PITTSBURGH – A Pittsburgh branch location of The Cheesecake Factory has denied responsibility for the presence of glass inside an appetizer which a local woman bit into nearly two years ago, and suggested she was comparatively negligent for her own injuries.
Ishania Forsett of Pittsburgh first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Jan. 9 versus The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. (doing business as “The Cheesecake Factory”), of Calabasas Hills, Calif.
Forsett claimed she visited The Cheesecake Factory’s restaurant location at Pittsburgh’s Ross Park Mall on May 26, 2022, when she ordered a Sweet Corn Tamale appetizer from the menu.
“The plaintiff bit into the appetizer and bit down on a foreign object causing her immediate injury. The plaintiff [then] removed the foreign object from her mouth, immediately inspected the appetizer further and discovered the foreign object to be a piece of glass within the appetizer,” the suit said.
“The manager informed plaintiff that the rest of the same or similar appetizers were thereafter disposed of by the kitchen because of the presence of the foreign object in plaintiff’s appetizer.”
The suit added Forsett “immediately showed the appetizer and piece of glass to The Cheesecake Factory manager, Andrew Kelly, who confirmed the existence of the foreign object, although he disagreed as to whether the object was glass or hard plastic.”
Kelly then informed Forsett that the rest of the same or similar appetizers were thereafter disposed of by the kitchen, because of the presence of the foreign object in her appetizer.
“The Cheesecake Factory produced an incident report related to the foreign object in plaintiff’s food and the manager, Andrew Kelly, provided his business card. Defendants knew and/or should have known about the dangerous, hazardous and unsafe condition that existed for an unreasonable period of time,” the suit stated.
UPDATE
On Feb. 14, The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. answered the complaint, denying Forsett’s allegations and bringing forward new matter defenses on its own behalf.
“No acts or omissions on the part of answering defendant was the proximate cause of the injury or damages alleged to be sustained by plaintiff. Plaintiff’s claims, if any, are barred because any acts and/or omissions, which are alleged on the part of answering defendant, were not a substantial or proximate cause of the alleged incident referenced in plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s claims, if any, are barred because plaintiff’s alleged injuries and losses, if any, were caused or contributed to solely or in part by the negligence and/or intentional acts, or failure to act, of persons and/or entities other than answering defendant, or persons and/or entities, over whom answering defendant had no control or right of control, and for whom answering defendant was not, and are not, responsible. Plaintiff’s claims, losses and/or damages, if any, and plaintiff’s right of recovery for those losses and/or damages, if any, are reduced or limited because of plaintiff’s failure to mitigate her damages,” the new matter stated, in part.
“Plaintiff’s claims may be barred by the passing of the applicable statute of limitations. No dangerous, unsafe or defective condition existed at the subject business premises. Plaintiff’s claimed injuries and damages are not causally related to the incident in question. Plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter of law. Answering defendant was not negligent as a matter of law. Answering defendant acted reasonably and exercised due care under the circumstances and were not negligent or careless. Some, or all, of the injuries and damages alleged in plaintiff’s complaint may not arise out of the incident alleged in plaintiff’s complaint.”
The restaurant further alleged that the “alleged hazardous, dangerous, and/or otherwise unsafe condition complained of in plaintiff’s complaint was open and obvious and known to the plaintiff, or should have been known to the plaintiff by use of ordinary diligence” and that as such, the plaintiff’s recovery “may be barred or reduced by her comparative negligence.”
For a lone count of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking actual economic and non-economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and granting all such other relief as the Court deems necessary, just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Eric Chaffin, Patrick Booth and Justin Joseph of Chaffin Luhana, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Jennifer G. Shorr of Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby, in Philadelphia.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-24-000252
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com