Columbus Ohio Archives - Perez Morris

May 15, 2019

Absolute Defense: Plaintiffs who have failed to disclose their claims in bankruptcy proceedings

After a lawsuit is filed, as defendants, we routinely review the claims against our standard checklists, such as statutes of limitations, jurisdiction/venue, elements of the claims and removability to federal court. If you want to potentially achieve hero status, add a bankruptcy check to your standard review.

If a claim arises and the plaintiff later files a bankruptcy petition but fails to disclose the claim on his or her bankruptcy schedules, there is a good chance that the later-filed lawsuit will be barred under the concept of judicial estoppel.

Consider the case where a claimant suffers a personal injury or employment discrimination in 2015. In 2017, the claimant files a bankruptcy petition and does not disclose any claims on his or her sworn bankruptcy schedules and receives a discharge. In 2018, the claimant, now plaintiff, files a lawsuit on the personal injury or employment discrimination. The claims will likely be barred.

The judicial estoppel doctrine applies when a defendant shows that the plaintiff: (1) took a contrary position (i.e. that no claims existed); (2) under oath in a prior proceeding; and (3) the prior position was accepted by the court. Every debtor in a bankruptcy has an affirmative obligation to schedule assets, including known claims or causes of action. Failure to list a claim in a sworn schedule operates as a representation that the claim does not exist. Once the bankruptcy court processes the bankruptcy to final disposition, or even issues orders based on the debtor’s filings, then the doctrine is implicated.

Ohio state and federal courts routinely and consistently bar claims under the doctrine of judicial estoppel. These claims arise in personal injury, employment discrimination and a variety of other civil actions. This is a potentially valuable and game changing tool in your arsenal of defenses. So, make sure you check your plaintiff’s post-claim bankruptcy filing history, you could be a hero!

Troy helped form the firm in July of 1999. Prior to that he was a partner in the litigation and construction groups at a 90 lawyer Columbus firm. His main practice is commercial and construction litigation, including large loss property recoveries, where he has achieved successful jury verdicts and arbitration/mediation results – including many in excess of a million dollars.

Troy is a member of the American, Ohio and Columbus Bar Associations, the Ohio Bar Admission’s Committee, and past member of the Construction Owners Association of America and Builder’s Exchange of Central Ohio. Read more

April 3, 2019

New York Labor Law statutes

In New York there are two separate and distinct bodies of law known as the New York Labor Law. One set of the Labor Law statutes deal with employment law, the other body of law, which is a separate and distinct body of law known as the New York Labor Law Statutes, deals with injuries caused and suffered by workers on construction sites.

The New York Labor Law Statutes came about in New York in the 19^th Century. At the time the scaffolding law was being enacted, the federal government had not yet enacted certain federal protections such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or workers’ compensation programs. The legislative history and the intent behind the New York Labor Law statutes was to provide special protections to workers who were injured in construction accidents. When you think of all the photographs you have seen of the Manhattan skyline, there are always a few pictures which depict workers on steal beams above the city either having lunch or working on the building. It was for those workers that the legislature enacted these statutes to protect them and their families from injuries and death.

Labor Law Sections 200, 240(1), or 241(6) encompass all aspects of construction, and include renovations, alterations, or repairs of any structures or buildings. If a worker is injured due to a violation of any of these statutes, the injured worker may be entitled to recover damages regardless of who was responsible for the accident.

New York Labor Law § 200

New York Labor Law § 200 codifies the common law duty of owners of properties and general contractors doing work on the property to protect the safety “of all persons employed on the job-site or lawfully frequenting such places.” For a plaintiff to prevail under the safe workplace doctrine, the injury must be related to the workplace, and the plaintiff must show that the owner or contractor controlled the area or had notice of a dangerous and/or defective condition. The definition of “workplace” or “worksite” within the Labor Law is broadly interpreted. However, the definition is not only limited to the actual construction site, but it also includes nearby or adjoining areas such as passageways or walkways to and from the work area. Liability will be imposed upon a landowner under Labor Law § 200 when a plaintiff’s injuries were a result of a dangerous and defective condition at the construction site, rather than the manner in which the work was performed.

While defenses are limited in Labor Law cases, one defense allowing the landowner, under Labor Law § 200, to escape liability, is to show that they did not exercise supervision and control over the work being performed at the site and did they not have actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition causing the accident. Begor v. Mid-Hudson Hardwoods, Inc., 301 A.D.2d 550, 754 N.Y.S.2d 57 (2d Dep’t 2002).

Ordinarily, if the landowner or lessee (tenant) contracts out the construction, renovation and/or demolition, the landlord or tenant may not exercise control over the construction site and the responsibility usually lies with the general contractor and its subcontractors for job safety. However, the owner should, before initiating any construction, remodeling, or demolition on the property, make sure that they have properly crafted contractual agreements signed by the owner and contractor that adequately set forth who is responsible for the construction, renovation and/or demolition, and that there exists a properly worded defense and indemnification clause in the event that an accident occurs on the job site.

New York Labor Law § 240 (1)

Labor Law § 240 (1) more commonly known as the New York “Scaffolding Law,” relates to gravity-related falls. The law was implemented to protect workers from falls from ladders, scaffolding or any other gravity or elevated injuries to construction workers and to protect workers who are injured by materials which have fallen from an elevated height due to improper hoisting, securing, etc. The statute places the responsibility of a plaintiff’s fall from an elevated height on the property owner and the general contractor for failing to furnish proper and non-defective safety devices to alleviate the risks. According to New York Labor Law, it is the responsibility of the property owner, general contractor and/or sub-contractor to furnish proper safety lines, harnesses, guardrails, etc., which are necessary to guarantee a worker’s safety while working at an elevation.

The law imposes absolute liability on the construction companies, property owners and/or contractors who are responsible for maintaining a safe work environment. While the statute does not use the language strict or absolute liability, New York Courts have held that the employer has an “absolute duty” to furnish safe scaffolding and would be liable when they failed to do so and injury resulted (Maleeny v. Standard Shipbuilding Corp., 237 NY 250, 253 [1923]). Additionally, the New York Courts have also found liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) as “absolute” in the sense that owners or contractors not actually involved in construction can be held liable (Haimes v. New York Telephone Co., 46 NY2d 132, 136 [1978]), regardless of whether they exercise supervision or control over the work (Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co., 81 NY2d 494, 500 [1993]). Intending the same meaning as absolute liability in Labor Law § 240 (1) context, in 1990 the Court introduced the term “strict liability” (Cannon v. Putnam, 76 NY2d 644, 649) and from that point on used the terms interchangeably.

What makes this statute so difficult to defend is that throughout the history of the scaffold law and its amendments, the statutory language has never explicitly barred contributory negligence as a defense. However, in 1948 the New York Courts reasoned that the statute should be interpreted that way if it is to meet its objective (Koenig v. Patrick Constr. Corp., 298 NY 313, 316-317). Thus the New York Courts have constantly and consistently held that contributory negligence will not exonerate a defendant who has violated the statute and proximately caused a plaintiff’s injury (Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, Inc., 65 NY2d 513, 521 [1985]).

Further our Courts have emphasized two (2) points in applying the doctrine of strict or absolute liability. First, that liability is dependent on a statutory violation and proximate cause. In Duda v. Rouse (32 NY2d 405, 408 [1973]), the Court held that a “[v]iolation of the statute alone is not enough; plaintiff [is] obligated to show that the violation was a contributing cause of his fall,” and second, that when those elements are established, contributory negligence cannot defeat a plaintiff’s claim. Therefore, section 240 (1) is an exception to CPLR 1411, which recognizes contributory negligence as a defense in personal injury actions (Mullen v. Zoebe, Inc., 86 NY2d 135, 143 [1995]; Bland v. Manocherian, 66 NY2d 452, 461 [1985]).

Because the terms “strict liability” and “absolute liability” have different meanings in different locations, a great deal of ambiguity, as well as uncertainty, has arisen in New York’s jurisprudence when dealing with New York Labor Law §240 (1), including a mistaken belief that a fall from a scaffold or ladder, in and of itself, will result in an award of damages to the injured party. The New York Appellate Division in order to defray that ambiguity has clearly held: “that is not the law, and we have never held or suggested otherwise.” (See, Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Service of NYC, 11 N.Y.3d 280 (2003); Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assoc. (96 NY2d 259, 267 [2001]), (“Not every worker who falls at a construction site, and not any object that falls on a worker, gives rise to the extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240 (1)”); Beesimer v. Albany Avenue/Route 9 Realty, Inc. (216 AD2d 853, 854 [3d Dept 1995]). (“the mere fact that [a plaintiff] fell off the scaffolding surface is insufficient, in and of itself, to establish that the device did not provide proper protection”); Alava v. City of New York, 246 AD2d 614, 615 [2d Dept 1997] (“a fall from a scaffold does not establish, in and of itself, that proper protection was not provided”).

Therefore, there can be no liability under section 240 (1) where there is no statutory violation and the worker’s actions (i.e., his negligence) are the “sole proximate cause” of the accident. In Blake, supra, the Court held that, “extending the statute to impose liability in such a case would be inconsistent with statutory goals since the accident was not caused by the absence of (or defect in) any safety device, or in the way the safety device was placed.”

Lastly our Courts have expressly stated that the language of Labor Law § 240 (1) “must not be strained” to accomplish what the Legislature did not intend” (citing, Martinez v. City of New York, 93 NY2d 322, 326 [1999]). “If liability were to attach even though the proper safety devices were entirely sound and in place, the Legislature would have simply said so, or made owners and contractors into insurers. Instead, the Legislature has enacted no-fault workers’ compensation to address workplace injuries where, as here, the worker is entirely at fault and there has been no Labor Law violation shown.”(See, Blake, supra).

New York Labor Law Section 241(6)

This statute is also known as the “Worker Safety Statute,” which provides that the owner of the premises can be held liable for failure to provide adequate safety devices (that is, unless you are talking about only a one or two-family dwelling). It is axiomatic that section 241(6) of the Labor Law was designed to be unified with Part 23 of the New York Industrial Code (also known as “Rule 23”), a set of rules promulgated by the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Labor setting forth specific safety requirements that apply to certain types of heavy construction, demolition and excavation work performed anywhere within the State of New York. Labor Law 241 (6) provides for specific provisions that should be employed and used when performing construction, renovation, excavation on work-sites.

New York Labor Law § 241(6) demands certain requirements and responsibilities for contractors and property owners that, when not followed, make that contractor and owner liable for any injuries that result. The following are what is required of contractors and property owners: proper construction of work sites; necessary safety equipment and training; appropriate safe-guarding of the site; safe operation of equipment; and proper conduct to ensure safety.

Plaintiff, in order to recover damages under the first sentence of subsection six, must show that the landowner had actual supervision or control over the injury-related work. However, if a worker who was injured can show that he or she was injured due to a violation of a specific Industrial Code provision, then the worker may not have to show actual control or supervision by the landowner or contractor in order to state a claim.

We at Perez & Morris have the experience necessary to guide you through theses difficult waters and are willing discuss your case and represent you in the event one of these types of cases arise.

Michael heads up the New York office of Perez & Morris. Prior to joining Perez & Morris, Michael was the managing partner of Myerowitz, Jeffrey & Glidden and his main practice area was in defense litigation and family law. Prior to attending law school, Michael was in law enforcement and retired in 1997 as a sergeant in charge of the Special Investigation Unit. Michael also worked as a detective with respect to crimes against persons, as well as undercover narcotics investigations.

Admissions: New York Bar and U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York. Read more

March 11, 2019

The value of teaching as a practicing attorney

Working at Perez & Morris has provided me the opportunity to teach part-time as an undergraduate adjunct professor at my alma mater. I’ve been teaching for four years, originally beginning as an assistant professor of Education Law and then moving on to teaching Business Law II and most recently Hospitality Law. One of the many benefits to teaching law courses in an undergraduate institution is that most law courses are survey courses—meaning that the subject area encompasses many different fields of the law and requires the ability to connect those various fields to the subject matter. This would be a relatively easy task for any practicing attorney who has a solidified base of knowledge in a certain field. However, one of the first challenges comes in providing students their first insight into the US legal system.

One thing that has become very obvious from when I was a college student, is that the younger generation does not seem to have a solid background in civics education. Whereas students in my own generation had a basic understanding of civics (as most of us were required to take government and economics courses in high school), it seems that those requirements have been tossed out the window. The challenge for a law professor teaching legal concepts to undergraduate students in this day and age is to first off create a baseline of understanding of not just only the legal system in general, but to give them a broader insight into the workings of our government. Many would be surprised to find out that the younger generation doesn’t necessarily understand the basic concept of Federalism in our government. So the first couple of classes (regardless of the course being taught) are generally going to be spent as an overview of the Constitutional framework that our Federal government has set up. Those lessons have become more fun since “Hamilton” has exploded on Broadway. Introducing key players to the students and remarking on their contributions to the framework our forefathers set up makes the class more entertaining and provides a solid jumping off point for students to gain a deeper understanding of the material.

Once the basic underpinnings have been taught, the real work begins. Most areas of the law that are taught in these survey courses are similar and overlap. When teaching Education, Business, and Hospitality courses, there are always sections devoted squarely to Employment Law (how should every business owner/hospitality professional/administrator handle requests for time off or requests for accommodations and what are their requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act?), Tort Law (what is the duty all landowners owe to persons who enter their premises?), and Contract Law (what are the basics of forming a valid, enforceable contract and what rights do parties have under the contract, especially in the context of the employee/employer relationship?). However, each course presents its own unique challenges and legal concepts.

I believe it is safe to say that many attorneys have a general idea about many different areas of the law, most likely from their law school days or from the dreadful days of studying for the bar exam. But, each attorney may not have the required ability to go in depth on each subject that is presented. You may know the basic concepts, but can you discuss intelligently the nuances of that area of the law? For most attorneys, there are wide gaps in certain areas of the law, but those same attorneys probably have very intimate knowledge of certain other areas of the law that their practice focuses upon. This is just the nature of the business. Teaching these survey courses however, forces professors to become fully acquainted with various subject areas, areas that are probably generally beyond the scope of what they have practiced. I like to think that when teaching a survey course, you are very unlikely to find an attorney who has practiced in every single area that the textbook teaches about. The texts would lead students to believe that every attorney who practices in the Hospitality area is an expert in tort law, contract law, employment law and workers’ compensation law, intellectual property law, immigration law, real property law, international law, secured transactions, and criminal law, just to name some of the areas that are taught. While there may be attorneys who have this wide breadth of knowledge solely from their practice, it is most likely safe to assume that not many attorneys have the skill and expertise to handle cases in all these areas of law without committing some form of professional malpractice and an ethical violation, as most states (if not all) would require an attorney who is unfamiliar with an area of law to either turn down the case and refer it out or take the case on with the help of an attorney who has significant practice expertise in the area. But therein lies the reward for those attorneys who have the privilege of teaching courses such as these: you must become familiar enough with these areas of the law to be able to intelligently inform the students about what their requirements are under the law and how they can comply with laws and regulations that affect their certain professional area.

Being a practicing attorney who has been given the ability to teach law courses to undergraduate students, I could not recommend it enough to those who have the urge and ability to do it. It sharpens your public speaking skills, forces you to gain insight into areas of the law that you may not be as familiar with, and it gives you the reward of passing on your knowledge to the future generation. At the end of every semester, I can only hope that the students have learned at least one thing that will stay with them into the days when they start their own careers.

Anthony joined Perez & Morris in 2017. Prior to joining Perez & Morris, Anthony practiced with a law firm that handled personal injury, premises liability, and real estate litigation, amongst various other matters. He is a member of the New York State Bar Association, New Jersey State Bar Association, and the Columbian Lawyers Association of Rockland County.

Anthony is also an adjunct professor of Business Law at St. Thomas Aquinas College in Sparkill, New York, where he graduated magna cum laude in 2011 with a Bachelor’s Degree in History and a minor in Performing Arts. Read more

Photo of slippery floor with a caution sign and people walking near it

February 18, 2019

Don’t give up on summary judgment proceedings in premises liability situations

Most of us are familiar with the Summary Judgment process. If pursued, it is usually a chance for a defendant to explain to the Court why the claimant’s case could not possibly succeed at trial. Premises Liability claims in Ohio are particularly susceptible to summary judgement given the state’s adoption of the “open and obvious” doctrine as well as the “two-inch” rule. As a result, setting the claim up for a motion for summary judgment is often the primary goal when a claim is asserted and litigation commenced. However, most of us are also familiar with frustrating denials of summary judgment. How could a parking block not be open and obvious? How could a premises owner have known of a spill that occurred just moments before a claimant’s fall? Although individual results and case law can seem to be inconsistent, the benefits in filing a motion for summary judgment usually outweigh the determents considerably.

Taking the “glass is half empty” approach, let’s consider the primary detriment; the cost of filing a motion for summary judgment. Deposition costs and attorney fees can range from a few thousand to several thousand dollars for what some consider a futile effort, or less than likely chance at success. Without a doubt, filing a motion affects the bottom line. However, the glass is truly half full (if not more) as there is consistently a good chance it helps in the long run. A) it could result in a defense verdict. Best case scenario – no indemnity payments, no more litigation fees, B) it puts pressure on the claimant to resolve the claim or C) it compels the claimant to set forth the best evidence to overcome summary judgement.

In most cases a pending motion for summary judgment fosters reasonable settlement negotiations. Claimants and claimant’s counsel have a vested interest in ensuring some recovery for the alleged loss. Most claimant’s counsel, if not claimants themselves, are well aware that a motion for summary judgment may be granted despite what claimant’s counsel may deem clear issues of fact. As a result, settlement negotiations often become reasonable when a motion for summary judgment is pending. This is a key time to resolve a case, as the claimant is ensured some recovery and the defendant is assured a capped indemnity value while avoiding the time and expense of trial preparation. Finally, if nothing else the motion flushes out issues, strengths and weaknesses in the claim, which better enables the defense to evaluate the case and prepare the defense. If the claimant is relying on one specific fact to avoid summary judgment, that fact can be addressed more directly in trial preparation to enhance the defense or perhaps establish grounds for a directed verdict.

Recently, I had the opportunity to file motions for summary judgement in two premises liability cases. The first (“Case I”) involved significant injury, while the second (“Case II”) had questionable damages. Regardless, both claims were heading toward trial as no reasonable settlement negotiations were on the horizon. Case I entailed undisputed facts of water on the floor, a customer slip and fall, and a broken leg. Multiple depositions were taken and conflicting stories described how water got on the floor. Was there a spill that was mopped up and wet floor signs put out, or did a customer’s child spill water on the floor just before the fall? To foster summary judgment analysis, the claimant’s version of the facts was offered that a child had spilled water on the floor. It was then argued the premises owner had no knowledge of the spill before the fall. Strategically, the claimant could have utilized a contrary deposition to argue there was a known spill that was cleaned up and for which wet floor signs were posted. Maybe this would have created an issue of fact. However, the claimant stuck to her version of the facts, causing the Court to determine there was no evidence the premises owner had knowledge of the spill, actually or constructively. Summary judgment granted.

In Case II video surveillance captured the claimant slip and fall in a buffet aisle. The claimant does not know what caused her to fall, or how long the substance on the floor had been on the floor. The premises owner had no knowledge of any foreign substance on the floor, so it set up classic grounds for summary judgment. The only issue was an allegation that the claimant’s cousin, also in the video, could potentially identify the substance and link it to a failure by the premises owner to keep the area clear. Despite this potential assertion, a motion was filed. Time to oppose the motion passed, while claimant’s counsel tried to secure the witness. It never happened and the motion was granted.

Both of these cases involved issues that some would argue could relatively easily overcome summary judgment. But the outcomes cannot be disputed. One thing is for certain, summary judgment will not be granted unless a motion is filed. So if there is a good faith basis to file for summary judgment, it should be given strong consideration.

Drew Wachtman is a Premise Liability and Insurance Coverage litigator in the Perez & Morris Columbus office. He has substantial first chair jury trial and appellate experience, as well as experience with various business formation transactions. Drew’s litigation experience has enabled him to practice extensively throughout the courts in Ohio. Drew also consults on business and risk management issues.

Drew and his wife are the proud parents of three daughters. Read more

November 9, 2018

Do’s & Don’ts of Food Claim Handling

“Now, ya’ll would guess that more often than not, the highest paid player on an NFL team is the quarterback. And you’d be right. But what you probably don’t know is that more often than not, the second highest paid player is, thanks to Lawrence Taylor, a left tackle. Because, as every housewife knows, the first check you write is for the mortgage, but the second is for the insurance. The left tackle’s job is to protect the quarterback from what he can’t see comin’. To protest his blind side” – Leigh Anne Tuohy

There is not a restaurant, chef, or restaurateur in the world that looks forward to “the call”. You know the one. The “call” is the first notice a restaurant receives from a customer that the customer became ill after eating at the restaurant. It is imperative that every restaurant have a policy, a protocol in place to ensure that their blind side is covered.

Do’s & Don’ts of Food Claim Handling

DO have a plan in place before you need it

Every restaurant should have a policy in place for receiving any such calls. For example, any customer who calls to complain about an illness or some other issue with food (i.e. an undesirable foreign object found in the food) should be directed to a store manager or someone else who has been trained and advised on how to handle customer complaints.

DON’T Apologize

Regardless, whoever first answers the call should not apologize to the customer.

DO Ask Follow Up Questions

While it is human nature to say “I’m sorry” or “sorry to hear that” when someone explains they are not feeling well or upset, that simple phrase has been used by plaintiffs who claim the apology is an admission of guilt. The better option is to say something neutral and to start interviewing the customer to get as much information as possible. One option is to respond, “Oh no! We have not received any other complaints from customers, do you mind if I ask you a few questions?”

DON’T Volunteer Information

It is also to be noted that the restaurant employee handling the initial claim SHOULD NOT volunteer any information. Even if the restaurant may have received another call where a customer was reporting an illness, such information should not be shared with any other customer. At this stage, it is simply too early to know whether there is an issue at the restaurant or if there is any commonality between the two customers. Telling a customer that other customers have complained as well will only give the impression there is a larger issue at the restaurant when, in reality, any similar complaints may be completely unrelated. Again, the discussion with the customer should focus solely on that customer and getting as much information as possible.

DO ask the following fact-finding questions.

What did you eat?

Although an obvious question, be sure to ask about everything the customer ate (i.e. appetizer, main course, sides, desserts, drinks). If other customers do complain, you will want to have a list of all foods ingested by each complaining customer to determine if there is a common food or ingredient that may have caused the illness.

When did you eat at the restaurant?

The time between when the customer ate at the restaurant and when symptoms started is important in determining whether the illness could be related to food consumed at the restaurant. Some symptoms take several hours to first appear after eating contaminated food. If the customer was just at the restaurant a half hour before calling, it is unlikely eating something at that restaurant caused the customer’s illness.

What else did you eat the day you became ill?

This goes hand-in-hand with the timing issue discussed above. If the customer had another meal a few hours before eating at the restaurant, that meal could be the cause of the illness. Thus, it is important to know when and what the customer ate the same day he or she ate at the restaurant.

What symptoms are you having and when did they start?

This information will help evaluate the customer’s claims. As stated above, some symptoms may take hours after eating to develop. Thus, even if the symptoms are the type normally associated with a food-borne illness, the timing of the symptoms may exclude the food consumed at the restaurant as a cause.

Anyone else in the customer’s party with symptoms or without symptoms?

you will want to know whether the customer ate with anyone else and whether anyone else in the customer’s party is experiencing similar issues. This is especially important if the other member of the party consumed the same food as the complaining customer. Also instructive is whether other members of the customer’s party did consume the same food but did not experience any symptoms. This will help rule out the food as the cause of the customer’s illness.

Was medical treatment sought?

The restaurant should also ask the customer whether he or she sought medical treatment and, if so, whether a diagnosis was received. If medical treatment was sought, be sure to ask what type of treatment, if any, was prescribed.

Was medical treatment sought?

If the customer’s order was a carryout order, you should ask whether the customer still has the food.

We usually work with expert consultants and toxicologists to secure and test any food that was consumed by the complaining customer to test for any contaminants.

In the case of a foreign object, the consultant can also test to determine what the foreign object is and, in some cases, determine when the foreign object was introduced into the food.

If the customer still has the food, or if it is at the restaurant, efforts should be made to have the evidence preserved.

Every restaurant should have guidelines in place for the safe handling of any evidence to be preserved. Before ending the conversation with the customer, be sure to take down all contact information.

DO follow up with the customer the following day

Let the customer know a thorough investigation will be conducted. It is also a good idea to follow up with the customer after a day or so to see how the customer is feeling. By doing so, the gesture will let the customer know the restaurant cares about its customers and takes reports seriously. It must be noted that while a restaurant cannot prevent a customer from pursuing a formal complaint, having the information described above will put the restaurant in a position to mount a strong defense against any questionable or meritless claims