According to that article, this only covers donations to other organizations who then distribute the donated food. It doesn’t cover anyone directly donating food to individuals.
So for a restaurant, they would need to donate food to a food bank or something, and that would mean food that isn’t immediately going bad. And if that’s the case they’re probably just going to keep it and try to use it later. If they want to donate the leftover food at the end of the day they can’t use anymore, there probably isn’t any time left other than to just give it to some homeless people outside the restaurant, which this act doesn’t protect against.
Which then just raises the question for me, why isn’t this also protected against? The act already states that the food has to be seemingly good condition, so you can’t just serve mold and say it was a gift. What’s the harm in feeding homeless people?
But does it protect a company who is throwing out food that someone then eats? They aren’t a good Samaritan in that case.
And even if it’s lawful federally, they may run against local ordinances.
And even if every single thing is above board, that still doesn’t stop them from getting sued. It just means they’d win. But legal costs being what they are, it’s probably cheaper to just run off anybody who might be litigious before something can happen.
If you’re pulling it from a dumpster, no judge in their right mind would opt to hear an argument about how the people who threw it IN A DUMPSTER are at fault for someone getting sick. Regardless of if the food were that off or not, dumpsters themselves are hardly hygienic…
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2020/08/13/good-samaritan-act-provides-liability-protection-food-donations
At least in the USA, that’s entirely not true since 1996. Good Samaritan Act protects both people who make donations and people who distribute food.
According to that article, this only covers donations to other organizations who then distribute the donated food. It doesn’t cover anyone directly donating food to individuals.
So for a restaurant, they would need to donate food to a food bank or something, and that would mean food that isn’t immediately going bad. And if that’s the case they’re probably just going to keep it and try to use it later. If they want to donate the leftover food at the end of the day they can’t use anymore, there probably isn’t any time left other than to just give it to some homeless people outside the restaurant, which this act doesn’t protect against.
Which then just raises the question for me, why isn’t this also protected against? The act already states that the food has to be seemingly good condition, so you can’t just serve mold and say it was a gift. What’s the harm in feeding homeless people?
But does it protect a company who is throwing out food that someone then eats? They aren’t a good Samaritan in that case.
And even if it’s lawful federally, they may run against local ordinances.
And even if every single thing is above board, that still doesn’t stop them from getting sued. It just means they’d win. But legal costs being what they are, it’s probably cheaper to just run off anybody who might be litigious before something can happen.
If you’re pulling it from a dumpster, no judge in their right mind would opt to hear an argument about how the people who threw it IN A DUMPSTER are at fault for someone getting sick. Regardless of if the food were that off or not, dumpsters themselves are hardly hygienic…