j reacts to criminal negligence in the context of the anarchist social contract

criminal negligence revolves around the concept of reasonable precaution. what is at question here is ultimately not whether he carried out an act or not, or even if he did so on purpose, but whether he took the proper precautions to ensure it didn't happen. the legal question will likely revolve around the discussion he had with the person that actually prepared the food. did he point out the allergy clearly enough on the order?

the article is poorly written - it does not provide any facts. but, if the waiter expressed the allergies with a sufficient level of force, then it falls upon the cook.

it is very difficult to see how any judge in any liberal democracy could legally fault the victim for forgetting their epipen.

but, a lot of how you react to this is going to depend on what kind of social contract you feel is best applied. i'm an advocate of the proudhonian social contract, but less so of the one promoted by rousseau. i do consequently think that the waiter has a moral, legal and social responsibility to ensure that he does not poison anybody, and that he should face collective punitive action by society should he not uphold that social contract.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/sherbrooke-waiter-arrested-salmon-allergic-customer-negligence-1.3707667