Court of Petty Appeals: Various Afflicted UVA Law Students v. Barracks Road Cava
Various Afflicted UVA Law Students
v.
Barracks Road Cava
77 U.Va 16 (2025)
Graff, J., delivers the opinion of the Court, in which Demitry, C.J., Wu, Berklich, Becker, and Vanger., JJ., join.
Allard, C.J. Emeritus, concurring in parts I & III and dissenting in part II.
Graff, J., delivers the opinion of the Court.
Various students of the University of Virginia School of Law brought this product-liability class action against the beloved fast-casual Mediterranean chain Cava after numerous reported incidents of food poisoning at the Barracks location.
The facts of the case are uncontested. At least two students, separated only by one day in time, patronized Cava. Both students, mere hours after eating Cava, began seeing symptoms. Such symptoms—which the Court’s standards of decorum prohibit us from detailing further—lasted for nearly a week and sent one plaintiff to the hospital for severe dehydration. Neither student was contagious nor could plausibly have eaten anything else to account for the symptoms.
Plaintiffs further allege that Cava failed to warn that their bowls have an addictive quality, causing some patrons to recklessly consume their food despite knowledge of the food poisoning risk.
The Court finds itself in a difficult position, torn between its deep affection for delicious, convenient, macro-friendly Cava bowls and its solemn obligation to protect the health and dignity of law students. Accordingly, the Court orders equitable relief for the plaintiffs, with specific performance of Cava to be detailed later in the opinion.
I
We begin by noting that the plaintiffs have no longstanding animosity against Cava. On the contrary, multiple plaintiffs are longtime customers of the Barracks location, a fact that makes this incident all the more emotionally damaging. The case before us is not one of opportunistic litigants seeking to shake down a corporate defendant for free double protein, but rather of innocent students who found themselves shackled to their bathrooms with a profound feeling of betrayal.
Plaintiffs, upon notifying their friends and family of their malaise, were sent multiple Instagram Reels alleging Cava food-safety issues beyond the Barracks location. In such reports, so-called foodfluencers allege that Cava locations in New York City were found to have filth flies, positive swabs for foodborne bacteria listeria, and more “C” FDA grades in N.Y.C. than McDonald’s nationwide. Though these reports are outside the scope of the case at hand, they lend credibility to the notion that Cava could have unsanitary practices leading to food poisoning. Additionally, in the comments of such Instagram posts (Exhibit A), anecdotal reports of food poisoning further bolster the plaintiffs’ claims.
Given the specific facts of the case, and the widespread anecdotal reports indicting Cava’s food safety practices, the Court recognizes that a preponderance of the evidence points to Cava being liable for the injuries caused to plaintiffs.
II
Next, the Court evaluates the failure to warn claim from plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have submitted evidence (Exhibit B) of the addictive nature of Cava bowls, leading some students [identities hidden for protection against countersuits] to consume Cava after being notified of the high potential for food poisoning.
As seen above, student X was aware that one of the plaintiffs ate only two meals the day he received food poisoning: Cava and arancini. Yet, even after receiving such news, student X still made the decision to eat at Cava. Further, upon hearing a second account of food poisoning from Cava, student X still remained unrepentant in their decision. See Exhibit C.
Student X’s decision to “risk it for the biscuit,” with the justification that the Cava bowl was “so good . . . . sooooo good” defies logic to such a degree that the Court recognizes some validity of the assumption that the bowls may have addictive properties. Indeed, it was only hours later that the student suffered from some postprandial[1] regret, acknowledging that their “risk calculation was a bit off.” See Exhibit D (emphasis added).
Plaintiffs also point to the fact that when notifying other students of their ailments, that other students’ first reaction was typically along the lines of “Not Cava!” only later followed by concern for their wellbeing. Though the Court recognizes the aforementioned actions display wanton disregard for self-preservation, it nonetheless finds that there is insufficient evidence of addictive properties. Loyal patronage combined with another student’s ill-advised decision to knowingly accept the risk of food poisoning is not enough to prove Cava bowls have addictive properties, but rather show a fanbase so dedicated that they are willing to assume whatever risks that follow for the coveted Honey Harissa Chicken—no matter the upcharge. Accordingly, the Court, with full recognition of the delectability and convenience of a Cava bowl, denies any failure to warn claim related to the addictiveness of the Cava bowl.
III
Having now established that Cava is both hazardous and oddly irresistible, the Court must fashion an appropriate remedy that compensates plaintiffs for their physical and emotional turmoil while acknowledging that even severe food poisoning is unlikely to dissuade further patronage of Cava. The Court orders Cava to provide all afflicted students with free bowls for one month once they return to the establishment—an assumption of return the Court makes with full confidence. It is SO ORDERED.
Allard, C.J. Emeritus, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority’s opinion to the extent that it acknowledges that eating Cava may well be worth the occasional stomach bug and fashions an appropriate remedy that will increase the availability of food for hungry law students. But I write separately to dispute the majority’s dismissal of the failure to warn claim in part II. As we have made clear before, it is emphatically the province and duty of this Court to protect law students’ alimentary rights. See UVA Law v. Barracks Road Chipotle, 74 U.Va 9 (2021) (“[T]his Court . . . has to defend the right of citizens of UVA Law to a decent meal.”).
The majority’s conclusion that “there is insufficient evidence of addictive properties” is not dispositive in assessing plaintiffs’ alimentary rights claim. Indeed, the majority’s analysis fails under a straightforward application of the stomach formula. See CRONCH v. Conagra Brands, 76 U.Va 17 (2024) (“If the burden of improving the quality of food is less than the probability of students’ being dissatisfied times the extent of students’ hanger, then the failure to make such an improvement likely constitutes an actionable diminution of students’ alimentary rights.).
In CRONCH, we noted that requiring the defendant to apply a label warning law student consumers of their snack's obscene salinity was a “minimal” burden. See id. We further noted that students’ hanger is “diminished” in cases involving snacks while emphasizing that delaying or denying a meal “has the potential to upend a student’s entire day.”
Based on our analysis in CRONCH, Cava’s conduct here flies in the face of the stomach formula. While Cava did not deny a meal, the meal they provided was of such a quality as to “upend” these students’ whole week. Maj. Op. (“[The students’] symptoms . . . lasted for nearly a week and sent one plaintiff to the hospital . . . .”).
The implications for Cava are clear. They must, as we held in CRONCH, warn law students of the addictive nature of their delicious Mediterranean-inspired offerings. Their failure to do so here is a clear violation of law students’ alimentary rights.
We are witnessing an alarming trend of courts and political actors abandoning or ignoring fundamental legal doctrine. By ultimately ruling in plaintiffs’ favor, today’s opinion narrowly avoids joining that hell-bound bandwagon. But we must remain vigilant. It will be a sad day indeed when this court forgets its sacred duty to bitch about food quality in and around the Law School. Today, the Court regrettably neglects that duty—a concerning omen for the future of our alimentary rights doctrine. For that reason, I respectfully dissent.
---
mg2dja@virgina.edu
tya2us@virginia.edu
[1] Apparently meaning “occurring after a meal.” This word was only discovered after unsuccessfully searching for a colloquial term equivalent to “hangxiety” for anxiety after a meal.
