Economy Supermarket destroys food, does not let people salvage them

[JudoThrowFiasco]

The issue from I can tell is that they didn't seperate anything and tossed frozen with refrigerated. Frozen food is definitely a liability, depending on when their cold system died out, thawing taking place and possibly be refrozen in the dumpster, that's high risk. Also, I wonder if donation centers still had their cold storage operational? The article says people apparently wanting to distribute the food showed up, but who knows if they were equipped? I've tried to donate frozen food to disbursement centers and they never had the capacity to handle it.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

It's unlikely that the store would lose but the issue isn't losing (dumpster diving on private property is trespassing and theft), the issue is being dragged into court at all.

If you look into surveys from food retailers, 60+% think they are legally liable for whatever they donate...not out of the realm of possibility that they were nervous about people consuming from their dumpster

 

[jx820]

Imaginary scenario: Someone is in your backyard rummaging through your trash. You have to clean up trash in your yard the next morning. Brings his friends the next day. Have to clean up again the morning after. The next day.. Then the one day you make a "negligent" mistake, he hurts himself on something in your trash and sues you. You're OK with that?

Think further though. You now have those people chilling in your neighborhood. All the sudden property crimes go up. People can't leave things in their cars anymore. You start noticing blunt wraps and stuff on the ground in your neighborhood. Your insurance rates go up with that. That's cool too?

I've lived in neighborhoods with lots of dumpster divers. It's a million small things like you start noticing that Christmas cards (with money) from your grandparents aren't in the mailbox, even though they swear they mailed them to you. And they didn't get your's. Then you gotta stop the family tradition. That's why people bolt shut their dumpsters and keep their trash cans inside.

It's not some businesses' responsibility to feed people, or to turn their property into a chill spot for homeless people. Just like it's not their responsibility to provide $2,000 a month health insurance to an employee's family they pay $1600 a month salary. You gonna blame them for the price of tea in China too? Stop blaming private businesses for not doing things the government should be doing. It's the government's responsibility.

I feel like you think my position is that the grocery store should be OK with dumpster diving. I've never said that.

More or less, the entire discussion I've taken part in is whether or not the grocery store is liable for people being sick from eating food that technically the grocery store does not own, or injured absent any flagrant negligence.

If you have some relevant well thought out or researched input on that subject I'm happy to discuss that with you. If you would like my opinion on how I would address the matter from the stores position I have posted that in this thread, you are welcome to read it.

 

[superpunch]

I feel like you think my position is that the grocery store should be OK with dumpster diving. I've never said that.

More or less, the entire discussion I've taken part in is whether or not the grocery store is liable for people being sick from eating food that technically the grocery store does not own, or injured absent any flagrant negligence.

That last one is a gamble with minimum wage employees.. Plus, everyone makes mistakes eventually. Eventually, on a long enough time scale, you will accidentally be "negligent". Or, even if you're not, someone will make it look like you were anyways. If the law says that's what someone needs to find for a paycheck, someone will somehow "find" that. Think of the kind of people who make up a huge chunk of the people you're going to be risking this situation with.. So why do something with massive potential risk and 0 potential reward?

 

[jx820]

That last one is a gamble with minimum wage employees.. Plus, everyone makes mistakes eventually. Eventually, on a long enough time scale, you will accidentally be "negligent". Or, even if you're not, someone will make it look like you were anyways. If the law says that's what someone needs to find for a paycheck, someone will somehow "find" that. Think of the kind of people who make up a huge chunk of the people you're going to be risking this situation with.. So why do something with massive potential risk and 0 potential reward?

Again I feel like you think I'm advocating for why someone would want their business mass dumpster dived. I haven't done that. I'm only correcting people's inaccurate claims about legal liability.

 

[MMA Time Soldier]

Texas.

What about Texas

 

[superpunch]

Again I feel like you think I'm advocating for why someone would want their business mass dumpster dived. I haven't done that. I'm only correcting people's inaccurate claims about legal liability.

The law says one thing, but I don't think anyone believes that's how it would play out in real life. You can't seem to separate words on a paper from the real world. If the law says negligence then someone will "find" negligence if they can get a payday from it. Everyone makes mistakes, so one day you will actually be 'negligent' and exposed to massive risk. Even if you are superhuman and don't make mistakes and are never negligent, someone will eventually "find" negligence if you give them the opportunity. In the real America, people don't give people opportunities to put them in that situation unless they're idiots.

It's like voter IDs. The law would say they would never be used to deny minorities the right to vote. Given our history though, I don't think many people would honestly believe that. So, many people are against voter IDs because the law and what happens in the real world are 2 different things.

Scammers are real. Ambulance chasers are real. Those aside, honest mistakes that would open you to business ending risk do happen too. In America, it's just not worth it. The risk is too big.

 

[4daLuLZ]

It's unlikely that the store would lose but the issue isn't losing (dumpster diving on private property is trespassing and theft), the issue is being dragged into court at all.

I don’t think that’s their issue with it.

 

[jx820]

The law says one thing, but I don't think anyone believes that's how it would play out in real life. You can't seem to separate words on a paper from the real world. If the law says negligence then someone will "find" negligence if they can get a payday from it. Everyone makes mistakes, so one day you will actually be 'negligent' and exposed to massive risk. Even if you are superhuman and don't make mistakes and are never negligent, someone will eventually "find" negligence if you give them the opportunity. In the real America, people don't give people opportunities to put them in that situation unless they're idiots.

It's like voter IDs. The law would say they would never be used to deny minorities the right to vote. Given our history though, I don't think many people would honestly believe that. So, many people are against voter IDs because the law and what happens in the real world are 2 different things.

Scammers are real. Ambulance chasers are real. Those aside, honest mistakes that would open you to business ending risk do happen too. In America, it's just not worth it. The risk is too big.

It's not a question of "worth it" and it's not just words on paper. These things have been tried, time and time again. There is a TON of caselaw on this stuff. Also, if a store wants complete liability protection and protection from dumpster divers donating all the food would protect them under the Good Samaritan Food Donation act of 1996.

Functionally there is almost no scenario where someone could win a lawsuit due to illness or injury from that food other than the store selling it to them knowing its bad, or the store intentionally sabotaging potential dumpster divers. I just went through 5 pages of "dumpster diver sues store" search results looking for a big win for some dumpster diver and found nothing.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

It's not a question of "worth it" and it's not just words on paper. These things have been tried, time and time again. There is a TON of caselaw on this stuff. Also, if a store wants complete liability protection and protection from dumpster divers donating all the food would protect them under the Good Samaritan Food Donation act of 1996.

Functionally there is almost no scenario where someone could win a lawsuit due to illness or injury from that food other than the store selling it to them knowing its bad, or the store intentionally sabotaging potential dumpster divers. I just went through 5 pages of "dumpster diver sues store" search results looking for a big win for some dumpster diver and found nothing.

All this talk of good samaritan laws are useless, the fridges broke and the food spoiled. It's not a matter of if someone would get sick eating it, someone WILL get sick eating it. The sad thing is Portland has so many homeless that this is actually an issue.

 

[jx820]

All this talk of good samaritan laws are useless, the fridges broke and the food spoiled. It's not a matter of if someone would get sick eating it, someone WILL get sick eating it. The sad thing is Portland has so many homeless that this is actually an issue.

Again, that still doesn't change liability. If people want to eat your spoiled garbage you are not liable. You can discourage it however or for whatever reasons you want, but the question of legal liability for illness is very clear.

Also food doesn't spoil very quickly particularly in winter. That food probably fine and the kind of people that eat from dumpsters generally know the difference. But assuming it's all botulism soup... the store is still not liable for people eating their garbage.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

Again, that still doesn't change liability. If people want to eat your spoiled garbage you are not liable. You can discourage it however or for whatever reasons you want, but the question of legal liability for illness is very clear.

Also food doesn't spoil very quickly particularly in winter. That food probably fine and the kind of people that eat from dumpsters generally know the difference. But assuming it's all botulism soup... the store is still not liable for people eating their garbage.

It's still not a good look to have 100 homeless people having a feeding frenzy in the dumpster. If I saw that at a grocery store I'd literally drive past to the next grocery store.

 

[Diogenes of Sinope]

Who said anything about socialism? He tried to link multiculturalism to this runaway capitalist bullshit.

Socialism is the soluion to neuter capitalism. However if you want people to cooperate under socialism, there needs to be a unifying culture. a sense of patriotism, which doesnt exist in the US at the moment. Sub cultures can exist, of course, but there needs to be a unifying national culture as well. Thats why it works so well with countries like Norway

 

[jx820]

It's still not a good look to have 100 homeless people having a feeding frenzy in the dumpster. If I saw that at a grocery store I'd literally drive past to the next grocery store.

Me too.

 

[Limbo Pete]

There is liability if someone were to get sick from any of that food. The people may be hungry but let one of them get sick and they would sue right away.

If there are so many hungry and starving people up there they should stop their nightly temper tantrums and work to help each other.

How you gonna sue someone over food being spoiled when you take it out of the trash lol

 

[Seano]

Just lol @ anyone thinks this okay when people are starving. The ol 'they might get sick' is a poor excuse and doesn't cut it.

Let them eat at their own risk but its no donation. Society is backwards and greed. Sad

Fuck that. Go to a homeless shelter, soup kitchen or get a fucking job.
What are you advocating, the right for people to pick through garbage and eat it?

 

[Limbo Pete]

I don't think anyone is disputing that. People are just saying that they should not be soo zealous in preventinghomeless people taking food out of the dumpster. They can just put a note saying they don't approve of it and they will not be liable for expired food.

They don't even need a note. It's trash.

 

[west42]

How you gonna sue someone over food being spoiled when you take it out of the trash lol

Not sure about oregon, but in my state you would either contact a lawfirm to do it or go to the local courthouse, pay about $50 in fees, then a court date would be set.

 

[Limbo Pete]

What are you advocating, the right for people to pick through garbage and eat it?

Jesus christ

 

[MicroBrew]

They don't even need a note. It's trash.

My family has a business. We throw away lots of wood building products , for recycling etc.. Sometimes neighbors come and take stuff. We told them to help themselves as it is going for recycling.