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, for $100,000.
A representative of Lettuce Entertain You denies Franz’s allegations, but documents filed with Franz’s lawsuit indicate that a pathologist found that the tapeworm could have only come from undercooked fish.
Man Says 9-Foot Tapeworm Came From Undercooked Salmon Salad [Chicago Sun-Times]
Thanks to Mark!
More From Consumerist
-
Waiter Scores $5,000 Tip On $26.95 Bill
-
Man’s Family Determined To Carry Out A Last Request: Order A Pizza & Tip The Server $500
-
Hoses: Clearly Not Priced By The Foot
-
Who The &^#* Does This Restaurant Customer Think He Is?
-
Waiting In A Long Line For A Popular Product Might Be Annoying But It Could Boost Your Ego
They should be sued for having a name like “Lettuce Entertain You”
Why do people always have to sue for more than they should be entitled to? I agree he should get his money from medical treatments and for lost time from work, and maybe even a stipend until he finds a new job if he was fired, but he wants money for “lost enjoyment of life”.
Ouch! I just stepped on a nail in a hardware store! Now I’m gonna sue them for medical expenses, as well as “developed fear of walking in large warehouse-type buildings”.
And to think…. most people pay BIG BUCKS for the Tapeworm Diet.
My understanding is that it takes some time for a tapeworm to get to this size. He may have gotten ill right away, but as far as passing a 9 foot tapeworm right after this is not likely from this particular source. First off, you have to eat the egg of the tapeworm. Then it goes into you intestines, feeding and growing there. It takes awhile to get to this point . Most people dont even know that they have a tapeworm for years, let alone passing one so quickly after eating this food. He may have ate raw fish years ago and the timing was just right for him to think that it came from this incident. Also, if he traveled aboard, there is more of a chance of it comming from that than this particular dining establishment. I’m sure that the lawers for the defendant will bring in medical experts with this timing point in mind
@EyeHeartPie:
These extra damages are not available in many types of cases depending on jurisdiction. It is not clear that he will collect the full amount.
Also consider that most cases settle and they will settle for less than the asking amount. Many people will ask for more leaving room for settlement talks.
This is what makes me think twice about eating supermarket nigiri sushi. That, and the awful quality of said sushi.
Did this restaurant actually serve *raw* salmon in a ‘salad’? I can see serving smoked or salt-treated salmon with salad, but *raw*? I don’t even know how to categorize that.
@EyeHeartPie: I think people sue for more than they are entitled to because judgment is rarely for the initial amount asked for. Even if all evidence shows the defendant was 100% in the wrong, the plaintiff will be awarded a portion of the amount asked for. Ask for what you are entitled to, and the party in the wrong will almost certainly appeal and convince the judge to award less.
Halfway tempted to say “photo, or it didn’t happen.” But I’m really scared there’d BE a photo.
Wow, that’s “special”. It’ll be curious to see how this lawsuit works out. I wonder how they forensically determine whether or not it came from their salmon. I guess they judge that that species of parasite only hangs around that one animal, and that was the only one time he ate salmon in the last several years? Still, having and then passing one of those suckers… ICK!
@EyeHeartPie: That is the only way to punish civil offenders. The system is designed that way. I would rather see them go to jail, but how do you send a whole company to jail? It’s not about getting rich, it’s about the spanking.
Let me be the first to say *nnnggggcchhhaaaaaa-BARF!*
@ideagirl: Exactly. A big company might not think much of a couple thou in medical bills, but a couple million definitely hurts enough to warrant preventing it from happening again.
Although, considering the times we’re living in, the company might as well be called Lettuce Offer A Settlement And Admit No Wrongdoing Enterprises.
@EyeHeartPie: Why do people always have to sue for more than they should be entitled to? – At least half of that will go to pay his attorney. $100k isn’t a lot of money. When this all winds down, the guy will be lucky to walk away with a quarter of that.
@hellinmyeyes:
It is a civil suit so the burden of proof is usually a preponderance of the evidence. So they would just need to prove that it is more likely than not that the worm came from the defendant. There is still a burden of proof but you do not need to go as far as showing this is the only way he could have gotten it.
@ideagirl: And why SHOULDN’T a person be compensated for the trauma or emotional difficulties that may arise from someone else’s negligence…
Tapeworms in undercooked fish? That kind of takes the fun out of sushi.
EyeHeartPie “Why do people always have to sue for more than they should be entitled to?”
There are two ways to take your comment. First, why do people sue for more than they are legally entitled to.
Second, is why do people sue for more than I, EyeHeartPie personally think they are entitled to?
If you meant the former, it’s irrelevant because if they are not legally entitled to receive those damages, they will not get those damages. People tend to start high in negotiations and then work their way down. When you negotiate your salary, do you start at the bottom and work your way up? I didn’t think so.
If you mean the latter, it’s irrelevant because it simply does not matter what you subjectively think if the law disagrees with you. You might not mind a tape worm. Others would find it very disgusting and annoying and would decide that their “enjoyment of life” would be impacted.
Let me ask you this, imagine if Bill Gates came up to you and asked, “How much would I have to pay you to infect you with a tape worm?” You might be willing to do it for a dollar. However, not everyone would go so low.
@rellog:
Just so you know – usually hard to get pain and suffering from just negligence. You will get pain and suffering much more easily from intentional torts.
@hellinmyeyes: [www.thelifetree.com] This tape worm:”It is sometimes found in the flesh of freshwater fish or in fish that are migrating from salt waters to fresh water for breeding.” Salmon fit that bill. But they also say “The adult is ivory or grayish-yellow in color and can live in humans for 20 years.” How do you remember what you ate 4 years ago.
Uh, did he not ever eat fish between August 2006 and now? I wonder how he was able to narrow it down to that restaurant. Also, I’m pretty sure it takes more than “several days” to come down with symptoms.
With that said, I think tapeworms are second only to lampreys in the sheer disgust-o-meter.
The members of the discussion on the article source page have a good point. Tapeworms do not grow from an egg that would be found in fish to 9 foot length in a matter of days. The restaurant might not be to blame here.
@MercuryPDX: That is quite possibly the most eye-burning website I have seen this year.
Good luck proving that a meal eaten 2 years ago is the exact source of the worm, and no other meal eaten since then. Good luck even proving you were at that restaurant when you said you were.
If you could prove just by saying it, we could all get rich by claiming that every illness was the fault of some restaurant meal in the indeterminate past.
Not saying it’s not disgusting and unfortunate, but how are we, or how is anyone to know whether that particular meal caused it?
I don’t doubt that the man had a 9-ft. tapeworm, but if he did, I don’t think it was this particular restaurant’s fault. If I remember my biology correctly, it takes years for a tapeworm to grow to be that size. He may have had it inside of him for years and not experienced any symptoms.
Raw salmon, cut correctly, can be very good and not at all tapewormy. I’d like to know how he asked his salmon to be cooked.
@rellog: The problem is that trauma is hard to measure and, therefore, hard to measure monitarily. What may be “traumatic” for you may not be for me.
Case in point: I’m very much afraid of insect. Even ladybugs and butterflies. Really, they creep me out. Now, could I sue a zoo for exposing me to these insects and traumatizing me? Probably not.
@chatterboxwriting:
It is not clear the time frame. The article states he became sick several days after eating there and LATER passed the worm. How much later it does not say.
This is the grossest story ever!
@linus:
As indicated above – pain and suffering is not easily recoverable.
Further, your example is not any grounds for suing – you look to a reasonable person standard.
It seems unlikely with the timing that this guy got the worm at Shaw’s. Also, it’s a very popular restaurant and no one else has has reported a problem.
It’s much more prevalent for people to get tapeworms from undercooked lake fish like walleyes, which they have caught and prepared themselves. Probably had a few brews in the boat and simmered his catch without fully cooking it.
I imagine if you want to get some $$ for giving yourself a tapeworm — then you blame a high profile restaurant.
@GMFish: Exactly. So many people sue for things that they can’t quantify. So are they allowed to file suit for “mild discomfort for 1 week caused by ingesting hot food when not informed of exact temperature (regardless of the fact that the food was sizzling and steaming)”, or something like that? Why not stick to the actual monetary amount that was a result of the injustice? Hospital bills, loss of employment, legal fees, loss of ability to work, etc…
But no…people are greedy and want tens of millions of dollars because they spilled hot coffee on their own lap, claiming they didn’t know how hot it was. Sorry if I come off strong, but frivolous lawsuits are one of my pet peeves.
Tape worms are getting more common here in the States which in unfortunate since most Doctors are aware, or just flat out deny that a patient could have one.
My sister suspected that she had a tape worm for about two years. She ate a TON, but couldn’t ever gain weight, never got over 100lbs. She saw several doctors over her concern, each one denying that she might have one. Would always say that it can’t happen in the US, it only happens in 3rd world countries, blah blah, Well, She took it into her own hands and tried a few herbal treatments. In about 3 months, she passed a 14ft tape worm. Took several days to pass, but all the pieces combined to about 14ft.
Gross story, I know, but its important to realize that we aren’t immune to these sorts of problems just because of where we live. As best as we can tell, it probably came from produce.
It takes a long time for you to develop a full sized tape worm after injesting the eggs. I have a feeling that this guy got it from somewhere else and is just looking to blame someone with money, despite the fact that the evidence points to undercooked fish. (think he only ate fish at one place in the past few years?)
@Rippleeffect: WTB edit button. Should have read as “doctors are unaware”
a related point –
Whether or not you believe this guy got the tapeworm from that meal, or something else, do you think he should be able to win a lawsuit based on saying that he got the tapeworm from them?
If so, then how would any restaurant, or even you personally, defend yourself against someone who claimed to have gotten a tapeworm from a meal you served them?
It would be impossible, and the person/restaurant being sued would always lose because they have no way of contradicting his statement that he ate there and got the worm from that food.
For that reason, I don’t think he should be able to win this case.
ASSUMING that the company did give someone a tapeworm, $100k honestly doesn’t seem that unreasonable. Its a pretty serious thing.
This is the reason I take a dog dewormer every 6 months
@Rippleeffect: I dont understand how having a tapeworm would prevent you from gaining weight? The food doesnt magically disappear — it either makes you gain weight or the tapeworm.
I don’t have any idea how he’s going to prove that this restaurant caused the tapeworm.
I’d also think he’d have to provide evidence he hasn’t eaten any other food that’s a reasonable source of tapeworms.
It’s a crazy case, imho. If it can be proven, he deserves compensation. I have no idea whatsoever how he’ll go about proving it, though.
Everyone I know who has ever eaten at that particular restaurant has gotten sick from it. We get Lettuce Entertain You giftcards as our holiday bonus at work, and several people have used them for Shaw’s, and then regretted it. I have no trouble believing this man’s story. Around my house we call it “Shaw’s Shit Storm.”
@EyeHeartPie: What are you talking about? He should be suing for millions! Get screwed by a business and you’re on Easy Street! It’s your ticket to a home in Aspen and a pad in the Caribbean!
If he wanted the salmon cooked and they undercooked it, it’s their fault-I’m assuming that’s the case.
But if someone orders raw fish and gets sick, that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a risk that accompanies eating raw or undercooked fish, and if you knowingly consume raw food knowing said risks, the restaurant isn’t responsible for naturally occuring things
@Darkwing_Duck: I.e. only undercooking the fish if he wanted it cooked is negligence. A supplier selling salmon with tapeworm and a restaurant serving it is not, because they could not have taken any reasonable steps to know or prevent it-they can’t test every fish they serve, and they can cook the fish thoroughly-but what if the patron wants it raw?
@EyeHeartPie: You’re obviously alluding to the McDonalds hot coffee case. People who misunderstand that famous case are one of my pet peeves. As any first-year law student can tell you, based on the facts, the woman deserved every penny she got. Look it up.
In my opinion there is no such thing as a “frivolous lawsuit.” Every citizen must be allowed to air their grievances and the court should decide, on the merits of their case, whether and how much they should be compensated. (For the record, I work in law enforcement but I am not a lawyer or a cop.) And as others here have said, you come up with a figure from wich you are willing to negotiate down.
That’s why I’m against so-called “tort reform,” which is really just a politician’s euphemism for preemptively slamming the courthouse door on plaintiffs based on an arbitrary application of the law.
@EyeHeartPie: I’ll risk spilling coffee on myself to do something, and I have done it, and spilled coffee (ouch). But tell me, what reasonable person believes that spilling coffee might give them 3rd degree burns? Better yet, where does a restaurant get off serving coffee so hot it may cause 3rd degree burns? The spilled coffee case you are referencing has been shamelessly spun by Mickey D’s to sound frivolous, when, in actuality, it was more far reaching and serious.
@fredmertz: Perhaps the tapeworm is causing irritation or blocking the food along the microvilli along the intestinal lining.
If this happens, it can cause malabsorption of nutrients, thereby causing most of one’s meal to pass through the stool while the person starves.
@Darkwing_Duck: Which is why my local sushi restaurant has a disclaimer at the bottom of the menu. (Deja Vu)
@linus: Of course you couldn’t; one has a reasonable expectation to being exposed to animals at a zoo.
Now, if you were locked in the butterfly house overnight due to the misconduct of zoo personnel, then we could talk.
@EyeHeartPie:
There are defense lawyers for “frivolous suits” and as has been said above – MOST of the time for NEGLIGENCE (which is the case here) you are only going to get actual damages and no pain and suffering. So in essence you are contradicting yourself – you say people should be able to sue for actual damages but then you say the suit is frivolous because you misunderstand what they are actually recovering for. Even if they sue for pain and suffering in a negligence action they are not recovering for pain and suffering.
@fredmertz: Tape worm uses the food you eat to make bazillions of eggs, which you then pass. Also has its own metabolism to use the food you eat for.
@Paul D:
@Darkwing_Duck:
I am aware of the facts of the case. The fact that McDonald’s had a systemic problem of keeping their coffee intentionally (extremely) hot was an issue, but why is this woman entitled to more than her medical bills? I agree McDonald’s should be punished more than just the cost of medical/legal fees, but the extra money should go to other (previous) victims, or to fund burn centers in hospitals.
I am not disagreeing that people should be allowed to air their grievances. I am just a bit pissed that people nowadays feel like everything is the fault of everyone but themselves, and lawsuits are the solution to everything.
For example, in 1991, Richard Harris sued Anheiser-Busch for $10,000 for false advertising. He claimed to suffer from emotional distress in addition to mental and physical injury because when he drank beer, he didn’t have any luck picking up women, as promised in TV ads. Harris also didn’t like that he got sick sometimes after he drank. Sure the case was thrown out, but does anyone here think this should even have gotten to the courts?
And don’t forget the prison inmate who tried to sue himself for $5,000,000 for allowing him to get drunk and commit a crime. And since he had no money because he was in jail and couldn’t make money, he felt the state should pay his claim to himself.
These stories are entertaining, make for great reading, and are an incredible waste of taxpayer money. Every time I read about a silly lawsuit, I am reminded of one episode of Sliders where they visit an alternate world where every other person is a lawyer, and one main character accidentally bumps into an old lady who then sues him for whiplash and mental anguish, and since lawyers are a dime-a-dozen, she wins.
@EyeHeartPie:
Are you saying that people should not even be able to file a lawsuit if it is frivolous? Who is going to decide if it is frivolous if not the courts then?