“Throwed rolls” result in Missouri suit

Lambert’s Cafe, based in Sikeston, Missouri, bills itself as the “Home of Throwed Rolls” because of its famous practice of having servers toss dinner rolls to customers. It’s now being sued for guess what [WDAF, RiverFront Times] Last year the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of a plaintiff claiming injury from a hot dog thrown by a mascot at a Kansas City Royals game, overturning a lower court which had instructed jurors that they were free to find hot-dog-flinging a risk known to occur at Royals games for purposes of an assumption of risk defense. More: Lowering the Bar and (thanks for link) Fox News.


  • I hope Lambert’s wins. It’s a neat place to eat. The story goes that the original owner was very busy one day and someone wanted a roll and he threw them one. Voila! tradition started.

    The plantiff is charging that throwing rolls is a “defective condition” and the restaurant should know it is dangerous. I wonder how many millions of rolls they have thrown over the years without incident; empirical evidence that it is safe, and also expected activity in this place. I would say if you go to a ball game, you most of all want to see a ball game, not a thrown hot dog, but if you go to Lambert’s you expect most of all for your rolls to be thrown at you. You are a player in the game at Lambert’s.

    The article didn’t state the specifics of what happened, if Lambert’s knew she was injured at the time, if management attended to her, etc. I wonder if they offered her some compensation before she retained a lawyer.

  • Eh, old hat. This suit get filed every few years. I can’t imagine that anyone has suffered actual injuries: they’re very fluffy rolls. If you go to Lambert’s, get the pan-fried pork chops: they’re the best anywhere.

    • Sounds like another of those “Diners, Drive Ins and Dives” I’d like to visit.

  • FYI, the plaintiff in that Kansas City hot dog lawsuit still lost the case, notwithstanding the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling. On remand, there was a new trial, and the jury ruled in favor of the defendant.

  • Perhaps the question should be, who is in the better position to avoid the injury? Are injuries more likely to be prevented by an alert customer, or are they more likely to be avoided by more careful throws?

    Nobody would say, for example, that food poisoning is an assumed risk of eating out, even though it’s a risk everyone knows about, because it’s the restaurant that’s in the best position to prevent it, not the customer. Or if I got hit from behind at a red light, the guy who hit me wouldn’t be able to claim that I assumed the risk of getting hit by driving on public roads, even though that risk is well-known.

  • Well, hmmm. And all these years, I’ve been saying “tho’ed” rolls.