Pork pieces in Food Confirmed as Vegetarian when Ordered

[justalayman]

I don't believe your supposed religious/cultural beliefs for one second and I doubt a jury will either.

What religion/culture has a rule that says accidentally eating meat after taking reasonable precautions to avoid doing so is a "Religious Crime beyond recovery"? If you really believe it's a "crime beyond recovery" then you should be making your own food at all times.

I think you are making them up thinking you have won the lawsuit lottery.

Whether victor is making up this particular situation or not aside, I would suggest you do a bit of research. Victor's claims are not unrealistic in light of some of the religions of the world. The US is what I call religious "light". In general, we do not take out religious beliefs as fully and as faithfully as many other areas of the world. While many Americans see religion as being adjunct to our lives, many other areas of the world, and especially religions that are not overly prevalent in the US, their religion is the core, center, or true purpose of their life.

 

[Dave1952]

I, also, find Victor's post troubling. There are many vegetarians in the USA. The staff of the hotel certainly should have been able to deal with Victor's request. In the US there are vegetarians who refuse cheese and butter. There are also those who do not eat eggs.
Mistakes do happen. Was this a mistake? I'm not sure. The hotel certainly established quickly that he received a sauce with pork roast in it. It does not sound as if the kitchen sent up a vegetarian sauce. Why not? What did the order ticket say?
I'm puzzled by several things. In his initial post he tosses around the word intentional. Why does he assume that this was intentional? Victor also has received a written apology and has rejected an offer of $100 in compensation.
In a later post wonders if he can get more than $5000. There's something here that does not smell right.

Good luck

 

[xylene]

Whether victor is making up this particular situation or not aside, I would suggest you do a bit of research. Victor's claims are not unrealistic in light of some of the religions of the world. The US is what I call religious "light". In general, we do not take out religious beliefs as fully and as faithfully as many other areas of the world. While many Americans see religion as being adjunct to our lives, many other areas of the world, and especially religions that are not overly prevalent in the US, their religion is the core, center, or true purpose of their life.

The standards and dietary laws of another culture do not create the gravity of the situation for an order mix-up in a hotel in Connecticut.

Although I doubt I would resort to bulimia as the poster did if I were to ingest food I did not care for...

 

[justalayman]

I, also, find Victor's post troubling. There are many vegetarians in the USA. The staff of the hotel certainly should have been able to deal with Victor's request. In the US there are vegetarians who refuse cheese and butter. There are also those who do not eat eggs.
Mistakes do happen. Was this a mistake? I'm not sure. The hotel certainly established quickly that he received a sauce with pork roast in it. It does not sound as if the kitchen sent up a vegetarian sauce. Why not? What did the order ticket say?
I'm puzzled by several things. In his initial post he tosses around the word intentional. Why does he assume that this was intentional? Victor also has received a written apology and has rejected an offer of $100 in compensation.
In a later post wonders if he can get more than $5000. There's something here that does not smell right.

Good luck

All of those concerns would be addressed in any subsequent action. If the claims are false, the award, or lack of one, will likely reflect it. Rather than criticizing something you obviously have little education concerning, such as Hinduism and their beliefs concerning vegetarianism, try sticking with the merits of the case.

As I see it, accepting the statements of the OP, the actions do fall under, at least, the unintentional infliction of emotional distress. To me, this would be no less egregious as me finding a finger in my Subway sandwich or a rat in my KFC. It is offensive. Especially if the OP took special precautions to assure the meal would be purely vegetarian, then the restaurant screwed up and should be held liable for their actions.

$5k in todays world for something such as this: not much at all. In fact, If the OP would be satisfied with that amount, I would consider such an offer of negotiation before even addressing an attorney. If the restaurant would lose in court, an award could be many many times that amount.

 

[Victor9]

I, also, find Victor's post troubling. There are many vegetarians in the USA. The staff of the hotel certainly should have been able to deal with Victor's request. In the US there are vegetarians who refuse cheese and butter. There are also those who do not eat eggs.
Mistakes do happen. Was this a mistake? I'm not sure. The hotel certainly established quickly that he received a sauce with pork roast in it. It does not sound as if the kitchen sent up a vegetarian sauce. Why not? What did the order ticket say?
I'm puzzled by several things. In his initial post he tosses around the word intentional. Why does he assume that this was intentional? Victor also has received a written apology and has rejected an offer of $100 in compensation.
In a later post wonders if he can get more than $5000. There's something here that does not smell right.

Good luck

Inspite of asking 3-4 times and them confirming the food to be vegetarian and still giving pork in it, Will you call it just a mistake...what if you find your meal full of worms and rotten stuff, will you still think the hotel took sufficient care in making up the meal...Its very easy sitting back and criticising, but difficult to face the pain of the situation...
As regards $5000, I asked that because of the legal expenses involved in making up the case... I had asked a few lawyers, and none willing to take the case on contingent fee basis. They even stating such case would be outstretched adn very expensive. I had filed a case with Consuler Court of Connecticut as I fail to find a lawyer I can afford for the case.
I am not sure if US laws define "Vegetarian". I see many places using it to describe just vegetables...It has a more narrow meaning to me which certainly donot include Flesh.

 

[justalayman]

In this country, outside of the legal circles, we have what is called a vegetarian which would simply mean; you don't eat meat (flesh) of an animal. In the most relaxed terms, fish is not considered to be meat. Since we are speaking of pork, it would absolutely not be acceptable in a vegetarian diet.

The problem with "vegetarian" is there is no one definition. Generally, it is simply meant to mean you don't eat meat. It typically allows for the the consumption of other products derived from animals whether they be items such as milk or eggs to broths made from stewing the meat or bones as long as it does not contain actual meat (flesh).


You sound like you are what we tend to call a vegan. That is where you do not eat anything from the animal and products made from or using an animal. That would mean milk and milk products, eggs, and even broth from anything, including a fish, are not allowed.

You might want to remember that for any return trips to the US. You would likely be best served by ordering from a vegan menu rather than just a vegetarian menu.

 

[Victor9]

In this country, outside of the legal circles, we have what is called a vegetarian which would simply mean; you don't eat meat (flesh) of an animal. In the most relaxed terms, fish is not considered to be meat. Since we are speaking of pork, it would absolutely not be acceptable in a vegetarian diet.

The problem with "vegetarian" is there is no one definition. Generally, it is simply meant to mean you don't eat meat. It typically allows for the the consumption of other products derived from animals whether they be items such as milk or eggs to broths made from stewing the meat or bones as long as it does not contain actual meat (flesh).


You sound like you are what we tend to call a vegan. That is where you do not eat anything from the animal and products made from or using an animal. That would mean milk and milk products, eggs, and even broth from anything, including a fish, are not allowed.

You might want to remember that for any return trips to the US. You would likely be best served by ordering from a vegan menu rather than just a vegetarian menu.

I am not a vegan. Infact most Hindu vegetarian enjoys Milk, Butter, Butter milk, cheese etc. Some even have eggs nowadays. But Hindu vegetarian will never have fish, flesh, or sea food. I had been to several places in Europe and this time to US. Wherever I go I make sure to ask that the food should not contain flesh, fish, sea food etc. I am ok with cheese, milk, butter and soy though. I trust the order taker and confirm several times before making orders to be sure that they understand my reqt.

 

[xylene]

what if you find your meal full of worms and rotten stuff, will you still think the hotel took sufficient care in making up the meal..

If I received a rotten meal, and suffered no health consequences, I would not have damages of 5000.

 

[Zigner]

Swalsh411,
I donot believe if ever i receive any compensation it will be big enough to be called a lottery. I am staying in New Jersey at a Property where one can make its own food and I use that to the fullest. The commercials are motivating factor for many but not for me. As I had already cited that I wish to donate the proceedings to charity to partially make good the guilt I am suffering from.
You can have a look at these sites to to know more on Hindu Vegetarianism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_vegetarianism & http://www.flex.com/~jai/articles/hinmeat.html

http://www.flex.com/~jai/articles/hinmeat.html

http://www.oldandsold.com/books/hindu/hindu-9.shtml

I've reviewed your posted links. I see nothing that indicates the accidental ingestion of a minute amount of pork, after taking all proper precautions, is a "Religious Crime beyond recovery". I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing it.

 

[Victor9]

I've reviewed your posted links. I see nothing that indicates the accidental ingestion of a minute amount of pork, after taking all proper precautions, is a "Religious Crime beyond recovery". I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing it.

He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures lives in misery in whatever species he may take his birth. Mahabharat 115.47

Those high-souled persons who desire beauty, faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental and physical strength and memory should abstain fromacts of injury. Mahabharat 18.115.8

The very name of cow is Aghnya ["not to be killed"], indicating that they should never be slaughtered. Who, then could slay them? Surely, one who kills a cow or abull commits a heinous crime. Mahabharat Shantiparv 262.47

The purchaser of flesh performs Hinsa (violence) by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does Hinsa by actually tying and killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing: he who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells or cooks flesh and eats it -- all of these are to be considered meat-eaters. Mahabharat Anu 115.40

He who sees that the Lord of all is ever the same in all that is -- immortal in the field of mortality -- he sees the truth. And when a man sees that the God in himself is the same God in all that is, he hurts not himself by hurting others. Then he goes, indeed, to the highest path. Bhagavad Geeta 13.27-28

Ahinsa is the highest Dharm. Ahinsa is the best Tapas. Ahinsa is the greatest gift. Ahinsa is the highest self-control. Ahinsa is the highest sacrifice. Ahinsa is the highest power. Ahinsa is the highest friend. Ahinsa is the highest truth. Ahinsa is the highest teaching. Mahabharat 18.116.37-41

What is the good way? It is the path that reflects on how it may avoid killing any creature. Tirukural 324

All that lives will press palms together in prayerful adoration of those who refuse to slaughter and savor meat. Tirukural 260

What is virtuous conduct? It is never destroying life, for killing leads to every other sin. Tirukural 312, 321

Goodness is never one with the minds of these two: one who wields a weapon and one who feasts on a creature's flesh. Tirukural 253

 

[Victor9]

If I received a rotten meal, and suffered no health consequences, I would not have damages of 5000.

Easy said than done....One may not if eating street food...but one will if eating at places like Continental/Marriott chains...Not because of Green..But because He/She pays premium assuming to get quality food and not rotten food..if someone still gleefully accepts it then either he does not have guts to raise voice or is very generous at heart..I am neither....

 

[Zigner]

He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures lives in misery in whatever species he may take his birth. Mahabharat 115.47

You had no desire

Those high-souled persons who desire beauty, faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental and physical strength and memory should abstain fromacts of injury. Mahabharat 18.115.8

You had no desire

The very name of cow is Aghnya ["not to be killed"], indicating that they should never be slaughtered. Who, then could slay them? Surely, one who kills a cow or abull commits a heinous crime. Mahabharat Shantiparv 262.47

You did not slaughter a cow/bull (or any other animal)

The purchaser of flesh performs Hinsa (violence) by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does Hinsa by actually tying and killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing: he who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells or cooks flesh and eats it -- all of these are to be considered meat-eaters. Mahabharat Anu 115.40

You did not bring or send for the flesh. You did not cut off the limbs of an animal and you did not purchase, sell or cook and eat flesh.

He who sees that the Lord of all is ever the same in all that is -- immortal in the field of mortality -- he sees the truth. And when a man sees that the God in himself is the same God in all that is, he hurts not himself by hurting others. Then he goes, indeed, to the highest path. Bhagavad Geeta 13.27-28

You did not hurt an animal

Ahinsa is the highest Dharm. Ahinsa is the best Tapas. Ahinsa is the greatest gift. Ahinsa is the highest self-control. Ahinsa is the highest sacrifice. Ahinsa is the highest power. Ahinsa is the highest friend. Ahinsa is the highest truth. Ahinsa is the highest teaching. Mahabharat 18.116.37-41

You did not do, nor did you desire to do, harm.

What is the good way? It is the path that reflects on how it may avoid killing any creature. Tirukural 324

According to your story, you did your best to avoid being a part of killing any creature.

All that lives will press palms together in prayerful adoration of those who refuse to slaughter and savor meat. Tirukural 260

You did not slaughter, nor did you savor meat.

What is virtuous conduct? It is never destroying life, for killing leads to every other sin. Tirukural 312, 321

You did not destroy life.

Goodness is never one with the minds of these two: one who wields a weapon and one who feasts on a creature's flesh. Tirukural 253

You did not wield a weapon and you did not "feast" on a creature's flesh.


What am I missing?

 

[xylene]

You said this was the flesh of a pig...

 

[n8nina]

I'm a vegetarian too and don't eat pork for religious reasons (prior to just not eating any) sorry this happened. Did you speak the the manager?

 

[n8nina]

if this ever happens again you might want to look into getting activated charcoal (just what I do if I eat something bad)