If they are actors, then either they would have been told what would happen in advance and be instructed to act the part, or they would be unaware of the exact nature of the prank but would have been aware that it was not actually a job interview. Either way, they wouldn't have justification to sue since this is the job they agreed to do.Originally Posted by Elysia
If they were indeed there for the job interview, then you're entitled to your belief, and they are entitled to sue if they feel that it is justified. Whether the lawsuit goes through is another matter.
If they did not know, perhaps it is due to negligence.
I would say that this depends on the nature of the prank and what the laws of the given jurisdiction has to say about that.
You left out the part that makes it a prank. In a prank, that someone might be given the impression that the drink is something else that he/she is not allergic to, e.g., to get a reaction of surprise when the person discovers that he/she was misled. There was no intention to cause an allergic reaction, but nonetheless there was some kind of intentional misrepresentation that led to the allergic reaction despite the deliberate choice made to avoid that allergic reaction.
