NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.dailymail.com/story/News/2007081043/Man-says-hold-the-cheese-claims-McDonalds-didnt-sues-for-10-million/


Apparently this man has a massive cheese allergy and after specifically ordering a Quarter Pounder without cheese, he bit into it and guess what... he found cheese! He had a massive allergic reaction and had to be rushed to the hospital. Now he is suing McDonalds for $10 mil.

Now why do I say he is an incompetent idiot? Has anyone ever been to McDonalds? Anything with cheese on it has cheese clearly melted to the wrapper and half melted off the side of the burger. It is impossible to not know something has cheese on it. Even a blind person could tell a McDonalds burger had cheese on it because it is everywhere yet a man who was deathly allergic to it didn't bother checking and somehow failed to notice any cheese until he bit into it. I think this guy almost qualifies for Darwin Honorable Mention.

http://www.dailymail.com/story/News/2007081043/Man-says-hold-the-cheese-claims-McDonalds-didnt-sues-for-10-million/


Apparently this man has a massive cheese allergy and after specifically ordering a Quarter Pounder without cheese, he bit into it and guess what... he found cheese! He had a massive allergic reaction and had to be rushed to the hospital. Now he is suing McDonalds for $10 mil.

Now why do I say he is an incompetent idiot? Has anyone ever been to McDonalds? Anything with cheese on it has cheese clearly melted to the wrapper and half melted off the side of the burger. It is impossible to not know something has cheese on it. Even a blind person could tell a McDonalds burger had cheese on it because it is everywhere yet a man who was deathly allergic to it didn't bother checking and somehow failed to notice any cheese until he bit into it. I think this guy almost qualifies for Darwin Honorable Mention.

I agree on this one the guy bet his life on a bunch of minimum wage fast food workers not screwing up an order.

He is right to sue, though. He specified that he didn't want cheese and had a good medical reason why he couldn't have it!

Sometimes that stuff manages to hide. Generally not, no. But sometimes. I give him the benefit of the doubt, because I have medical dietary restrictions too and I know that I have a tendency towards quadrupal checking, so...
Then again, I seem to be smarter than the average human...

He is right to sue, though. He specified that he didn't want cheese and had a good medical reason why he couldn't have it!

Sometimes that stuff manages to hide. Generally not, no. But sometimes. I give him the benefit of the doubt, because I have medical dietary restrictions too and I know that I have a tendency towards quadrupal checking, so...
Then again, I seem to be smarter than the average human...

yeah, I've given up eating at fast food resturaunts because of my dietary restrictions...albeit mine are not medical. it's just stupid to go to a fast food place and expect to get any kind of special treatment. I'm a strict vegetarian and sometime vegan, but it annoys the crap out of me when my vegetarian friends get pissy about fast food people not quite making the connection that you won't eat meat. prissy special orders give us a bad name...and trying to hold the bacon or ground beef or whatever just gets obnoxious.

I think with cheese, it's easy to work out if it's there or not. If it was like peanuts, then that's a lot harder to detect.

So let me make sure I got this right. He is allergic to cheese. He doesn't want cheese. He says he doesn't want cheese. They give him cheese, despite him not asking for it, and he gets ill.

Gee, sounds like a good lawsuit reason for me.

So let me make sure I got this right. He is allergic to cheese. He doesn't want cheese. He says he doesn't want cheese. They give him cheese, despite him not asking for it, and he gets ill.

Gee, sounds like a good lawsuit reason for me.

he's an idiot for being that careless, or even eating at mcdonalds in the first place (I haven't had dairy all summer, and that's largely because I'm willing to not go to places like mcdonalds) but I do hope he wins, just to make the evil corporation suffer a little.

he's an idiot for being that careless, or even eating at mcdonalds in the first place.

He asked them to make special accomodations, they agreed to, they failed. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of it. Should he have looked? Probably, to be on the safe side.

But, they agreed to take certain precautions and they did not, they breached their duty to him. Idiot or not, careless or not, they did not do as they had agreed to do and as such caused this man harm. That is negligence.

The man was obviously in a hurry so he just took a bite out of it before checking it.

McDonalds does this allot, especially with the less quality stores. Sometimes when my sister orders a cheeseburger with cheese and ketchup only their either add mustard, forget about the special order completely and add everything, or might give her cheese and ketchup only...literally. Bun but no meat. How the hell is that a cheeseburger. I should sue.

Well McDonalds' slogan isn't "Have it your way." I don't go to McDonalds because there isn't enough food.

yeah, I've given up eating at fast food resturaunts because of my dietary restrictions...albeit mine are not medical. it's just stupid to go to a fast food place and expect to get any kind of special treatment. I'm a strict vegetarian and sometime vegan, but it annoys the crap out of me when my vegetarian friends get pissy about fast food people not quite making the connection that you won't eat meat. prissy special orders give us a bad name...and trying to hold the bacon or ground beef or whatever just gets obnoxious.
Go to Burger King (for their veggie burgers), it's what I do if I ever want fast food (which is rarely).

Anyway, kudos to the idiot with a deadly cheese allergy who didn't check whether his quarter pounder (which doesn't come with cheese anyway...) had cheese.

I've been sued because some twat in my grocery store claims to have slipped on a grape. Long story short I spent around 57 hours in a court room explaining exactly what I did repeatedly.

I did all that even after they showed the video where she never even slipped. :mad:

All I could think about was killing her with a baseball bat for the next three weeks.

Well McDonalds' slogan isn't "Have it your way."

Um, ok then, I fail to see how this is relevant.

I don't go to McDonalds because there isn't enough food.

ditto.

Should have gone to Taco Bell...oh wait. They would have been sued too, huh? Thinking outside the bun and the common sense. Anything that is categorized "fast food" is bound to have cheese in it. Should of gone to a nice restaurant...oh never mind.

yeah, I've given up eating at fast food resturaunts because of my dietary restrictions...albeit mine are not medical. it's just stupid to go to a fast food place and expect to get any kind of special treatment. I'm a strict vegetarian and sometime vegan, but it annoys the crap out of me when my vegetarian friends get pissy about fast food people not quite making the connection that you won't eat meat. prissy special orders give us a bad name...and trying to hold the bacon or ground beef or whatever just gets obnoxious.

Oh, I don't eat at them either. I don't eat at restaurants anymore (as the people at the SF meet can attest!). I meant the food that I bought in the store to use in cooking my food.

Anything that is categorized "fast food" is bound to have cheese in it.

Except when you specifically and directly ask for it not to have cheese on it. Five times

Here's a better idea, maybe the guy should have just died?

We'd be short one brain dead fuktard incapable of checking for cheese, but I think we can fill that quota.

http://www.dailymail.com/story/News/2007081043/Man-says-hold-the-cheese-claims-McDonalds-didnt-sues-for-10-million/


Apparently this man has a massive cheese allergy and after specifically ordering a Quarter Pounder without cheese, he bit into it and guess what... he found cheese! He had a massive allergic reaction and had to be rushed to the hospital. Now he is suing McDonalds for $10 mil.

Now why do I say he is an incompetent idiot? Has anyone ever been to McDonalds? Anything with cheese on it has cheese clearly melted to the wrapper and half melted off the side of the burger. It is impossible to not know something has cheese on it. Even a blind person could tell a McDonalds burger had cheese on it because it is everywhere yet a man who was deathly allergic to it didn't bother checking and somehow failed to notice any cheese until he bit into it. I think this guy almost qualifies for Darwin Honorable Mention.

Sorry, but I think he's a twit, too.

I don't like peanut butter. Thank goodness I'm not allergic. But because I don't like peanut butter, I wouldn't go to a restaurant that specializes in peanut butter sandwiches and order the peanut butterless jam special, because there's a good chance that someone might use a knife with peanut butter on it.

People who are allergic to cheese know not to order things like sandwiches that usually come with cheese- because there's a good chance they will be exposed to dairy, even if no cheese was put on the sandwich.

Except when you specifically and directly ask for it not to have cheese on it. Five times

What the hell do you expect? Its McDonalds.

He is perfectly within his rights to sue. I've worked at fast food restaurants, and sometimes people are intentionally careless. I've seen other employees ignore the special order just to piss off the customer.

Fact is, the guy ordered it without cheese, so he should have gotten it without cheese. And fact is, on most fast food sandwiches the cheese is NOT that visible, no matter what Pantless says. (Given that he outright admits he never actually goes to McDonald's, I have no idea why he's saying the cheese must be obvious. Another incident of him bullshitting rather than knowing what he's talking about.)

Furthermore, he might have been in a hurry, as suggested by many here. A lot of people who eat at these restaurants are. That's why they're eating there in the first bloody place, and that's why the restaurants exist: to make food really, really fast.

I think ten million might be pushing it, but hey, if you've got a legitimate reason, milk it for all its worth I say, especially when dealing with a company like McDonald's which sees ten million as spare change.

He is perfectly within his rights to sue. I've worked at fast food restaurants, and sometimes people are intentionally careless. I've seen other employees ignore the special order just to piss off the customer.

Fact is, the guy ordered it without cheese, so he should have gotten it without cheese. And fact is, on most fast food sandwiches the cheese is NOT that visible, no matter what Pantless says. (Given that he outright admits he never actually goes to McDonald's, I have no idea why he's saying the cheese must be obvious. Another incident of him bullshitting rather than knowing what he's talking about.)

Furthermore, he might have been in a hurry, as suggested by many here. A lot of people who eat at these restaurants are. That's why they're eating there in the first bloody place, and that's why the restaurants exist: to make food really, really fast.

I think ten million might be pushing it, but hey, if you've got a legitimate reason, milk it for all its worth I say, especially when dealing with a company like McDonald's which sees ten million as spare change.

I totally agree. If it was because of a staff-members negligence, he does have full right to sue. The board-registers the staff use, however, can be sometimes out-of-date so there may not be a 'cheese' option added because there were not any customer complaints about it at the time of the manufacturing. I doubt it is the case here, however.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were no fast food with cheese... Even in KFC cheese might be added to the grilling oil just to give extra flavor. Corporations do that, make something seem nicer than it really is. Even if it isn't apart of the corporation recipe, some of the lazier places do stuff like that anyways.

That other guy makes a point, is the default Quarter Pounder meal the Quarter Pounder w/ Cheese?

I totally agree. If it was because of a staff-members negligence, he does have full right to sue. The board-registers the staff use, however, can be sometimes out-of-date so there may not be a 'cheese' option added because there were not any customer complaints about it at the time of the manufacturing. I doubt it is the case here, however.
True. There is a case, but the facts are not all in yet. I've seen those kind of errors with new registers, let alone the older ones that were probably existent in this McDonald's.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were no fast food with cheese... Even in KFC cheese might be added to the grilling oil just to give extra flavor. Corporations do that, make something seem nicer than it really is. Even if it isn't apart of the corporation recipe, some of the lazier places do stuff like that anyways.

Again, true. I don't eat fast food anymore and I never will again.

Pantless: More than likely. I can't say for certain though.

He asked them to make special accomodations, they agreed to, they failed. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of it. Should he have looked? Probably, to be on the safe side.

But, they agreed to take certain precautions and they did not, they breached their duty to him. Idiot or not, careless or not, they did not do as they had agreed to do and as such caused this man harm. That is negligence.

However, there was no contractual agreement between the two parties as such, moreover, they did not realize his grave state of allergy to take that into account, and if he is so deathly allergic... it is HIS responsibility to check, and if he can sue mcd's for that 'breach of duty' then I can because they did not give me a straw with my drink last time I went, especially for the amount of $10 mil.. There is no reason for him to sue beyond medical costs, and hardly any reason even for that, he was as careless as they were, and is just as much fault as they.

Fact is, the guy ordered it without cheese, so he should have gotten it without cheese. And fact is, on most fast food sandwiches the cheese is NOT that visible, no matter what Pantless says. (Given that he outright admits he never actually goes to McDonald's, I have no idea why he's saying the cheese must be obvious. Another incident of him bullshitting rather than knowing what he's talking about.)

I think ten million might be pushing it, but hey, if you've got a legitimate reason, milk it for all its worth I say, especially when dealing with a company like McDonald's which sees ten million as spare change.

Compensation for the cost of medical treatment ought to do it. I'm no expert, but ten million dollars is probably a bit too high. Otherwise, I agree. Irresponsibility on the part of the customer does not excuse irresponsibility on the part of McDonalds and employees thereof.

Nice signature, btw :D

Compensation for the cost of medical treatment ought to do it. I'm no expert, but ten million dollars is probably a bit too high. Otherwise, I agree. Irresponsibility on the part of the customer does not excuse irresponsibility on the part of McDonalds and employees thereof.


Hey, if the guy can get more, so be it. McDonald's can afford to lose ten million. (Though he probably doesn't deserve the ten million. Maybe one million.

Nice signature, btw :D
As much as I disagreed with your position, that was just too funny not to quote.

Hey, if the guy can get more, so be it. McDonald's can afford to lose ten million. (Though he probably doesn't deserve the ten million. Maybe one million.


I'm not shedding any tears for McDonalds, that's for sure. But still.


As much as I disagreed with your position, that was just too funny not to quote.

It's just that I feel eventually obtuse hypotheticals become as tiresome as obtuse arguments based on "God" or dead Greeks.

However, there was no contractual agreement between the two parties as such,

So what? Contracts and torts are two entirely seperate areas of law and one need not in any sense of the word require a contract in order to assume a duty towards someone.

Every time I get in a car I assume a duty towards everyone else on or near the road, I certainly as hell don't have a contract with them.

Additionally it could be argued that there was indeed a contractual agreement between them, an agreement of "you give me a quarter pounder without cheese, i will pay you for this quarter pounder without cheese". Every time you buy something from anyone it is an implied contract of sale.

so:

a) you don't need a contract for one to assume a duty, one merely needs to take on an obligation

b) there was one anyway.


moreover, they did not realize his grave state of allergy to take that into account

Entirely irrelevant. Eggshell plaintiff rule (aka thin skull rule). If the plaintiff is so situated that through your negligent act you harm him, you are liable for that harm, even if your negligent act would not normally have harmed an average person.

Regardless of whether or not they realized his allergies is irrelevant. They agreed to not serve him a hamburger with cheese. They violated that agreement and thus breeched their duty. Normally someone who gets cheese who didn't want it would get maybe a bit pissy at you, but not be harmed. THIS plaintiff nearly died. Eggshell plaintiff rule, take your victim as you get him. You happened to screw up the one order you really REALLY didn't want to screw up. Oh well, sucks to be you.

and if he can sue mcd's for that 'breach of duty' then I can because they did not give me a straw with my drink last time I went

You really don't know how our civil law system works do you? OK, let me ask you this...

Standard prima facie case for a negligence claim is duty, breach, and causal injury. Did they have a duty to provide you a straw? Probably so, yeah. by failing to provide that straw to you did they breach the duty to you? If such duty exists, then yes. OK then, what harm did you suffer for your lack of a straw?

[QUOTE=The Loyal Opposition;12961143]Compensation for the cost of medical treatment ought to do it. I'm no expert, but ten million dollars is probably a bit too high. Otherwise, I agree. Irresponsibility on the part of the customer does not excuse irresponsibility on the part of McDonalds and employees thereof./QUOTE]

This is what punitive damages are for.

He asked them to make special accomodations, they agreed to, they failed. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of it. Should he have looked? Probably, to be on the safe side.

But, they agreed to take certain precautions and they did not, they breached their duty to him. Idiot or not, careless or not, they did not do as they had agreed to do and as such caused this man harm. That is negligence.

I completely agree.
Also, the article says "After getting the food, the three drove to Clarksburg and started to eat the food in a darkened room where they were going to watch a movie." So he wouldn't have seen the cheese when he opened it - he would only have noticed it after taking the bite. And he clearly made it known that he can't eat cheese. Annoying fast food people!

His mother and his friend are also fucking stupid.

You never, NEVER drive someone to the hospital yourself, in an emergency. You ALWAYS call an ambulance. (Ask a cardiologist what ONE THING would save more people from heart attacks. If people would call an ambulance, they wouldn't die.)

First, they will be able to begin basic treatments immediately, and they will almost certainly get to your house before you would have gotten to the hospital.

Second, they can get through traffic where you could not. You may think it'll be faster to just get on the road rather than wait for them to arrive, but 99% of the time it's faster to have them come to you and take you to the hospital.

Finally, you don't go careening down the highways risking everyone's lives.


Also, they are retarded because, when he started to have the reaction -- according to the article -- THEY CALLED MCDONALDS TO COMPLAIN BEFORE DOING ANYTHING ELSE!!!!

Ugh, I hate the stupid. They should be paying the rest of us, just for putting up with them.

For the record, this is not a legal position: assuming he can establish the facts, he should win. He's just stupid. And his family is stupid. And the world would be a better place if they drove off a bridge.

A handy guide for young Jeromy

How to inspect for cheese in a burger - Part One (http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb281/Barringtonia_bucket/Cheeseburger.jpg)

The whole case sounds dodgy to me but, at the least, I just don't think the allergy was that severe or he would have either checked or not ordered a cheese product, and yeah, call an ambulance.

The whole case sounds dodgy to me but, at the least, I just don't think the allergy was that severe or he would have ...not ordered a cheese product.

He didn't

He didn't

You would think a man who was 'deathly' allergic to cheese might just check for it unless he were searching for a handout.

You would think a man who was 'deathly' allergic to cheese might just check for it unless he were searching for a handout.Indeed.

If the room in which they ate was so dark, one also has to wonder if he didn't pick up the wrong burger by mistake. Did they ALL get them without cheese, to be safe? If not, how did he know which one was his--that is, which one had no cheese--unless he checked?

He didn't

In the sense that a QP comes with cheese - it is and he did.

Therefore you take extra precautions to ensure it doesn't - especially if you're ordering from a drive-thru and you're in a hurry, because, just maybe, the low-paid workers will simply whip out cheese from a pre-made to get your hurried ass of their back.

A quick check wouldn't have killed him eh? :)

In the sense that a QP comes with cheese - it is and he did.

Therefore you take extra precautions to ensure it doesn't - especially if you're ordering from a drive-thru and you're in a hurry, because, just maybe, the low-paid workers will simply whip out cheese from a pre-made to get your hurried ass of their back.

A quick check wouldn't have killed him eh? :)

You have to wonder what someone who is so deathly allergic to cheese is doing in McDo's in the first place. Cheese is pretty much ubiquitous in that place from what I remember.

In the sense that a QP comes with cheese - it is and he did.


and he didn't order a quarter pounder with cheese, now did he? You can argue that all you want, but the fact is, he did not order a meal with cheese. He, in fact, ordered a meal specifically without cheese.

Apparently this man has a massive cheese allergy and after specifically ordering a Quarter Pounder without cheese, he bit into it and guess what... he found cheese! He had a massive allergic reaction and had to be rushed to the hospital. Now he is suing McDonalds for $10 mil.

Now why do I say he is an incompetent idiot? Has anyone ever been to McDonalds? Anything with cheese on it has cheese clearly melted to the wrapper and half melted off the side of the burger. It is impossible to not know something has cheese on it. Even a blind person could tell a McDonalds burger had cheese on it because it is everywhere yet a man who was deathly allergic to it didn't bother checking and somehow failed to notice any cheese until he bit into it. I think this guy almost qualifies for Darwin Honorable Mention.

"he took at least five independent steps to make sure that thing had no cheese on it"

-snip-

After getting the food, the three drove to Clarksburg and started to eat the food in a darkened room where they were going to watch a movie, Houston said.

So, ordering a sandwich that comes without cheese and telling the restaurant 5 times not to put cheese on it, how is he an idiot in expecting it not to have cheese on it? That's right, He isn't. You phail.

The more I think about this, the more fishy it seems.

He told a worker through the ordering speaker and then two workers face-to-face at the pay and pick-up windows that he couldn't eat cheese, Houston said.

So, he's concerned enough that he triply enforces his order to omit the cheese.

When he told the first worker, apparently he didn't believe that was enough. He told two more people, "No cheese."

He was that concerned about someone screwing up... but when he actually gets the burgers he doesn't check for cheese before biting in?

According to his own story, he didn't have much confidence in the abilities of McDonald's employees (and who would blame him). But then suddenly his whole attitude changes and he doesn't make that last, very simple check?

Bottom line: I don't find this story credible. And I don't think a jury will, either.

Someone who takes "five independent steps" to ensure there was no cheese strikes me as the sort of person who also takes the sixth.

Someone who does not check for cheese before biting in does not strike me as the sort of person who takes "five independent steps" to ensure there was no cheese.

Doesn't fit. As dirty as it makes me feel, as a member of this jury I vote for McDonald's.

(Unless, of course, the employees actually corroborate his story.)

So, ordering a sandwich that comes without cheese and telling the restaurant 5 times not to put cheese on it, how is he an idiot in expecting it not to have cheese on it? That's right, He isn't. You phail.

The fact he couldn't check him-fucking-self.

A man so deathly ill against cheese, whom does not double check for cheese, on a an originally cheese based product. Is either:

A)Incompetent beyond capacity of modern survival
B) Looking for a handout.
C) Trying to kill himself.

Either way I'd be happy with this man's death.

Someone who takes "five independent steps" to ensure there was no cheese strikes me as the sort of person who also takes the sixth.

Someone who does not check for cheese before biting in does not strike me as the sort of person who takes "five independent steps" to ensure there was no cheese.

Doesn't fit. As dirty as it makes me feel, as a member of this jury I vote for McDonald's.

(Unless, of course, the employees actually corroborate his story.)

It won't go to a jury. Juries make the nice men in London unhappy.

http://www.dailymail.com/story/News/2007081043/Man-says-hold-the-cheese-claims-McDonalds-didnt-sues-for-10-million/


Apparently this man has a massive cheese allergy and after specifically ordering a Quarter Pounder without cheese, he bit into it and guess what... he found cheese! He had a massive allergic reaction and had to be rushed to the hospital. Now he is suing McDonalds for $10 mil.

Now why do I say he is an incompetent idiot? Has anyone ever been to McDonalds? Anything with cheese on it has cheese clearly melted to the wrapper and half melted off the side of the burger. It is impossible to not know something has cheese on it. Even a blind person could tell a McDonalds burger had cheese on it because it is everywhere yet a man who was deathly allergic to it didn't bother checking and somehow failed to notice any cheese until he bit into it. I think this guy almost qualifies for Darwin Honorable Mention.

Oh, HERE WE GO! Another opportunistic dickhead trying to sue fast food for screwing up! First it's the hot coffee in the crotch, then the finger in the salad bowl! WAKE UP PEOPLE! IT'S UTTER BULLSHIT!! Make big money the easy way: PLAY THE LOTTERY!!!

Why didn't this guy just get a quarter pounder?

I mean, such a burger exists, right? Then he wouldn't have had to say "A quarter pounder with cheese, hold the cheese"

I dunno, if he's too stupid to not notice the cheese on his burger, he's too stupid to live, imo. If it's just a situation where he made it likely that this would happen so he'd have an excuse to sue the place, then he's a jerk.

Also, in general, suing for 10 million is excessive. The company is offering to cover medical bills (which I guess means that it learned from the experience with the woman who spilled the hot coffee on herself and sued them) and really, that should be enough. I mean, if you want to argue for an extra hundred or two for the inconvenience, then fine, but 10 million is just being a greedy stupid bastard.

And also, saying the word "cheese" through a drive through window where everything comes out garbled anyways is a sure-fire way to get cheese on your damn burger because the employees won't know what you're ordering except that they heard quarter pounder and cheese.

It won't go to a jury. Juries make the nice men in London unhappy.Probably true.

Still, my point stands.

Probably true.

Still, my point stands.

Don't get me wrong. I am in 100% agreement with you: this whole thing stinks. Also, I think there are very easy ways to defend it - depending on the underlying jurisdiction.

But my experience is that lawyers tend to settle the winners and fight the losers. Bad reporting &c. :rolleyes:

They agreed to not serve him a hamburger with cheese. They violated that agreement and thus breeched their duty.
Really? Have you ever worked at a fast food drive through window? You want to know what customers sound like through those thing? It's quite likely that the speaker box is absolute garbage so the employee heard "quarter pounder... cheese" and then some kerfluffle about the cheese. Then there's probably a completely different employee at the window so when they are asked "Is there cheese on this? Because I asked for no cheese." the employee there will probably just say "well, there shouldn't be" or "yes" because they weren't at all involved with the making of the burger and really, just want to get the customer out of the way.

The fact he couldn't check him-fucking-self.

Why would you expect him to cheeck for cheese in a product that isn't supposed to have cheese on it at all?

Why didn't this guy just get a quarter pounder?

He did.

Being someone who has been to McDonalds many times, I can safely say he's an idiot for expecting them to not put cheese on his burger. I am not a fan of cheese myself, so I always order my burgers without cheese. I usually end up having to go back to the counter to get a new burger, because they put cheese on it anyways.

They don't even have a button for 'no cheese' on my local McDonalds' registers.

He did.
No, he went on about a quarter pounder without cheese. Like I said, to anyone listening through the speaker box on the other side, they'd hear something about a quarter pounder and something about cheese. If he'd just said "I would like a quarter pounder" then he probably wouldn't have got cheese.

Furthermore, the fact that he was so paranoid about the possibility of there being cheese on the quarter pounder suggests that maybe he's had this fuck up before and he should have been more careful.

the employee there will probably just say "well, there shouldn't be" or "yes" because they weren't at all involved with the making of the burger and really, just want to get the customer out of the way

See that bolded part? Right there is the problem.

For someone who has a parent with a food allergy: those of you calling this guys stupid or saying his allergy can't be THAT bad are just plain ignorant. If you ask that something specifically be omitted from a dish, and they agree to serve you -- that ingredient should be omitted.

My mother is deathly allergic to nuts. Allergic to the point where she MUST carry an epi-pen, and if she gets anything nut-based into her system -- oil, flakes, etc -- she goes into anaphylactic shock. She gets hives just TOUCHING a nut.

We have explained this in "nice" restaurants, who have sworn that there are no nuts nor any nut products in whatever dish we've asked about -- and yet my mom starts swelling up and has to use the pen. Then they remember -- "Oh, we made a nut ravioli last week on that same machine." Or worse, they swear there's no nuts in it whatever, and you get it and they are VISIBLY THERE.

We've had family members write into catering contracts "no nuts" and explain this allergy -- and then had to rush my mother to the ER. Because guess what the caterers included in one of the dishes?

While traveling in Germany, she told their tour guide about her allergy, and in front of her, he asked the waiter in a restaurant, "Are there any nuts in this dish, this woman is allergic." No, no, of course not.... and yet they forgot about the walnut oil in the sausage dish they served her.

My mom has never sued anyone, but people in the food service industry are often very careless or they must think, "They SAY it's an allergy, but they probably just don't like "food x" -- it's camouflaged pretty well, they won't know the difference." Well yes, when your throat swells up and closes off your windpipe, you're bound to notice.

See that bolded part? Right there is the problem.
Again, have you ever worked at a drive through? You get treated like crap for shit pay and have to deal with assholes who can't place their orders properly all damn day.

Being someone who has been to McDonalds many times, I can safely say he's an idiot for expecting them to not put cheese on his burger. I am not a fan of cheese myself, so I always order my burgers without cheese. I usually end up having to go back to the counter to get a new burger, because they put cheese on it anyways.

They don't even have a button for 'no cheese' on my local McDonalds' registers.

and he, not being a McDonald's employee, is supposed to know this....how? He asked for no cheese, five times. He was told it had no cheese, five times.

He is supposed to somehow magically know that the McDonald's employees were incompetant?

He is supposed to somehow magically know that the McDonald's employees were incompetant?
Yes. The fact that he asked five times suggests that he thought they were.

And duh, of course McDonald's employees are incompotent. That's why they're working at McDonald's. What you have there is kids who are working their first job to get enough experience to work somewhere better and people who are too stupid to get a job better than working at that hell hole.

Really? Have you ever worked at a fast food drive through window? You want to know what customers sound like through those thing? It's quite likely that the speaker box is absolute garbage so the employee heard "quarter pounder... cheese" and then some kerfluffle about the cheese. Then there's probably a completely different employee at the window so when they are asked "Is there cheese on this? Because I asked for no cheese." the employee there will probably just say "well, there shouldn't be" or "yes" because they weren't at all involved with the making of the burger and really, just want to get the customer out of the way.

You realize your explanation proves their case, right? From the article: "We're interested in seeing McDonald's take responsibility and change a systemic quality control problem that endangers the lives of up to 12 million Americans with allergies," said Timothy Houston, the Morgantown lawyer representing the plaintiffs.Quality control is what they're going after here. McDonald's is clearly at fault, if your scenario is accurate.

Really? Have you ever worked at a fast food drive through window? You want to know what customers sound like through those thing? It's quite likely that the speaker box is absolute garbage so the employee heard "quarter pounder... cheese" and then some kerfluffle about the cheese.

He didn't just say it at the drivethru.

He told a worker through the ordering speaker and then two workers face-to-face at the pay and pick-up windows that he couldn't eat cheese,

Then there's probably a completely different employee at the window so when they are asked "Is there cheese on this? Because I asked for no cheese." the employee there will probably just say "well, there shouldn't be" or "yes" because they weren't at all involved with the making of the burger and really, just want to get the customer out of the way.

Which sounds like it was the case. If so, there's ample grounds.

No, he went on about a quarter pounder without cheese. Like I said, to anyone listening through the speaker box on the other side, they'd hear something about a quarter pounder and something about cheese. If he'd just said "I would like a quarter pounder" then he probably wouldn't have got cheese.

Wait wait wait, let me make sure I got this argument correct. It's his fault that he got cheese because he, in fact, explicitly said WITHOUT cheese?

What the fuck?

Furthermore, the fact that he was so paranoid about the possibility of there being cheese on the quarter pounder suggests that maybe he's had this fuck up before and he should have been more careful.

Or maybe he's paranoid because, oh I dunno, the cheese would fucking kill him?

For someone who has a parent with a food allergy: those of you calling this guys stupid or saying his allergy can't be THAT bad are just plain ignorant. If you ask that something specifically be omitted from a dish, and they agree to serve you -- that ingredient should be omitted.
Yeah, but your mother checks her food, no? This guy didn't and cheese is a hell of a lot more visible than nuts are in many forms.

He didn't just say it at the drivethru.
He said it to the person taking the order at the drive through and then to the person at the window who has nothing to do with the food preparation or ordering process at all.

In any case, it's fucking retarded to trust your life to minimum wage employees.

Yes. The fact that he asked five times suggests that he thought they were.

The fact that he asked, five times, for no cheese suggests, to me, that he less believed that they were incompetant and more that he didn't really want to die that day.

Which is the point. You're going on about how it was his fault, or he knew the employees were incompetant, or how it must have happened before.

That, or perhaps he just didn't really feel like dying.

And duh, of course McDonald's employees are incompotent. That's why they're working at McDonald's. What you have there is kids who are working their first job to get enough experience to work somewhere better and people who are too stupid to get a job better than working at that hell hole.

And you know what we like to call an employer who hires incompetant employees?

Liable.

Wait wait wait, let me make sure I got this argument correct. It's his fault that he got cheese because he, in fact, explicitly said WITHOUT cheese?

What the fuck?
I'm just saying that it's likely that the speakers suck and the employee couldn't hear the "without" part. When I used to eat at McDonald's I never had a problem getting cheese on a burger that didn't come with cheese because it's fucking cheaper for the restaurant to exclude it anyways.

Or maybe he's paranoid because, oh I dunno, the cheese would fucking kill him?
And if he's so paranoid that the employees are going to fuck up, he should look at his fucking food before he eats it.

Why would you expect him to cheeck for cheese in a product that isn't supposed to have cheese on it at all?


Because when another human being screws up, he could die?

This is similar to the long list of safety rules I learned the first time I went target shooting. Among them, when receiving a firearm from another person, the first thing one does is check to ensure that the firearm is unloaded before doing anything else. It doesn't matter if you stand there and see the other person check first. Until you secure the weapon yourself, the weapon is loaded, period (in fact, the very next safety rule is "The weapon is always loaded, even when it isn't"). Responsibility for safety must belong to both ends of the transaction. The potential for serious injury or loss of life is too high for anything less; if another human being screws up, someone is going to get very seriously hurt or killed.

It is not unreasonable to assume a similar level of vigilance in the case of a potentially deadly allergy. Or potentially deadly anything.

That has to be the most ascinine argument I have ever heard. It is his fault because he deliberatly, explicitly, expressly said "without cheese" which of course they heard as "with cheese" and then further his fault by asking other people and believing them when they said yes without realizing that when they said yes, they really meant "I don't know and don't want to find out".

I'll say again...what the fuck?

If the people he asked were not in a position to accurately give him an answer they should have:

a) taken affirmative steps to find out

or

b) told him so

the fact that they did neither means they fucked up. And in our legal system, stupidity is not a defense. Incompetance is not a defense. Laziness is not a defense. When a man asks "is there no cheese on this" and you say "there is no cheese on this" and are wrong because you are too stupid, incompetant and/or lazy to find out, that is not a defense.

That is negligence, plain and simple.

The fact that he asked, five times, for no cheese suggests, to me, that he less believed that they were incompetant and more that he didn't really want to die that day.
If he really didn't want to die that day, he would have looked at his damn burger before shoveling it down his throat.

Which is the point. You're going on about how it was his fault, or he knew the employees were incompetant, or how it must have happened before.
The fact that he asked five times suggests that it has happened before. Maybe he this time he decided to make a scene about it and get himself hospitalized so he could sue their asses in retribution for all the previous inconvenience. It would explain why his mother and friend called the McDonald's before calling the damn ambulance.

And you know what we like to call an employer who hires incompetant employees?
Desperate and common.

Furthermore, he might have been in a hurry, as suggested by many here. A lot of people who eat at these restaurants are. That's why they're eating there in the first bloody place, and that's why the restaurants exist: to make food really, really fast.

when I'm in a hurry and the only options are fast food restaurants, I don't eat. unless he's also diabetic it would probably do him some good to lower his calorie intake. I'd love to hear someone argue that eating at mcdonalds is actually a healthy thing to do in the first place. millions of people fast on a regular basis - skipping one meal is not going to hurt the guy. skipping a meal at mcdonalds would probably add a week to his life...

Yeah, but your mother checks her food, no? This guy didn't and cheese is a hell of a lot more visible than nuts are in many forms.

How do you think my mother can check for WALNUT OIL mixed into meat other than asking "Does this contains nuts or nut products"? Or NUT RESIDUE on the machine used to make the pasta for the night because they were too lazy or incompetent to properly clean their kitchen gear? Since she doesn't have a food taster like a paranoiac prince, she has to rely on the waiter or waitress asking the chef and giving her an accurate answer.

The point is food service personnel are often careless and don't give a shit what the customer says, and the customer cannot always tell when the food service worker has fucked up until they are turning blue.

And why are you so ferociously angry at this guy that not only are you BLAMING him for nearly dying, but you're cursing him about it too?

Believe me, someone with a dangerous allergy does NOT ingest their trigger knowingly in hopes of a big payday. They realize they have to be around to collect.

when I'm in a hurry and the only options are fast food restaurants, I don't eat. unless he's also diabetic it would probably do him some good to lower his calorie intake. I'd love to hear someone argue that eating at mcdonalds is actually a healthy thing to do in the first place. millions of people fast on a regular basis - skipping one meal is not going to hurt the guy. skipping a meal at mcdonalds would probably add a week to his life...
Yeah, really. Well, plus they all went back home after this... would it have really killed them to stop at the grocery store for 5 seconds to pick up one of those premade or frozen meals instead? Probably both healthier and cheaper and you can read the damn ingredient list to see if there's any cheese in it. Or *gasp* preform a visual inspection.

The fact that he asked five times suggests that it has happened before.

I am deathly allergic to penicilin. HORRIBLY so. I have, fortunatly, never had a potentially fatal allergic reaction, after the first time I found out I was allergic because I ask, EVERY DAMN TIME, if the drugs I am taking are penicillin.

Are you suggesting that me asking to ensure means that at some point I got the wrong drugs?

Maybe he this time he decided to make a scene about it and get himself hospitalized so he could sue their asses in retribution for all the previous inconvenience. It would explain why his mother and friend called the McDonald's before calling the damn ambulance.

Gee, maybe the girl dressed like a slut so she could tempt some innocent upstanding young man to have sex with her, so she could then have him arrested for rape.

Blaming the victim is ugly, in any circumstance.

How do you think my mother can check for WALNUT OIL mixed into meat other than asking "Does this contains nuts or nut products"? Or NUT RESIDUE on the machine used to make the pasta for the night because they were too lazy or incompetent to properly clean their kitchen gear? Since she doesn't have a food taster like a paranoiac prince, she has to rely on the waiter or waitress asking the chef and giving her an accurate answer.

The point is food service personnel are often careless and don't give a shit what the customer says, and the customer cannot always tell when the food service worker has fucked up.
Well, yes. But I'm just saying, if your mom receives food that has obvious walnuts in it she won't eat it, right? A huge hunk of cheese is a lot more obvious than nuts are in any food.

That has to be the most ascinine argument I have ever heard. It is his fault because he deliberatly, explicitly, expressly said "without cheese" which of course they heard as "with cheese" and then further his fault by asking other people and believing them when they said yes without realizing that when they said yes, they really meant "I don't know and don't want to find out".

I'll say again...what the fuck?

If the people he asked were not in a position to accurately give him an answer they should have:

a) taken affirmative steps to find out

or

b) told him so

the fact that they did neither means they fucked up. And in our legal system, stupidity is not a defense. Incompetance is not a defense. Laziness is not a defense. When a man asks "is there no cheese on this" and you say "there is no cheese on this" and are wrong because you are too stupid, incompetant and/or lazy to find out, that is not a defense.

That is negligence, plain and simple.

I think it would hinge on what, if anything, everyone else ordered. If McDo's can come up with the relevant receipt showing that burgers with cheese were ordered in addition to his non-cheese burger, he's probably fucked.

Also, at this point it's all a little ipse dixit.

Yeah, really. Well, plus they all went back home after this... would it have really killed them to stop at the grocery store for 5 seconds to pick up one of those premade or frozen meals instead? Probably both healthier and cheaper and you can read the damn ingredient list to see if there's any cheese in it. Or *gasp* preform a visual inspection.

McDonald's made the error and is liable.
McDonald's made the error and is liable.
McDonald's made the error and is liable.
McDonald's made the error and is liable.
McDonald's made the error and is liable.
McDonald's made the error and is liable.
McDonald's made the error and is liable.
McDonald's made the error and is liable.
McDonald's made the error and is liable.
McDonald's made the error and is liable.
McDonald's made the error and is liable.
McDonald's made the error and is liable.
McDonald's made the error and is liable.
McDonald's made the error and is liable.
McDonald's made the error and is liable.

;)I think it would hinge on what, if anything, everyone else ordered. If McDo's can come up with the relevant receipt showing that burgers with cheese were ordered in addition to his non-cheese burger, he's probably fucked.

Also, at this point it's all a little ipse dixit.

well sure, for all we know he was the only one who ordered anything at all. Or had his burger in a seperate bag, held it up and went "this is the one without any cheese right?"

or did a number of things. But sure if there were cheese burgers and not cheese burgers mixed in together in the same bag and he grabbed the wrong one, yes.

But then that begs the question..how do they know that he got cheese on his burger, or whether he just grabbed the wrong one?

Yeah, really. Well, plus they all went back home after this... would it have really killed them to stop at the grocery store for 5 seconds to pick up one of those premade or frozen meals instead?

Did that girl who got raped really have to dress so much like a slut? would it have really killed her to put on a less revealing top?

I am deathly allergic to penicilin. HORRIBLY so. I have, fortunatly, never had a potentially fatal allergic reaction, after the first time I found out I was allergic because I ask, EVERY DAMN TIME, if the drugs I am taking are penicillin.

Are you suggesting that me asking to ensure means that at some point I got the wrong drugs?
No, doctors aren't minimum wage employees and you're not ordering your medication through a speakerbox, you're ordering them in person, then you're given a slip of paper to take to someone who is also paid very well to dispense the medication. Chances are, if you go to the same doctor and pharmacist, these people both have little notes in their records about how you are allergic to penicillin as well and would both make sure that your medication doesn't have it.

Gee, maybe the girl dressed like a slut so she could tempt some innocent upstanding young man to have sex with her, so she could then have him arrested for rape.

Blaming the victim is ugly, in any circumstance.
Comparing this to rape is horribly inaccurate. Rape victims aren't generally incompetent, they don't get warning about the high likelihood of a rapist lurking around the corner and they'll call the cops and ambulance after their attack before calling someone to get their attacker in monetary trouble. This was totally preventable by the guy who ate at McDonald's if he had taken two seconds to double check that his food was safe. It's not like slices of McDonald's cheese aren't at all noticeable and the fact that he's suing for such a large amount kinda makes me suspect his motives.

Did that girl who got raped really have to dress so much like a slut? would it have really killed her to put on a less revealing top?
This comparison is absolutely disgusting.

Oh, McDonalds is definately liable, and is rightly sued... but the guy's still a fool.

10 million might be a bit much. Like, way too much.

But then that begs the question..how do they know that he got cheese on his burger, or whether he just grabbed the wrong one?
Haha.... now that would just be hilarious! He'd probably sue his mom or friend for taking the wrong burger.

that man is a spanner

No, doctors aren't minimum wage employees and you're not ordering your medication through a speakerbox, you're ordering them in person, then you're given a slip of paper to take to someone who is also paid very well to dispense the medication. Chances are, if you go to the same doctor and pharmacist, these people both have little notes in their records about how you are allergic to penicillin as well and would both make sure that your medication doesn't have it.

Thanks, you did just prove my point.

Why?

Because a month ago my doctor, my doctor who has all his training, and has his notes on my records, perscribed me penicillin. It was the pharmacist (who has LESS training than the doctor) who caught it.

Had the pharmacist NOT caught it...I'd probably be dead. Would that thus have been my fault for not googling the perscribed medication to ensure it was not penicillin?


This was totally preventable by the guy who ate at McDonald's if he had taken two seconds to double check that his food was safe.

You know how else it would have been totally preventable?

If one of the five people he spoked to looked at the fucking burger before handing it to him.

I think it would hinge on what, if anything, everyone else ordered. If McDo's can come up with the relevant receipt showing that burgers with cheese were ordered in addition to his non-cheese burger, he's probably fucked.That's right.

How is he going to prove that he didn't absentmindedly bite into someone else's burger?

I still think there are just too many holes in his story:

1) Why didn't he just order a "Quarter Pounder." This does not have cheese on it.

My guess is that this is what he did order, and he didn't say "no cheese" five times. Legally, they might still be liable for fucking up a Quarter Pounder by putting cheese on it by mistake... but he's ruining his credibility by insisting that he said "no cheese" five times when there is no reason to believe that he did.

2) If he took that many precautions... if he were that deathly afraid of a cheesey burger... why didn't he check one last time before cramming it in his mouth? If he's that convinced of the incompetence or carelessness of the people making his burger, why not check again?

Again, my guess is that he ordered a Quarter Pounder. He did not say "no cheese," because a Quarter Pounder does not come with cheese. To get cheese, a person says, "Quarter Pounder with Cheese."

He went home and shoved what he believed to be a Quarter Pounder in his mouth. But there was cheese on it.

Now he thinks he has to make up stories showing how vigilant he is (which he's not)... when, ironically, I think he would have actually had a better case if he'd just said he ordered the Quarter Pounder and didn't insist that he complained so many times. The story, as it stands, just doesn't add up.

This comparison is absolutely disgusting.

Why? blaming the victim is blaming the victim. Suggesting it's the girl's fault that she got raped because she wore slutty clothing is no more and no less disgusting than your insinuation that it was his fault he nearly died because he didn't get a frozen dinner from the grocery store instead of going to mcdonalds.

And blaming the victim is always disgusting.

Oh, McDonalds is definately liable, and is rightly sued... but the guy's still a fool.

Exactly. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12961408&postcount=63)

Bottom line: I don't find this story credible. And I don't think a jury will, either.

As hard as it is to believe that he'd be worried enough to ask the employees five times, but not worried enough to check for himself, (and I admit, it is kind of hard to believe), any alternative I can come up with just seems even more unlikely. I can't see anyone risking a potentially deadly allergic reaction just to take McDonalds to court, especially after taking such care to make sure they didn't give him cheese. Can't really imagine him just wanting to play Russian roulette with his burger either. I know you didn't suggest anything of the sort, and maybe these are just strawmen, but they're the best I can come up with at this time of night.

It's quite possible that he fully intended to check his burger before he ate it, but somewhere between the drive-through and the movie it just slipped his mind.

Because a month ago my doctor, my doctor who has all his training, and has his notes on my records, perscribed me penicillin. It was the pharmacist (who has LESS training than the doctor) who caught it.

Had the pharmacist NOT caught it...I'd probably be dead. Would that thus have been my fault for not googling the perscribed medication to ensure it was not penicillin?
Well, had you gone to a different pharmacy, you probably would have been screwed too since they probably don't have a specific little note about your allergies that comes up with your file.


You know how else it would have been totally preventable?

If one of the five people he spoked to looked at the fucking burger before handing it to him.
I doubt he spoke to five different people, he probably asked two people five times between the two of them. And neither of those people are involved with looking at the burger, that is the job of the other people who are back there flipping them, not the job of the order taker or window person.

Exactly. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12961408&postcount=63)

Oh, I didn't see that. Nice comparison.
So many idiots could really benefit from learning those rules...

;)

well sure, for all we know he was the only one who ordered anything at all. Or had his burger in a seperate bag, held it up and went "this is the one without any cheese right?"

or did a number of things. But sure if there were cheese burgers and not cheese burgers mixed in together in the same bag and he grabbed the wrong one, yes.

But then that begs the question..how do they know that he got cheese on his burger, or whether he just grabbed the wrong one?

It's really impossible to tell from the article what actually went on. We can import facts all we want, but it's really just hypothetical at this point. Just because someone ate a McDos burger with cheese doesn't really prove anything about liability and such.

First blush to me is that this is probably a case you could defend. Of course I could be dead wrong and he could have a receipt for only to non-cheese quarter pounders and internal inventory tracking confirms that (if they do such a thing). In which case, Mickey is probably banged to rights. Even then.....

Basically it's not as open and shut as people probably think. Though I do agree if the facts are as people have so construed them, then yah, it's a winner for him.

As hard as it is to believe that he'd be worried enough to ask the employees five times, but not worried enough to check for himself, (and I admit, it is kind of hard to believe), any alternative I can come up with just seems even more unlikely. I can't see anyone risking a potentially deadly allergic reaction just to take McDonalds to court, especially after taking such care to make sure they didn't give him cheese. Can't really imagine him just wanting to play Russian roulette with his burger either. I know you didn't suggest anything of the sort, and maybe these are just strawmen, but they're the best I can come up with at this time of night.
Meh, I think it's possible, there are stupider and more dangerous things that people have done for money, especially when it's a lot of it involved and it doesn't take too much effort.

I'll give the guy credit; it's light years more credible than spilling coffee on yourself.

Well, had you gone to a different pharmacy, you probably would have been screwed too since they probably don't have a specific little note about your allergies that comes up with your file.

Yeah, I would have, due to a screw up by my highly trained doctor. Or, in your version of reality, my screw up, for not trusting my highly trained doctor.

I doubt he spoke to five different people,

Oh, so he's a liar now. Convenient that you don't believe him.

And neither of those people are involved with looking at the burger, that is the job of the other people who are back there flipping them, not the job of the order taker or window person.

gee, then maybe they should have said that to him, shouldn't they?

Oh, McDonalds is definately liable, and is rightly sued... but the guy's still a fool.

10 million might be a bit much. Like, way too much.

Punitive damages almost always seem to be "too much." I mean, I understand why we do them -- McDonalds could pay for the guy's medical expenses and never even notice the money was gone -- but it still seems a little weird that someone can become independently wealthy even if their only contribution to society in their entire life is to catch some major corporation misbehaving.

Why? blaming the victim is blaming the victim.
This guy is a victim of his own stupidity and possibly the absentminded-ness of underpaid workers, not a malicious assault. There is absolutely no comparison.

He went home and shoved what he believed to be a Quarter Pounder in his mouth. But there was cheese on it.


You'd think that you could have some real fun with this guy in a deposition. (I'm assuming that he actually ingested rather than spitting it out).

Punitive damages almost always seem to be "too much." I mean, I understand why we do them -- McDonalds could pay for the guy's medical expenses and never even notice the money was gone -- but it still seems a little weird that someone can become independently wealthy even if their only contribution to society in their entire life is to catch some major corporation misbehaving.
The thing is that McDonald's offered to pay his medical expenses, but he refused and is suing. Which is why I think this might have been a deliberate get rich quick scheme.

Meh, I think it's possible, there are stupider and more dangerous things that people have done for money, especially when it's a lot of it involved and it doesn't take too much effort.

so let me understand this, you think it's MORE credible that a man willingly risked his own life, knowingly suffered a potentially fatal reaction and plotted this whole thing in order to so then that a handful of mcdonald's employees are fucking incompetant and that he got distracted when he sat down to eat and forgot to take a look?

Seriously? Really? This is the argument you're going with here?

Not only it's blaming the victim, it's blaming the victim in a totally ascinine fashion.

so let me understand this, you think it's MORE credible that a man willingly risked his own life, knowingly suffered a potentially fatal reaction and plotted this whole thing in order to so then that a handful of mcdonald's employees are fucking incompetant and that he got distracted when he sat down to eat and forgot to take a look?

Seriously? Really? This is the argument you're going with here?

Not only it's blaming the victim, it's blaming the victim in a totally ascinine fashion.
10 million dollars is a lot of money, you can bet that there are a lot of people out there willing to risk their life for it.

Oh, I didn't see that.


I had just posted. I was only agreeing with your assessment that at some level both parties are responsible for the error.


So many idiots could really benefit from learning those rules...


Rejecting personal responsibility and taking things for granted seem to be real popular pastimes, unfortunately.

This guy is a victim of his own stupidity and possibly the absentminded-ness of underpaid workers, not a malicious assault. There is absolutely no comparison.

Malice is irrelevant. It's not a criminal matter.

The thing is that McDonald's offered to pay his medical expenses, but he refused and is suing. Which is why I think this might have been a deliberate get rich quick scheme.

I don't know. Even if something like this happened to me entirely by accident, if I thought I stood a good chance of winning or (more likely) forcing a good-sized settlement, I'm pretty sure I'd reject the offer to pay for medical expenses and file suit in a New York minute. Quite an opportunity. ;)

10 million dollars is a lot of money, you can bet that there are a lot of people out there willing to risk their life for it.

They probably have some crazy archaic ad damnum rules where he is suing. I doubt he's actually trying to recover $ 10,000,000.

We've had family members write into catering contracts "no nuts" and explain this allergy -- and then had to rush my mother to the ER. Because guess what the caterers included in one of the dishes?

does your mother have a medical dependency on restaurants or catering? my diet isn't even a medical restriction and I regularly am inconvenienced by it. people do not have a right to live in some mcfantasy world where consumer society caters to their every whim without a hitch. some people get left out of it, and that's a fact. it's completely unreasonable to expect people to bend over backwards to accommodate you. just because you're paying them doesn't mean you have some sacred right to getting what you expect, when what you expect is completely out of the ordinary. I'm not criticizing your mother or saying this guy should die or whatever, but the fact he is suing a restaurant that produces food that kills people *without* the cheese, the sort of place you're lucky if there isn't feces or insects or something in your food, for including something perfectly ordinary is beyond petty. was it mcdonalds where a woman found the entire fried head of a chicken in her chicken nuggets? consumerism isn't magic here, people, these companies fuck up and even if its socially accepted that throwing money into the equation will make it sacred and binding, that's just not a fact.

a reasonably good rule of thumb: when you are complaining that other people are not serving you to a high enough standard, you probably need a reality check.

He didn't just say it at the drivethru.

I don't care if he wrote them a letter first, he's not the center of the world and if he expects perfection he should do it himself.

--

and can I add, I'm not defending mcdonalds. I have such a low opinion of them I'm berating the man for expecting them to do *anything* right.

Punitive damages almost always seem to be "too much." I mean, I understand why we do them -- McDonalds could pay for the guy's medical expenses and never even notice the money was gone -- but it still seems a little weird that someone can become independently wealthy even if their only contribution to society in their entire life is to catch some major corporation misbehaving.

but then again, that's the POINT of punitive damages. McDonald's could pay his medical expenses in a heart beat and never notice, so why should they even care?

Why should McDonalds invest hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions to revamp their system if every time someone has a near fatal attack due to their negligence it costs them a few grand.

They're a company, and companies care about money. They don't care about lives, they don't care about death, and they're not going to revamp their system to save lives if it is cheaper to just pay out medical bills every time.

Which is why we have punitive damages. It's our way of saying no, stop that. You have responsibilities. You have obligations to your consumer. You don't get to endanger their lives. You don't get to put in shoddy safety mechanisms because it's cheaper to just pay for the injury you cause. We don't allow that, we don't tolerate that.

You nearly took this man's life, and you don't care. Well, we'll make you care. We're going to make it hurt. We're going to make you bleed. And every time this happens, every time your negligence harms someone because it was cheaper for you to let them be harmed because you just didn't care, we're going to make it hurt even more. You don't get to not care, and if you won't care because it's the right thing to do, you'll care because it hurts your bottom line because either way, we don't accept this kind of behavior.

Interesting comments I read on another board which makes his "Quarter Pounder, hold the cheese" sound more credible....

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=562034&postcount=67
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=562109&postcount=68

I don't care if he wrote them a letter first, he's not the center of the world and if he expects perfection he should do it himself.

I'm sorry but what fucked up world do you live in where asking, five times "hey, this won't kill me, right?" is demanding perfection?

Expects perfection my ass, all he expected was when he asked, five times, that there be no cheese on his hamburger, that there be no fucking cheese on the fucking hamburger.

how the hell is that expecting "perfection"?

but then again, that's the POINT of punitive damages. McDonald's could pay his medical expenses in a heart beat and never notice, so why should they even care?

Why should McDonalds invest hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions to revamp their system if every time someone has a near fatal attack due to their negligence it costs them a few grand.

They're a company, and companies care about money. They don't care about lives, they don't care about death, and they're not going to revamp their system to save lives if it is cheaper to just pay out medical bills every time.
Dude, they're not going to revamp anything even if this guy wins. The most they'll do is put up a sign advising people with food allergies that they shouldn't eat at that restaurant. They'll still fuck up orders, they'll still probably give out food that people are allergic to, but they won't be sue-able because they have these precious little signs that give the people with food allergies fair warning.

Oh, they might set up a toll free number to call and advise their employees not to give advice to customers who mention they have food allergies at the counter too.

I'm sorry but what fucked up world do you live in where asking, five times "hey, this won't kill me, right?" is demanding perfection?

Expects perfection my ass, all he expected was when he asked, five times, that there be no cheese on his hamburger, that there be no fucking cheese on the fucking hamburger.

how the hell is that expecting "perfection"?

Because people screw things up, no matter how many things you do to try and prevent it. Asking people not to mess an order up is no substitute for actually checking the order to see if they messed up or not.
Note: Especially if the people in question aren't paid shit for what they do, and are hardly trained anyways.

Dude, they're not going to revamp anything even if this guy wins. The most they'll do is put up a sign advising people with food allergies that they shouldn't eat at that restaurant. They'll still fuck up orders, they'll still probably give out food that people are allergic to, but they won't be sue-able because they have these precious little signs that give the people with food allergies fair warning.

Oh, they might set up a toll free number to call and advise their employees not to give advice to customers who mention they have food allergies at the counter too.

gee, McDonald's isn't serving coffee hot enough to cause third degree burns, and the ford motor company isn't putting out vehicles they know to explode anymore, are they?

And by the way, those signs? Legally they're not worth the paper they're printed on. They are absolutly useless. They're like those little signs in coat check rooms "not responsible for lost or stolen property".

Hah, my ass.

gee, McDonald's isn't serving coffee hot enough to cause third degree burns, and the ford motor company isn't putting out vehicles they know to explode anymore, are they?
Yes, they do, it just says "Caution: hot" on the outside.

Because people screw things up, no matter how many things you do to try and prevent it. Asking people not to mess an order up is no substitute for actually checking the order to see if they messed up or not.

Oh certainly this is true. But then surely you must admit, they DID screw up, and as a direct result of their screw up (which is to say, had they not screwed up, it would not have happened) he suffered an injury, yes?

Oh certainly this is true. But then surely you must admit, they DID screw up, and as a direct result of their screw up (which is to say, had they not screwed up, it would not have happened) he suffered an injury, yes?
But then they might not have screwed up, he might have eaten the wrong burger, maybe his mom ended up with the cheese-less burger.

Or it was two years ago and he thinks that he remembers mentioning his cheese allergy, but he really didn't. I mean, the only two people who would probably claim that he did this are the people who are suing with him.

Or maybe the entire order/bag got mixed up with the order from the customer before or after them?

Because people screw things up, no matter how many things you do to try and prevent it. Asking people not to mess an order up is no substitute for actually checking the order to see if they messed up or not.
Note: Especially if the people in question aren't paid shit for what they do, and are hardly trained anyways.

Well what kind of defense is that? So sad too bad? Assuming that he actually ordered a no cheese burger and they put cheese on it they are clearly at fault (with the reservations I have mentioned above). It's not like it is a particularly difficult or impossible thing not to put cheese on a burger when someone asks.

Being someone who is lactose intolerant I don't eat dairy either, but being someone who also had the wife of a diabetic order from me and come back screaming at me for giving him something he shouldn't have had has me strongly believe IF YOU ARE ALERGIC TO SOMETHING DON'T ORDER IT DON'T EAT PLACES WHERE YOUR FOOD CAN BE MIXED UP HUMANS ARN'T DISPENSING MACHINES AND MISTAKES HAPPEN.

In my instance I specifically suggested that she put the sugar into the cup that was hers - herself. Meanwhile I totally think I did put it and mark it in the right cup - but when you are up all night and someone comes to you in the morning at the end of your shift or otherwise - MISTAKES CAN HAPPEN.

If someone suggests you put sugar into your own coffee because you may somehow not do it right - they should do it NOT YOU. Food servers who get minimum wage shouldn't have to deal with the potential for lethal errors.

If you could die eating food somewhere DON'T EAT THERE.

FAST FOOD AIN'T SAFE FOOD FAST. YOU EVER BEEN IN ONE OF THOSE PLACES. THEY ARE DESIGNED FOR NORMAL PEOPLE NOT PEOPLE THAT CAN DIE EATING THE FOOD - RIGHT AWAY.

If without cheese is somehow not heard - do you really wanna put your life at risk -- ever wear a headset - words can be mistaken.


If you have serious allergies make the food yourself - or watch the person make it.. being someone who tries to adhere to a religious diet, vegan and lactose intolerant I don't even trust my own mother to cook for me.

While I understand yah they screwed up at the same time - WHY THE HECK DID THE GUY ORDER FROM THE PLACE.

JUST SAYING WITHOUT CHEESE MAY NOT MEAN THAT THE GLOVES THE GUY USES (hopefully) to make the burgers get switched in between making every burger. Although I don't know the exact policies - without cheese to me means don't add cheese - not don't add cheese OR I'll die.



Although food service is expected I don't think people should go to places where their orders are seen as trivial and people are getting a meal for each hour they work.

In my case with the "coffee error" what gets me is that I specifically suggest she add the sugar herself because I wasn't confident to do it myself because of the seriousness of the condition. If you are diabetic make your own coffee - people who handle donuts with glaze or otherwise might just see some sugar drop off or otherwise the area isn't quarentined.

Wage slavers shouldn't have to deal with serious medical issues - they arn't trained to, nor with the specifics of the conditions or how to safely handle food product that could cause them health issues.

I'm sure if the medical issue was brought up then extra caution would have been taken.

Little mix ups of burger slot order can happen - why risk your life?

Although this may seem insensitive - if you have food alergies don't eat out. THis applies to peanut allergies or otherwise - for me this is OK cause I don't eat out because of my diet restrictions. It is very serious to me, and if it is serious to you whether you have a dairy alergy like me, or diabetes or otherwise - don't risk it - it isn't fair to the food service people. While food services DO try to give good service they ARE NOT trained to do food service for people with medical issues - only basic cleanliness. IF you are diabetic DON'T order coffee from a coffee shop in a multiple order while sugar contamination is very unlikely and rare to occur - it could. while seperate spoons are used - it is far better if you stir yourself and add your own sugar and otherwise because of the nature of the environment and the often haphazard movement of "food product that is sugary" a few stray grains is realistically posible especially when product is being moved around. IT ain't a quarentined area.

also MISREADING lid lables is something else that can be done.

If the person comes around and force medicates you cause the coffee they forced you to make was mixed up - they should be shot.

I thought I'd add why WOULDN"T YOU CHECK FOR CHEESE BEFORE YOU BITE IDIOT IT'S MIKID's for cripes sake

Oh certainly this is true. But then surely you must admit, they DID screw up, and as a direct result of their screw up (which is to say, had they not screwed up, it would not have happened) he suffered an injury, yes?

Of course. I think I said that in an earlier post of mine. I just maintain that that guy screwed up also. Possibly the people with him too.

Unless the theory that he did it to get 10 million dollars is true. I can't rule that out quite yet...

Well what kind of defense is that? So sad too bad? Assuming that he actually ordered a no cheese burger and they put cheese on it they are clearly at fault (with the reservations I have mentioned above). It's not like it is a particularly difficult or impossible thing not to put cheese on a burger when someone asks.

It isn't a defense at all. I'm just saying that both parties screwed up here. I never said that McDonalds wasn't at fault. They deserve to be sued.

Oh, and apparently the mother and friend are in on the lawsuit because they "risked their lives rushing Jeromy to United Hospital Center in Clarksburg." utter garbage.

http://people.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1341866.php/Cheesy_American_lawsuit__Man_bites_cheese_lives_to_tell

does your mother have a medical dependency on restaurants or catering?
Are you stupid, or are you trying to be obnoxious? Are you actually going to stand there and tell me it's my mother's fault because she wants to have a meal out and reasonable assumes that when she questions whether or not there are nuts in a dish she is ordering, it's her fault when she is told no but there really are?

my diet isn't even a medical restriction and I regularly am inconvenienced by it.
Whoopty doo, it's your preference, not a matter of life and death, now is it?

people do not have a right to live in some mcfantasy world where consumer society caters to their every whim without a hitch. some people get left out of it, and that's a fact. it's completely unreasonable to expect people to bend over backwards to accommodate you. just because you're paying them doesn't mean you have some sacred right to getting what you expect, when what you expect is completely out of the ordinary.
You do when you ASK and are TOLD that the food DOES NOT CONTAIN THE ALLEGEN, or when you write a CONTRACT with the FOOD SERVICE PROVIDER that they sign saying that they ARE AWARE of the allergy and THEREFORE ARE NOT PREPARING ANYTHING WITH NUTS FOR THIS MEAL.

If you contract with someone to paint your house white, and they paint it red, are you saying, "Well, you should expect them to paint with whatever color is most convenient, it's your fault?" Because frankly, that's STUPID.


I'm not criticizing your mother
The fuck you're not, unless you were not the one who wrote, "does your mother have a medical dependency on restaurants or catering? and people do not have a right to live in some mcfantasy world where consumer society caters to their every whim without a hitch. some people get left out of it, and that's a fact. it's completely unreasonable to expect people to bend over backwards to accommodate you. just because you're paying them doesn't mean you have some sacred right to getting what you expect, when what you expect is completely out of the ordinary.

or saying this guy should die or whatever, but the fact he is suing a restaurant that produces food that kills people *without* the cheese, the sort of place you're lucky if there isn't feces or insects or something in your food, for including something perfectly ordinary is beyond petty. was it mcdonalds where a woman found the entire fried head of a chicken in her chicken nuggets? consumerism isn't magic here, people, these companies fuck up and even if its socially accepted that throwing money into the equation will make it sacred and binding, that's just not a fact. And when they fuck up, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE. If they serve you ground glass, they are responsible. You're going to sit here and say because the food is unhealthy, he got what he deserved? Crossing the street is dangerous. Even though you crossed at the corner and obeyed the signals, you should have expected that someone would run the red light and cripple you for life. See how stupid that sounds?

a reasonably good rule of thumb: when you are complaining that other people are not serving you to a high enough standard, you probably need a reality check.
A good rule of thumb: when you order something and get the wrong thing, it's not the consumer who's at fault.

I don't care if he wrote them a letter first, he's not the center of the world and if he expects perfection he should do it himself. I don't care if you told your doctor you're allergic to codeine: when he prescribed it for you under another name and you went into cardiac arrest, he knew what he was doing. It's YOUR fault you had the heart attack!

and can I add, I'm not defending mcdonalds. I have such a low opinion of them I'm berating the man for expecting them to do *anything* right.
I'm not defending the doctor. It's your fault you swallowed those pills.

But then they might not have screwed up, he might have eaten the wrong burger, maybe his mom ended up with the cheese-less burger.

Or it was two years ago and he thinks that he remembers mentioning his cheese allergy, but he really didn't. I mean, the only two people who would probably claim that he did this are the people who are suing with him.

Or maybe the entire order/bag got mixed up with the order from the customer before or after them?

Sure, all of which is possible. And all a matter for the trial itself, is it not? I mean, such things is the POINT of the trial, after all.

Sure, all of which is possible. And all a matter for the trial itself, is it not? I mean, such things is the POINT of the trial, after all.
Yeah, I really hope that this idiot loses though. Maybe it will keep such stupid lawsuits from coming up all the damn time.

While food services DO try to give good service they ARE NOT trained to do food service for people with medical issues - only basic cleanliness.

And yet, it would seem that one of the fundamental points of this lawsuit is that they should be.

Yeah, I really hope that this idiot loses though. Maybe it will keep such stupid lawsuits from coming up all the damn time.

why, because somehow, magically and mystically you KNOW what happened, you KNOW the details of the case and know that it's his fault that they gave him something deadly after he explicitly told them not to.

Fuck, why do we even have trials? Let's just call you up and you can tell us the answers.

Umm... Has anyone else actually tried researching cheese allergies?

What I am finding makes his story seem more suspicious still. I am finding the following things consistently reported in all sources:

1) The reaction is rarely life-threatening or even severe. It generally does not occur until some time after ingestion.

2) The reaction is heavily dose-dependent. Small doses give someone cramps. They don't send them to the hospital.

EDIT: 3) Technically, it is not an allergy at all. It is a food intolerance mimicking allergic symptoms.

Anyone have any different information?

and the idea abound in this thread that somehow HE is at fault because THEY gave him the wrong thing is not only absurd, it's frankly disgusting.

Oh, and apparently the mother and friend are in on the lawsuit because they "risked their lives rushing Jeromy to United Hospital Center in Clarksburg." utter garbage.

http://people.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1341866.php/Cheesy_American_lawsuit__Man_bites_cheese_lives_to_tell

As a practical matter you want to draw all claims as widely as possible, and then get them dismissed as you go through the process. The last thing a lawyer wants to do is fully litigate a case and then have additional shit come up after it's all over. It can lead to malpractice claims and such. (Especially because of this thing called issue preclusion).

Neo Art can probably explain it better than I can. But part of the misconceptions people have about lawsuits stems from this. Most likely their claim will be dismissed with prejudice, and you'll never hear about it.

Huh. Reading this article (http://people.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1341866.php/Cheesy_American_lawsuit__Man_bites_cheese_lives_to_tell) makes me think that the guy, his mother and friend are quite possibly assholes. I didn't realize this was about something in 2005, nor did I realize that his mother and friend were also parties in the lawsuit... Looks kind of suspicious.

Being someone who is lactose intolerant I don't eat dairy either, but being someone who also had the wife of a diabetic order from me and come back screaming at me for giving him something he shouldn't have had has me strongly believe IF YOU ARE ALERGIC TO SOMETHING DON'T ORDER IT DON'T EAT PLACES WHERE YOUR FOOD CAN BE MIXED UP HUMANS ARN'T DISPENSING MACHINES AND MISTAKES HAPPEN.

In my instance I specifically suggested that she put the sugar into the cup that was hers - herself. Meanwhile I totally think I did put it and mark it in the right cup - but when you are up all night and someone comes to you in the morning at the end of your shift or otherwise - MISTAKES CAN HAPPEN.

If someone suggest you put sugar into your own coffee because you may somehow not do it right - they should do it NOT YOU. Food servers who get minimum wage shouldn't have to deal with the potential for lethal errors.

If you could die eating food somewhere DON'T EAT THERE.

FAST FOOD AIN'T SAFE FOOD FAST. YOU EVER BEEN IN ONE OF THOSE PLACES. THEY ARE DESIGNED FOR NORMAL PEOPLE NOT PEOPLE THAT CAN DIE EATING THE FOOD - RIGHT AWAY.

If without cheese is somehow not heard - do you really wanna put your life at risk -- ever wear a headset - words can be mistaken.


If you have serious alergies make the food yourself - or watch the person make it.. being someone who tries to adhere to a religious diet, vegan and lactose intolerant I don't even trust my own mother to cook for me.

While I understand yah they screwed up at the same time - WHY THE HECK DID THE GUY ORDER FROM THE PLACE.

JUST SAYING WITHOUT CHEESE MAY NOT MEAN THAT THE GLOVES THE GUY USES (hopefully) to make the burgers get switched in between making every burger. Although I don't know the exact policies - without cheese to me means don't add cheese - not don't add cheese OR I'll die.



Although food service is expected I don't think people should go to places where there orders are seen as trivial and people are getting a meal for each hour they work.

In my case with the "coffee error" what gets me is that I specifically suggest she add the sugar herself because I wasn't confident to do it myself because of the seriousness of the condition. If you are diabetic make your own coffee - people who handle donuts with glaze or otherwise might just see some sugar drop off or otherwise the area isn't quarantined.

Wage slavers shouldn't have to deal with serious medical issues - they aren't trained to, nor with the specifics of the conditions or how to safely handle food product that could cause them health issues.

I'm sure if the medical issue was brought up then extra caution would have been taken.

Little mix ups of burger slot order can happen - why risk your life?

Although this may seem insensitive - if you have food alergies don't eat out. THis applies to peanut allergies or otherwise - for me this is OK cause I don't eat out because of my diet restrictions. It is very serious to me, and if it is serious to you whether you have a dairy alergy like me, or diabetes or otherwise - don't risk it - it isn't fair to the food service people. While food services DO try to give good service they ARE NOT trained to do food service for people with medical issues - only basic cleanliness. IF you are diabetic DON'T order coffee from a coffee shop in a multiple order while sugar contamination is very unlikely and rare to occur - it could. while seperate spoons are used - it is far better if you stir yourself and add your own sugar and otherwise because of the nature of the environment and the often haphazard movement of "food product that is sugary" a few stray grains is realistically posible especially when product is being moved around. IT ain't a quarentined area.

also MISREADING lid lables is something else that can be done.

If the person comes around and force medicates you cause the coffee they forced you to make was mixed up - they should be shot.


WHILE THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED ERROR THERE IS ALSO SOMETHING CALLED GROSS NEGLIGENCE.

Umm... Has anyone else actually tried researching cheese allergies?

What I am finding makes his story seem more suspicious still. I am finding the following things consistently reported in all sources:

1) The reaction is rarely life-threatening or even severe. It generally does not occur until some time after ingestion.

2) The reaction is heavily dose-dependent. Small doses give someone cramps. They don't send them to the hospital.

EDIT: 3) Technically, it is not an allergy at all. It is a food intolerance mimicking allergic symptoms.

Anyone have any different information?

I prefer not to mess up a good argument with 'facts' El.

Umm... Has anyone else actually tried researching cheese allergies?

What I am finding makes his story seem more suspicious still. I am finding the following things consistently reported in all sources:

1) The reaction is rarely life-threatening or even severe. It generally does not occur until some time after ingestion.

2) The reaction is heavily dose-dependent. Small doses give someone cramps. They don't send them to the hospital.

EDIT: 3) Technically, it is not an allergy at all. It is a food intolerance mimicking allergic symptoms.

Anyone have any different information?

http://www.foodallergy.org/questions.html
What is the difference between food allergy and food intolerance?

Many people think the terms food allergy and food intolerance mean the same thing; however, they do not. A "food intolerance" is an adverse food-induced reaction that does not involve the immune system. Lactose intolerance is one example of a food intolerance. A person with lactose intolerance lacks an enzyme that is needed to digest milk sugar. When the person eats milk products, symptoms such as gas, bloating, and abdominal pain may occur.

A "food allergy" occurs when the immune system reacts to a certain food. The most common form of an immune system reaction occurs when the body creates immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies to the food. When these IgE antibodies react with the food, histamine and other chemicals (called "mediators") cause hives, asthma, or other symptoms of an allergic reaction.
A dairy allergy is not the same thing as a dairy intolerance.

A dairy allergy is not the same thing as a dairy intolerance.I know. That's why I made a point of differentiating between the two.

From what I've read, dairy allergies generally only occur from eating whey-laden cheese such as ricotta, since the allergenic proteins are not prevalent in curd.

The reaction to a cheese such as that used at McDonalds is therefore likely to be an intolerance, not an allergy.

I know. That's why I made a point of differentiating between the two.

From what I've read, dairy allergies generally only occur from eating whey-laden cheese such as ricotta, since the allergenic proteins are not prevalent in curd.

The reaction to a cheese such as that used at McDonalds is therefore likely to be an intolerance, not an allergy.

There is such a thing as casein allergy. It can be so severe that people should carry an epipen if they suffer from it. It is however, extremely rare.

Except when you specifically and directly ask for it not to have cheese on it. Five times

if he asked 5 times, it meant he didn't trust them. so if he didn't inspect his food when he got it, I say good for him, cause he's a dummy:cool:

There is such a thing as casein allergy. It can be so severe that people should carry an epipen if they suffer from it. It is however, extremely rare.There's just one problem with that theory.

McDonald's buns contain casein.

macdogburger and incompitent idiots are made for each other.

who else would do bussiness with them in the first place if they didn't have to?

=^^=
.../\...

The person is a genius....

Only in America taking a voluntary risk because you do something 'stupid' can be worth millions to the person.

If I had some dietary allergy and I was short on dough, I would go to <big fastfood chain> and order a meal containing <allergen> but without <allergen> and hope that it would be included. Of course I'd bring a friend along ready to dial 911.

That'd be, liek, free money for me!

Heck, if I really needed the money I would ask the friend to order the same meal (with the <allergen> naturally) and then switch meals when we reached the table - This way I would be guaranteed to get the allergic reaction worth millions and the <fast food chain> employees would have nearly impossible duty to prove the <fast food chain> had nothing to do with it!

There's just one problem with that theory.

McDonald's buns contain casein.

That's an excellent point. I was not aware of that.

So, ordering a sandwich that comes without cheese and telling the restaurant 5 times not to put cheese on it, how is he an idiot in expecting it not to have cheese on it? That's right, He isn't. You phail.
I think the failure here is ordering an item that comes in two forms - with and without cheese and instead of asking for a QP, he asks for a QP without cheese. If he had shutup, he wouldn't even have had cheese on it.

For someone who has a parent with a food allergy: those of you calling this guys stupid
Quarter Pounders don't come with cheese...

That's an excellent point. I was not aware of that.I have a friend who is a strict vegan. One time on a road-trip with friends, someone wanted to stop at McDonald's and suggested that she and I (I'm vegetarian but not vegan) could eat "buns and fries."

It's a dick suggestion in the first place, but the point here is that after she explained the many dairy products that wind up in McDonald's fries she also pointed out that many processed foods, including many breads and including in particular McDonald's buns, contain casein.

I actually try to avoid it anyway, as it's a rather nasty little substance. Did you know that putting milk in tea actually blocks the healthy effects of tea? Casein is to blame.

It also aggravates the symptoms of autism.

Of course, I still don't do a very good job of it, unlike my vegan friend. You'd be surprised how much you wouldn't be able to eat!!

I have a friend who is a strict vegan. One time on a road-trip with friends, someone wanted to stop at McDonald's and suggested that she and I (I'm vegetarian but not vegan) could eat "buns and fries."

It's a dick suggestion in the first place, but the point here is that after she explained the many dairy products that wind up in McDonald's fries she also pointed out that many processed foods, including many breads and including in particular McDonald's buns, contain casein.

I actually try to avoid it anyway, as it's a rather nasty little substance. Did you know that putting milk in tea actually blocks the healthy effects of tea? Casein is to blame.

It's also been rather strongly linked to cancer.

Of course, I still don't do a very good job of it, unlike my vegan friend. You'd be surprised how much you wouldn't be able to eat!!


*munches on a taco*

I have a friend who is a strict vegan. One time on a road-trip with friends, someone wanted to stop at McDonald's and suggested that she and I (I'm vegetarian but not vegan) could eat "buns and fries."

It's a dick suggestion in the first place, but the point here is that after she explained the many dairy products that wind up in McDonald's fries she also pointed out that many processed foods, including many breads and including in particular McDonald's buns, contain casein.

I actually try to avoid it anyway, as it's a rather nasty little substance. Did you know that putting milk in tea actually blocks the healthy effects of tea? Casein is to blame.

It also aggravates the symptoms of autism.

Of course, I still don't do a very good job of it, unlike my vegan friend. You'd be surprised how much you wouldn't be able to eat!!


I'm not actually surprised because I used to date a strict vegan (for ethical reasons) and she had to get special bread. I just hadn't thought it through.

I did the veggie lifestyle for a bit myself, but looking back it was more an effort to get into someones pants. I will say this though, there are advantages to a vegetarian girl.

Also I failed because I love cheese, and once you are on that path it's a downward spiral. Well that and I like fox hunting too.

I did the veggie lifestyle for a bit myself, but looking back it was more an effort to get into someones pants.Hey, me too! Well, not the vegetarianism, but the veganism. I've always been vegetarian.

I will say this though, there are advantages to a vegetarian girl.I know. ;)

My current girlfriend (of five years) has also been vegetarian for most of her life... fully 21 years now, though I've still got her beat.

Also I failed because I love cheese, and once you are on that path it's a downward spiral. Well that and I like fox hunting too.Can't say I've ever been hunting, but cheese... the thought of good cheese makes me drool.

I know. ;)

My current girlfriend (of five years) has also been vegetarian for most of her life... fully 21 years now, though I've still got her beat.


Lucky bastard.

I actually like the riding more than the actual killing, and I am quite happy to go on drags. Unfortunately they tend to get sabotaged too. Also I signed up to fight the prejudice and fight the ban.

Of course, I still don't do a very good job of it, unlike my vegan friend. You'd be surprised how much you wouldn't be able to eat!!

Which is why I say the ethical vegan/vegetarians can piss off.

He is right to sue, though. He specified that he didn't want cheese and had a good medical reason why he couldn't have it!

Sometimes that stuff manages to hide. Generally not, no. But sometimes. I give him the benefit of the doubt, because I have medical dietary restrictions too and I know that I have a tendency towards quadrupal checking, so...
Then again, I seem to be smarter than the average human...

This whole culture of suing is crap really. So when your child climbs a tree in the park, and falls out, you sue the council for not having signs and railings up, instead of keeping an eye on your child.

The man really could not see the cheese on his burger? Why go eat from a place where you know that cheese is on everything? The mans a prat, or the whole thing is a con.

This whole culture of suing is crap really. So when your child climbs a tree in the park, and falls out, you sue the council for not having signs and railings up, instead of keeping an eye on your child.This reminds me of a fantastic story which begins with me on a branch of a sycamore tree reading a stolen book. A police officer approached, and at first I thought he was there to see me about the book (which I had, in fact, stolen from the campus bookstore mere hours before).

In fact, he was there to chase me out of the tree. Told me it was a liability issue: if I fell and broke my neck, my parents would sue the school.

I laughed. "I'm sorry, but I know my parents a hell of a lot better than you do. If I fall out of this tree and break my neck, they will regard it as wholly my own stupid-ass fault. If, however, you attempt forcibly to remove me and I break my neck... that's a different story entirely."

He grudgingly departed murmuring something about how I'd been warned, clearly unused to having his authority questioned. :)

I said that was the beginning of the story: it ends in a fantastic, legendary night of public nudity, orgy sex, and several misdemeanor charges. :D

The mans a prat, or the whole thing is a con.I'm increasingly of the opinion that it's a con. The article states that the "lawsuit alleges" he was near death... but it doesn't mention anything about the opinion of the ER docs. $700 also seems a little cheap for the kinds of treatments, drugs, and machinery to be applied in near-death situations. I was taken in with kidney stones -- they gave me a painkiller and some fluids, plus a CT scan -- and it came to $600. Plus another $300 for the ambulance ride.

Then again, maybe it was just a cut-rate hospital.

I think the failure here is ordering an item that comes in two forms - with and without cheese and instead of asking for a QP, he asks for a QP without cheese. If he had shutup, he wouldn't even have had cheese on it.


Quarter Pounders don't come with cheese...

Actually, yes, I have asked for Quarter Pounders and been asked, "With or without cheese?"

Also, I provided some links above to a discussion on another board where they claim that McDonalds has taken "quarter pounder" off the menu, and only left "quarter pounder with cheese", leaving the consumer to specify "without."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12961474&postcount=104

While I dislike the whole stupid litigation things that go on, but I do think this person has a case. They specified they did not want cheese and were served something with cheese. Food allegies can kill. McDonalds are quite clearly at fault.

So let me make sure I got this right. He is allergic to cheese. He doesn't want cheese. He says he doesn't want cheese. They give him cheese, despite him not asking for it, and he gets ill.

Gee, sounds like a good lawsuit reason for me.

thanks.

While I dislike the whole stupid litigation things that go on, but I do think this person has a case. They specified they did not want cheese and were served something with cheese. Food allegies can kill. McDonalds are quite clearly at fault.

I think though the point about about places like McDonald's is that if you really had a cheese allegy, then you just wouldn't go there, knowing that cheese is handled a great deal, and the chance for cross contamination is very, very high.

Nope I smell big fat massive con.

I think though the point about about places like McDonald's is that if you really had a cheese allegy, then you just wouldn't go there, knowing that cheese is handled a great deal, and the chance for cross contamination is very, very high.

Nope I smell big fat massive con.

But are we actually talking about contamination or a big old slice of cheese?

I think though the point about about places like McDonald's is that if you really had a cheese allegy, then you just wouldn't go there, knowing that cheese is handled a great deal, and the chance for cross contamination is very, very high.

Nope I smell big fat massive con.

I go a lot of places where I could be cross contaminated, because the company has a menu for my allergen and I am able to ask them to clean the area and make things that are safe for me. I can't just avoid anywhere that has my allergen, I wouldn't be able to go to the store, or to church, or to the park, or to the doctor's office, or to the hospital, or to the dentist, or to college, or outside, or anything.

Yes, people have to accommodate me. Yes, if I feel that they can't accommodate me properly I don't go. However, to say that someone with an allergy that has explained it and has been told they would be accommodated was an idiot or irresponsible is unfair.

I find the entire concept of a cheese allergy to be hilarious. Also if he's so deathly allergic to cheese wouldn't cross contamination in a place that has cheese cause severe problems?


Perhaps being too close to cheese renders him blind and unable to smell anything, perhaps that's why he failed to notice it.

if he specifically said "quarter pounder without cheese", you cannot blame someone for thinking he said "with". Last I checked, quarter pounders at most fast food places are the smallest and the barest of burgers, and don't come with cheese.

As for him suing? It makes sense, even if it was only human error. The ammount he's suing for? Ridiculous. He should only sue to cover the cost of medical expenses in this case, if no permnant damage was done.

I find the entire concept of a cheese allergy to be hilarious. Also if he's so deathly allergic to cheese wouldn't cross contamination in a place that has cheese cause severe problems?


Perhaps being too close to cheese renders him blind and unable to smell anything, perhaps that's why he failed to notice it.

oh, yeah, food allergies are funny! hilarious!

I am still trying to think of somewhere I can hide where I won't be cross contaminated......

oh, yeah, food allergies are funny! hilarious!

I am still trying to think of somewhere I can hide where I won't be cross contaminated......

It's not like you could eat much at McDonalds, Smunkee.

Maybe the fries. No burgers, no chicken nuggets... the salad has croutons in it...

It's not like you could eat much at McDonalds, Smunkee.

Maybe the fries. No burgers, no chicken nuggets... the salad has croutons in it...

I can't eat anything at Mc Donald's other than the yogurt with no granola and the hot fudge sundae, even the fries have wheat on them.

oh, yeah, food allergies are funny! hilarious!

I am still trying to think of somewhere I can hide where I won't be cross contaminated......

You take great pains to avoid your allergen yes? Makes me wonder why this fella thought he couldn't.

I'm not allergic to foods, but I am allergic to bees. I don't go kicking a hive and then suing the beekeeper.

I can't understand why anyone would want to eat at McDonalds anyway.

But are we actually talking about contamination or a big old slice of cheese?

It don't really matter. As I said people with specific food allegies normal just don't go to any place where cross contamination is likey. Of all the places to go to when you don't want cheese, I think Mcdonald's is surely the idiots choice.

Its like having a nut allergy and asking for that bit of chicken on a stick, no no the one just next to the satay.

It just wouldn't happen would it.

I go a lot of places where I could be cross contaminated, because the company has a menu for my allergen and I am able to ask them to clean the area and make things that are safe for me. I can't just avoid anywhere that has my allergen, I wouldn't be able to go to the store, or to church, or to the park, or to the doctor's office, or to the hospital, or to the dentist, or to college, or outside, or anything.

Yes, people have to accommodate me. Yes, if I feel that they can't accommodate me properly I don't go. However, to say that someone with an allergy that has explained it and has been told they would be accommodated was an idiot or irresponsible is unfair.

It's McDonald's! Skunkee, would you go to McDonald's if you was allergic to cheese?

Well McDonalds' slogan isn't "Have it your way."

McDonalds is "We love to see you smile" or i think it is,apparantly they loved to see him almost die. McDonalds is horrible anyway,there "cooks" just slap a burger together,now i have an allergy to mayo,so i dont get mustard/ketchup on it,90% of the time i get one,what do i see,mustard/mayo/ketchup,hope he wins

It don't really matter. As I said people with specific food allegies normal just don't go to any place where cross contamination is likey. Of all the places to go to when you don't want cheese, I think Mcdonald's is surely the idiots choice.

Its like having a nut allergy and asking for that bit of chicken on a stick, no no the one just next to the satay.

It just wouldn't happen would it.

I think it does matter - if I have a nut allergy and buy something labelled may contains traces of nuts I am a moron. If I buy something that says it does not have nuts in it, because that is what I asked for, I should not expect to find a peanut in it.

I think it does matter - if I have a nut allergy and buy something labelled may contains traces of nuts I am a moron. If I buy something that says it does not have nuts in it, because that is what I asked for, I should not expect to find a peanut in it.

If you buy a chicken sandwich from a place known to fry in peanut oil though and then sue when you get a reaction, I'd be questioning your intellect.

It don't really matter. As I said people with specific food allegies normal just don't go to any place where cross contamination is likey. Of all the places to go to when you don't want cheese, I think Mcdonald's is surely the idiots choice.

Its like having a nut allergy and asking for that bit of chicken on a stick, no no the one just next to the satay.

It just wouldn't happen would it.

Even if this guy is an idiot about his food allergy or he is exaggerating his allergy to justify $10 million, he still has the basis for a lawsuit. Not a $10 million lawsuit, but when a customer's health is put in danger because of a mistake made by an employee, the customer is owed something. McDonald's offer to cover his medical expenses was the right offer to make, but the family wants to be dicks and get rich, so I guess a settlement may be in order.

Personally, I think he's a moron for trying to order something cheese-free from a McDonald's drive-thru and biting into it without checking first, but that's how the law works. Even a moron can profit from someone else's mistake.

It's McDonald's! Skunkee, would you go to McDonald's if you was allergic to cheese?

I go to P.F. Changs and I am allergic to wheat. They accommodate me with unbreaded chicken and wheat free soy sauce. They do have wheat in the kitchen though, lots of it.

If you buy a chicken sandwich from a place known to fry in peanut oil though and then sue when you get a reaction, I'd be questioning your intellect.

...but if you buy a chicken sandwich and say no tomato and they give you a sandwich with tomato in and you get a reaction, you would be justified in suing.

...but if you buy a chicken sandwich and say no tomato and they give you a sandwich with tomato in and you get a reaction, you would be justified in suing.

I'd disagree, it's awful hard not to notice a tomato staring at you. Just get another one where the order is correct.

I think it does matter - if I have a nut allergy and buy something labelled may contains traces of nuts I am a moron. If I buy something that says it does not have nuts in it, because that is what I asked for, I should not expect to find a peanut in it.

Man you are still missing the point though huh? If you had a nut allergy would you shop at 'Nut R Us'?

'Excuse me sir can I have that pack of crisps, the salt and vineger flavour'
'What these one?'
'Yeah, say they don't contain nuts do they? Only I have an allegy you see'
'No Sir, 100% garenteed nut free, these crisps, but uhhh sir!'
'Umm yeah sorry yeah!'
'You do realise that I work in Nut's R Us, and that I have been handling nuts all day, should you be worried about that?'
'What naaaa, you go right ahead and hand me that packet please'

Let me make it clearer. If you have an allergy to cheese, you are some kind of an idiot to eat at McDonald's.

I go to P.F. Changs and I am allergic to wheat. They accommodate me with unbreaded chicken and wheat free soy sauce. They do have wheat in the kitchen though, lots of it.

I have no idea what a P.F. Chang is? But I do notice you didn't answer the question put to you.

Would you eat in McDonalds if you had a cheese allergy?

I have no idea what a P.F. Chang is? But I do notice you didn't answer the question put to you.

Would you eat in McDonalds if you had a cheese allergy?

I go to McDonalds with my wheat allergy. I just don't eat things that are easily cross contaminated. If I order a burger from Sonic with no bread, I expect it has no bread, I look at it, search it for crumbs, look for evidence of bread. I would assume someone who had a cheese allergy would do something similar before eating it. I have found a crouton hidden at the bottom of my salad before, even after my triple checking I found it, and I got sick, and I blamed the restaurant because I said "make my salad in a clean bowl, with clean gloves, and NO CROUTONS" and they did not. I had a reasonable expectation that they would since they said they would.

There is absolutely no reason that this guy shouldn't have been able to eat at a McDonald's. Not everything there has cheese on it or even would be expected to come into contact with cheese.

It is the job of any restaurant to either accommodate an allergy or inform the person that they cannot do so. Now, it isn't clear if the guy actually told them he had an allergy, so that may be a moot point.

Yes, the guy should have checked his sandwich before biting into it. Yes, the restaurant should have given him what he ordered in the first place. No, he shouldn't get $1 million out of this unless that's what his hospital bills cost him. At most, this guy should get medical bills and any lost wages covered.

I went to an A&W burger joint. and witnessed this.

a customer ahead of me order a burger and he specifically said, "No Tomatoes" the order taker repeated the order and repeated the "no Tomatoes."

he got his order, sat down with his wife/gf then a couple minutes later came back to the counter with his burger. guess what. It had tomatoes inside.

he was calm, and reasonable. he informed the cashier that he ordered no tomatoes because he was allergic to them. the cashier was very understanding and with an apology, took the burger into the back and came out with a new one a short while later.

he went back to his seat and shortly thereafter, came back pissed. he had double checked his burger and found tomato seeds on the lettuce, meaning instead of making a new burger, they only removed the tomatoes. he was yelling at the cashier saying had he bitten into the burger and swallowed that seed, he would be in the hospital and his family (his wife/GF was there) would sue the company for millions.

As expected, the manager came out and he got his money back (as well as a tomato free burger.)

the point? if you work in the food services, you need to pay attention to what the customer orders. I hope he wins his lawsuit.

I go to McDonalds with my wheat allergy. I just don't eat things that are easily cross contaminated. If I order a burger from Sonic with no bread, I expect it has no bread, I look at it, search it for crumbs, look for evidence of bread. I would assume someone who had a cheese allergy would do something similar before eating it. I have found a crouton hidden at the bottom of my salad before, even after my triple checking I found it, and I got sick, and I blamed the restaurant because I said "make my salad in a clean bowl, with clean gloves, and NO CROUTONS" and they did not. I had a reasonable expectation that they would since they said they would.

Heheh and still you bluster around the question instead of answering it? Can I assume then that the answer would be summit like 'God no the mans an idiot'?

Would you eat in McDonalds if you had a cheese allergy?

Normally, when I order a Quarter Pounder, I get one without cheese. I have to specifically oder a Quarter Pounder W/ Cheese in order to get one with cheese.

Heheh and still you bluster around the question instead of answering it? Can I assume then that the answer would be summit like 'God no the mans an idiot'?

no, that's not my answer. If he orders a burger without cheese he can reasonably expect it to come without cheese.

I think it's a sign of McDonald's insidiously good marketing that most people here are siding with McDonald's. Especially since most people here are rabid anti-capitalists who think corporations are the quintessence of evil.

I went to an A&W burger joint. and witnessed this.

a customer ahead of me order a burger and he specifically said, "No Tomatoes" the order taker repeated the order and repeated the "no Tomatoes."

he got his order, sat down with his wife/gf then a couple minutes later came back to the counter with his burger. guess what. It had tomatoes inside.

he was calm, and reasonable. he informed the cashier that he ordered no tomatoes because he was allergic to them. the cashier was very understanding and with an apology, took the burger into the back and came out with a new one a short while later.

he went back to his seat and shortly thereafter, came back pissed. he had double checked his burger and found tomato seeds on the lettuce, meaning instead of making a new burger, they only removed the tomatoes. he was yelling at the cashier saying had he bitten into the burger and swallowed that seed, he would be in the hospital and his family (his wife/GF was there) would sue the company for millions.

As expected, the manager came out and he got his money back (as well as a tomato free burger.)

the point? if you work in the food services, you need to pay attention to what the customer orders. I hope he wins his lawsuit.


Okay clarifycation time huh!

This is not some fancy reasturant, it is McDonald's, where as anybody who has dined there(and I'm assuming they employ from the same demographic world wide) knows service is not top notch, staff are not fully mature nor exceclently trained(as above illustrates), capacity for the cocking up of your order is high, the doing of a though job for job encentives is nil.

All in all if you have an allogey to cheese, you are an idiot if you set foot in one of these places.

Now knowing all of this, and even after making requests for no cheese, the chances of cross contamination are so high that I would not have chanced it.
The man clearly has his self to blame, I recon he just fancied some easy money.

If you buy a chicken sandwich from a place known to fry in peanut oil though and then sue when you get a reaction, I'd be questioning your intellect.

I'd question yours. Peanuts are not nuts, they are legumes.
It's perfectly safe for my mom to eats peanuts, peanut butter, peanut oil.

It's perfectly safe for some people with a fatal peanut allergy to eat tree nuts.

And yeah, I read boxes very carefully. If there's even a chance there might be nut traces in something, I don't buy it to serve to my mom.

no, that's not my answer. If he orders a burger without cheese he can reasonably expect it to come without cheese.

heheh and yet you still havn't answered?

if you had a cheese allogy would you eat at McDonalds?

Just a yes or no will do.

damn litigious americans

i wish i could have been judge for a day just so i could laugh out loud in court

Heheh and still you bluster around the question instead of answering it? Can I assume then that the answer would be summit like 'God no the mans an idiot'?

No, it's obvious that what Smunkee is saying is, "When you have a food allergy and you tell them about it and they say they can accommodate you, they should do it."

For chrissakes, it's not McCheeseWorld.

No, it's obvious that what Smunkee is saying is, "When you have a food allergy and you tell them about it and they say they can accommodate you, they should do it."

For chrissakes, it's not McCheeseWorld.

:p Kat. I love you. I really do. Kat. I love you. <guitar solo>

No, it's obvious that what Smunkee is saying is, "When you have a food allergy and you tell them about it and they say they can accommodate you, they should do it."

For chrissakes, it's not McCheeseWorld.

I'm tempted to get a McDonald's menu, post it, and show exactly how few foods with cheese they actually serve.

heheh and yet you still havn't answered?

if you had a cheese allogy would you eat at McDonalds?

Just a yes or no will do.

I probably would, after I had done my research and was confident that they could accommodate me.

I am not confident that some places can accommodate me, so I don't eat there. I don't order burgers with no bread at Mc Donald's because the one near me is unable to comprehend that even a crumb can make me very very sick for weeks on end. I do order it at other more accommodating fast food restaurants, one of which you can only order though the speaker box.

No, it's obvious that what Smunkee is saying is, "When you have a food allergy and you tell them about it and they say they can accommodate you, they should do it."

For chrissakes, it's not McCheeseWorld.

Heh yeah granted, but:

1) That is not what I asked her.
2) It's a McDonalds, expect incompantcy

heheh and yet you still havn't answered?

if you had a cheese allogy would you eat at McDonalds?

Just a yes or no will do.

Apparently your reading comprehension skills need polishing. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12962278&postcount=169
She has already stated that she has a wheat allergy -- an ingredient that is in far more McDonalds products than cheese -- and she eats the two products from McDonalds that do not have it -- yogurt without granola and salad without croutons.

Of course, demanding the same answer over and over and failing to pay attention to what has been said seems to be the forum pastime here.

This is not some fancy reasturant, it is McDonald's, where as anybody who has dined there(and I'm assuming they employ from the same demographic world wide) knows service is not top notch, staff are not fully mature nor exceclently trained(as above illustrates), capacity for the cocking up of your order is high, the doing of a though job for job encentives is nil.

...which doesn't change the fact that they either do their job without endangering people, or they get sued.

if you had a cheese allogy would you eat at McDonalds?


I would, if that's where others I was with were eating. And I'd get the same thing I generally get if I end up at McD's for some reason - chicken nuggets.

So let me make sure I got this right. He is allergic to cheese. He doesn't want cheese. He says he doesn't want cheese. They give him cheese, despite him not asking for it, and he gets ill.

Gee, sounds like a good lawsuit reason for me.

He asked them to make special accomodations, they agreed to, they failed. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of it. Should he have looked? Probably, to be on the safe side.

But, they agreed to take certain precautions and they did not, they breached their duty to him. Idiot or not, careless or not, they did not do as they had agreed to do and as such caused this man harm. That is negligence.

And more posts like this.

Of course the careless boob is within his rights to sue. However, it almost seems like he'd either A) never been to a fast food restaurant before, B) been to them before but is one of a handful of people in the history of TIME who have never had their order botched, or C) looking for deep pockets and not checking his food in the hopes of being able to sue on legitimate grounds with an ulterior motive -- getting rich.

People with genuinely life-threatening allergies are paranoid about what triggers them. This guy is either colossally naive, incredibly stupid, or possessed of a base greed and slug-brained shrewdness with access to a lawyer who is similarly without scruples.

This is even worse than the suit about burns from hot coffee a couple of decades ago, and even that suit had more worth than this.

The burger in question is overwhelmingly served and presented as a QUARTER POUNDER WITH CHEESE (before they went to boxes, the wrapper was ORANGE, like...CHEESE!) -- so common, in fact, that it's a mild cultural reference alluded to in the film Pulp Fiction. The "WITH CHEESE" is part of this product's NAME. It features TWO SLICES on either side of the ?meat patty. It's a SPECIAL ORDER to get one without it.

There is too much willful ignorance for this suit to succeed, which means that, unfortunately, it probably will.

Why isn't complete stupidity painful?

Apparently your reading comprehension skills need polishing. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12962278&postcount=169
She has already stated that she has a wheat allergy -- an ingredient that is in far more McDonalds products than cheese -- and she eats the two products from McDonalds that do not have it -- yogurt without granola and salad without croutons.

Of course, demanding the same answer over and over and failing to pay attention to what has been said seems to be the forum pastime here.

Keep ya knickers on man! I have not attacked anybody here, I have only had to ask a few times for the question to be answered because the answer was not forthcoming. It has now been answered, thankee Smunkee!

Now to the insult huh! Reading comprehension.

Answering 'I have a wheat allergy and eat at McDonalds' does not answer the specific question,' If you had a cheese allegy would you eat at McDonalds'

Or using your skills at comprehension does it?

How are your reading between the lines comprhension skills?

Not too good or I guess you may have realised my intent was to ascertian by my specific question whether Smunkee thought this man was an idiot. Dispite her taking his side, I had a feeling that she thought he was.

By not answering me the first or second, or third time, Smunkee showed me that her comprehesion is topnotch, and that she though this man was an idiot.

Now got it knicker boy? Understand?

Ahh well no matter how much I like to row about cheese!

I got get orf home.

Bye peeps, it's been fun today, can I get a Cheesus!:eek:

I think he has a suit- just not a good one.

Some people here have mentioned having food allergies. Pretty much everyone I've known who has had a food allergy is paranoid about checking food. This guy didn't, which makes me doubt the legitimacy of this. So does something else- most people who are allergic to cheese would also, I assume, be allergic to most or all milk products. Milk is actually everywhere at McDonald's, not just in cheese. It's an additive in many kinds of foods and condiments. Therefore, McDonald's would not be the safest place to eat for a person with a dairy allergy. Add to that the fact that although one might wish it were not true, but McDonald's is not exactly known for the brightness and sophistication of its workers. I would not trust them to make my sandwich as ordered if I had a dairy allergy. That's just like my vegan friends, who carry food with them, or my diabetic friends, who don't trust fast food because of the excessive sugar, or even myself, because I have mild but adverse reactions to artificial sweeteners. We know we can't just eat anything we want outside of the house- it's as simple as that. regardless of whether we can sue or not, we have to be alive to do it- andif you take those kinds of chances, you won't be alive for very long.

Keep ya knickers on man! I have not attacked anybody here, I have only had to ask a few times for the question to be answered because the answer was not forthcoming. It has now been answered, thankee Smunkee!

Now to the insult huh! Reading comprehension.

Answering 'I have a wheat allergy and eat at McDonalds' does not answer the specific question,' If you had a cheese allegy would you eat at McDonalds'

Or using your skills at comprehension does it?

How are your reading between the lines comprhension skills?

Not too good or I guess you may have realised my intent was to ascertian by my specific question whether Smunkee thought this man was an idiot. Dispite her taking his side, I had a feeling that she thought he was.

By not answering me the first or second, or third time, Smunkee showed me that her comprehesion is topnotch, and that she though this man was an idiot.

Now got it knicker boy? Understand?

Believe you me, your style doesn't reflect on the people you are 'questioning'.

I get that you apparently are unable to follow an ANALOGY, which is simple logic, and that you believe that browbeating and insulting are legitimate debate tactics. She doesn't have a cheese allergy; she has a wheat allergy. Wheat is more prevalent at McDonald's than cheese. She therefore uses her wheat allergy to illustrate the point that yes, people with food allergies can and do eat at places that serve other foods they cannot eat. She eats at McDonald's, with a dangerous food allergy. She repeatedly gave examples: she eats at P.F. Chang's, a chain Chinese restaurant, despite her dangerous wheat allergy, because they accommodate her. That you can't understand it or that you ignore it is not a fault in her answers -- it's a fault in your ability or willingness to understand them.

Comprehending yet? Because I guarantee you everyone else in the thread has. And I wouldn't insult my reading comprehension skills (since clearly I understand what she said and you don't) nor my ability to read between the lines (because you quite obviously can't), and to be insulted about this by someone who additionally cannot spell such simple words as allegy, comprhension Dispite, likey, vineger, garenteed, clarifycation, reasturant, exceclently,though (for thorough), normal (for normally), encentives, allogey, his self (for himself), recon (for reckon), allogy, incompantcy and again, comprehesion has given me my best laugh of the day. Kudos.

Your insistence that Smunkee believes the man is an idiot and agrees with you is absolutely unsupported and quite plainly the opposite of what she wrote, except apparently in your incredibly flawed view of reality. That would suggest to me actively trolling, if it doesn't mean inability to comprehend very simple sentences and the understanding that WHAT YOU APPARENTLY THINK OTHERS BELIEVE and WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAID are two completely separate animals.

Apparently you are also completely ignorant of the difference between males and females, and for some reason fascinated with my undergarments. That's just creepy.

He's just playing the system. We're supposed to believe that he was so concerned that there not be any cheese on his burger that he went through "five independent steps" to prevent it(including the totally pointless step of asking the people at the service window) except actually checking the thing.

It probably occurred to him that if you go to fast food outlets often enough it's inevitable that they'll get your order wrong eventually, no matter how carefully you order it. So you just keep trying until you get a shot at the $10 million.

I'd question yours. Peanuts are not nuts, they are legumes.
It's perfectly safe for my mom to eats peanuts, peanut butter, peanut oil.

It's perfectly safe for some people with a fatal peanut allergy to eat tree nuts.

And yeah, I read boxes very carefully. If there's even a chance there might be nut traces in something, I don't buy it to serve to my mom.

Darlin, you may wanna read the post I was replying to, I was just using his example.

why, because somehow, magically and mystically you KNOW what happened, you KNOW the details of the case and know that it's his fault that they gave him something deadly after he explicitly told them not to.

Fuck, why do we even have trials? Let's just call you up and you can tell us the answers.
No, I don't magically know what happens. I just hope that he loses his lawsuit. The amount of frivolous lawsuits in the US is fucking ridiculous and it would be nice if people started losing them, maybe it would discourage people from filing them.

No, I don't magically know what happens. I just hope that he loses his lawsuit. The amount of frivolous lawsuits in the US is fucking ridiculous and it would be nice if people started losing them, maybe it would discourage people from filing them.

I don't see what's so frivolous about this.

1: Man goes to fast food place. Man knows he has an allergy to cheese, and that there are plenty of McDonalds menu items that do not have cheese.
2: Man orders food item that normally does not have cheese. He informs staff of his allergy, and that they must ensure that there is no cheese on his food item, which does not normally have cheese.
3: Man receives order, and begins to consume. Menu item, that does not normally have cheese, contains a small amount of cheese. The resulting anaphylactic reaction sends man to hospital.
4: Man sues for damages for the injury and required hospitalization resulting from having consumed an item that does not normally have cheese, after informing the person preparing the food item that there must be no cheese on the food item.

Perfectly reasonable.

Substitute McDonalds with Friendlies, and food item that does not normally contain cheese with food item that does not normally contain nuts. Give me some o' that. If it's got nuts in it, me suing is just as non-frivolous.

Assuming I get the epi-pen out in time. If not, then it's my family that's suing, which is equally non-frivolous.

McDonalds is "We love to see you smile" or i think it is,apparantly they loved to see him almost die. McDonalds is horrible anyway,there "cooks" just slap a burger together,now i have an allergy to mayo,so i dont get mustard/ketchup on it,90% of the time i get one,what do i see,mustard/mayo/ketchup,hope he wins
How the hell can you be allergic to mayo? Isn't that just egg yolks, vinegar and oil?

How the hell can you be allergic to mayo? Isn't that just egg yolks, vinegar and oil?

People can be allergic to eggs...

I don't see what's so frivolous about this.

1: Man goes to fast food place. Man knows he has an allergy to cheese, and that there are plenty of McDonalds menu items that do not have cheese.
2: Man orders food item that normally does not have cheese. He informs staff of his allergy, and that they must ensure that there is no cheese on his food item, which does not normally have cheese.
3: Man receives order, and begins to consume. Menu item, that does not normally have cheese, contains a small amount of cheese. The resulting anaphylactic reaction sends man to hospital.
4: Man sues for damages for the injury and required hospitalization resulting from having consumed an item that does not normally have cheese, after informing the person preparing the food item that there must be no cheese on the food item.

Perfectly reasonable.

Substitute McDonalds with Friendlies, and food item that does not normally contain cheese with food item that does not normally contain nuts. Give me some o' that. If it's got nuts in it, me suing is just as non-frivolous.

Assuming I get the epi-pen out in time. If not, then it's my family that's suing, which is equally non-frivolous.

1) His medical bills total $700, that is wholly inconsistent with a serious splinter, let alone a near death experience.
2) Symptoms are almost always incredibly mild (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_allergy).
3) His family "risked their lives rushing him to the hospital".. why? Anyone with a potentially fatal food allergy would carry an epipen. To do otherwise is suicidal. Why not call an ambulance? They're equipped and can certainly make the trip faster and safer than a car.

The whole thing stinks of a con job.

I think it's a sign of McDonald's insidiously good marketing that most people here are siding with McDonald's. Especially since most people here are rabid anti-capitalists who think corporations are the quintessence of evil.
I only side with McDonald's because I hate all these retarded lawsuits.

I don't see what's so frivolous about this.

...the amount he's suing for.

If the man were suing for medical bills and lost wages, I'd see no problem with it at all.

People can be allergic to eggs...
Well yes, but then wouldn't he be allergic to eggs, thus not ordering mayo?


I dunno, one of my friends is allergic to the red dye they use in ketchup, but he used to eat* at places like burger king and request a lack of ketchup. He would check his burger before eating it and get it fixed if it wasn't right (though I don't think I ever saw him not get what he asked for, he still checked to make sure because he's not stupid).


*he doesn't eat there anymore because he's become more strict about his vegetarianism and doesn't eat food that could have been cooked on the same surfaces as meat.

...the amount he's suing for.

If the man were suing for medical bills and lost wages, I'd see no problem with it at all.

Ah, ok.

Yeah, suing for more than that is kinda fucked up.

Well yes, but then wouldn't he be allergic to eggs, thus not ordering mayo?


I dunno, one of my friends is allergic to the red dye they use in ketchup, but he used to eat* at places like burger king and request a lack of ketchup. He would check his burger before eating it and get it fixed if it wasn't right (though I don't think I ever saw him not get what he asked for, he still checked to make sure because he's not stupid).


*he doesn't eat there anymore because he's become more strict about his vegetarianism and doesn't eat food that could have been cooked on the same surfaces as meat.

I dunno. I mean I empathize with this guy, other than the large amount that he's suing for, largely because I'm allergic to nuts, don't carry an epipen, and have eaten at places where I've specifically requested that the food not have nuts, and been served nuts. This happens more at Indian restaurants than anywhere European/American, I'm convinced it's largely because most professional indian chefs are deaf.

I dunno. I mean I empathize with this guy, other than the large amount that he's suing for, largely because I'm allergic to nuts, don't carry an epipen, and have eaten at places where I've specifically requested that the food not have nuts, and been served nuts. This happens more at Indian restaurants than anywhere European/American, I'm convinced it's largely because most professional indian chefs are deaf.
Yeah, but you carry an epipen, this guy apparently didn't for his severe allergy. I'm also going to guess that if you ordered something that clearly had nuts in it, you wouldn't eat it and you might even check beforehand.

I dunno, I mean, I'm vegetarian and if I go somewhere and request a certain dish without the meat, I still check to make sure that the meat isn't there and I'm not even going to die if I accidentally eat it. If I was, then I would be super paranoid and check the damn thing thoroughly. It's not even like checking a burger is very hard, you lift the bun up and look.

But the amount he's suing for makes me think that this is sort of a scam. I mean, medical expenses and anything directly related to having to go to the hospital (time off work, gas to get there et c) should be covered, but that's it.

I dunno. I mean I empathize with this guy, other than the large amount that he's suing for, largely because I'm allergic to nuts, don't carry an epipen, and have eaten at places where I've specifically requested that the food not have nuts, and been served nuts. This happens more at Indian restaurants than anywhere European/American, I'm convinced it's largely because most professional indian chefs are deaf.

Oh no, it happens at Italian-American restaurants, German restaurants, and American caterers far more than you'd want to think about it, for example.

When my fiance and I get married, one of the things that we will sit down with the caterers and discuss, and have written into the contract, is that the mother of the bride has a dangerous and potentially fatal allergy to nuts. Therefore, in all of the dishes that are to be served, no nuts (whole, chopped, grated, or slivered), no nut oils, no nut extracts, and no nut pastes can be present. It will be made extremely clear that we want in the contract that they understand the danger and WILL NOT use these products.

If one caterer won't accommodate us, some other one will. But if they agree in writing that the know the danger and will not use the product, they'd damned well better not send my mom to the hospital on my wedding day for carelessly including these things.

Yeah, but you carry an epipen, this guy apparently didn't for his severe allergy. I'm also going to guess that if you ordered something that clearly had nuts in it, you wouldn't eat it and you might even check beforehand.

I dunno, I mean, I'm vegetarian and if I go somewhere and request a certain dish without the meat, I still check to make sure that the meat isn't there and I'm not even going to die if I accidentally eat it. If I was, then I would be super paranoid and check the damn thing thoroughly. It's not even like checking a burger is very hard, you lift the bun up and look.

But the amount he's suing for makes me think that this is sort of a scam. I mean, medical expenses and anything directly related to having to go to the hospital (time off work, gas to get there et c) should be covered, but that's it.

Don't carry an epipen. Then again, my allergy hasn't resulted in an actual medical emergency yet. Just lots of being bent over the toilet for a few minutes afterwards vomiting my guts out.

I do check, but often times they will blend it into the gravy of indian foods, making it significantly harder to discern. I have in the past only realized it had nuts in there as I was getting the reaction.

I do agree that he's suing for an absurd amount.

LOL!!! Just for going to Macdonald's....

where wise men do not tread...fools sally forth....forsooth!

*erk*

Oh no, it happens at Italian-American restaurants, German restaurants, and American caterers far more than you'd want to think about it, for example.

When my fiance and I get married, one of the things that we will sit down with the caterers and discuss, and have written into the contract, is that the mother of the bride has a dangerous and potentially fatal allergy to nuts. Therefore, in all of the dishes that are to be served, no nuts (whole, chopped, grated, or slivered), no nut oils, no nut extracts, and no nut pastes can be present. It will be made extremely clear that we want in the contract that they understand the danger and WILL NOT use these products.

If one caterer won't accommodate us, some other one will. But if they agree in writing that the know the danger and will not use the product, they'd damned well better not send my mom to the hospital on my wedding day for carelessly including these things.

The only time I've ever had a problem at a non-Indian restaurant was when ordering pesto. I've since learned to check ahead of time if they serve pesto with pine nuts. Really it's stupidity on my part, because at the time I wasn't aware that it did (I'd only previously had pesto at Italian restaurants in Paris, where they didn't serve it with pine nuts for some reason).

I do get what you mean, though. My cousin did much the same thing for my benefit at her wedding during the planning out of stuff.

Don't carry an epipen. Then again, my allergy hasn't resulted in an actual medical emergency yet. Just lots of being bent over the toilet for a few minutes afterwards vomiting my guts out.
Oh, so you're not like deathly allergic to nuts, you're like, horribly inconvenienced allergic to them... but you still own an epipen, which I don't think this guy seems to have, he ate at home, which, if one wasn't going to keep an epipen on them at all times, is probably where one would store such a device and if he's so deathly allergic then he should probably have one.

Oh, so you're not like deathly allergic to nuts, you're like, horribly inconvenienced allergic to them... but you still own an epipen, which I don't think this guy seems to have, he ate at home, which, if one wasn't going to keep an epipen on them at all times, is probably where one would store such a device and if he's so deathly allergic then he should probably have one.

I don't own an epi-pen. My doctor keeps talking about prescribing me one, but I never get around to going in for it, getting the scrip, and getting the epi-pen. Just seems like a hassle when it's just a pain in the ass, rather than life or death.

Edit: It came down to "Do want to jab myself in the thigh with something, or spend a few minutes throwing up?" Call me crazy for picking throwing up.

I don't own an epi-pen. My doctor keeps talking about prescribing me one, but I never get around to going in for it, getting the scrip, and getting the epi-pen. Just seems like a hassle when it's just a pain in the ass, rather than life or death.

Edit: It came down to "Do want to jab myself in the thigh with something, or spend a few minutes throwing up?" Call me crazy for picking throwing up.Haha.

Ok, but if your choices were "jab myself in the thigh" or "go to the emergency room as my throat closes up" I think you'd be getting the pen. Right?

Haha.

Ok, but if your choices were "jab myself in the thigh" or "go to the emergency room as my throat closes up" I think you'd be getting the pen. Right?

Definitely.

I'm stubborn and don't like pointy objects, not stupid. :)

Definitely.

I'm stubborn and don't like pointy objects, not stupid. :)
Ok. Well, this guy's options seem to have been "carry an epipen" or "go to the hospital near death" so if he had any common sense at all, he would have one.

I don't see why even fast-food restaurants can't have a policy much like the one we had at a tex-mex restaurant I worked at once. If a patron informed us of a food allergy, the kitchen manager had to be informed, even if we didn't think the food they were ordering had the item in it (you'd be surprised sometimes what is in some foods). If necessary, one of the managers would advise the person on what menu items were safe for them, and the kitchen manager would check that particular order before it went out to make sure it was safe for them. The servers were also supposed to check, if we could.

Now, that's a bit more complex than I would expect at a fast-food restaurant. But, at the very least, a manager should be informed that there is a patron with an allergy, and the manager should ensure that the food served to that patron is safe for them.

2) It's a McDonalds, expect incompantcy

And remember what I said before, you know what we call a company that hires incompetant employees?

Liable.

An employee, in the capacity of his employment, represents the acts of the company. That which the employee does is deemed an act of the company itself.

It is the company that has placed itsself into the public sphere. It is the company that has endevoured to sell its products. It is therefore the obligation of the company to ensure that its products are safe. And when an employee of said company fails in that obligation, it is the fault of the company.

Incompetance is not a defense. Stupidity is not a defense. Laziness is not a defense. Lying is not a defense.

3) His family "risked their lives rushing him to the hospital".. why?Don't forget, they only rushed him to the hospital AFTER they called McDonald's to complain.

:rolleyes:

Ok. Well, this guy's options seem to have been "carry an epipen" or "go to the hospital near death" so if he had any common sense at all, he would have one.

all of which is relevant...how? How is his not having an epi pen in any way shape or form relevant to the question of whether mcdonald's served him a burger with an allergen in it after repeated requests not to, and repeated assurances that they did not?

all of which is relevant...how? How is his not having an epi pen in any way shape or form relevant to the question of whether mcdonald's served him a burger with an allergen in it after repeated requests not to, and repeated assurances that they did not?
Look, I'm not even talking about the lawsuit anymore, I'm talking about how stupid this asshole is. Calm down and stop getting your panties in a bunch, ok?

Don't forget, they only rushed him to the hospital AFTER they called McDonald's to complain.

:rolleyes:

It's a fairly clear con game. I'm amazed so many people are buying it. The reason they didn't call an ambulance is because an EMT would spot a person faking it in about half a second. Walk into an ER complaining of a cheese allergy attack and they'll look at you like you're an idiot and make you wait a couple hours before treating you.

Don't forget, they only rushed him to the hospital AFTER they called McDonald's to complain.

:rolleyes:

except the way I read that was, he bit into the burger, found cheese, they called mcdonald's to bitch about finding cheese, and then he started to have a bad reaction.

It's hard to tell sometimes whether you're going to have an attack or not. He could have bit into it, swallowed, went "fuck cheese, those bastards", they called McDonald's to bitch thinking he was safe and it was just one bite, and then he started having a serious attack.

I don't read that as they called mcdonald's while he was suffocating to death. I see that as they called to complain before the reaction hit.

Don't forget, they only rushed him to the hospital AFTER they called McDonald's to complain.

:rolleyes:
Yeah, this also seems rather suspicious.

Look, I'm not even talking about the lawsuit anymore, I'm talking about how stupid this asshole is. Calm down and stop getting your panties in a bunch, ok?

great, ok, he's stupid, and should have carried an epi-pen with him. I think that's pretty well established.

What's your point?

It's a fairly clear con game.

Wow you AND dakini both blessed with psychic powers. you two should form a team and sell your services to court rooms everywhere, spare us the messy and expensive bother of ever having trials.

Wow you AND dakini both blessed with psychic powers. you two should form a team and sell your services to court rooms everywhere, spare us the messy and expensive bother of ever having trials.

Welcome to the ignore list.

Blech. McDonalds. Blech.

I haven't touched that since last winter. Nastytastic.

great, ok, he's stupid, and should have carried an epi-pen with him. I think that's pretty well established.

What's your point?
That the guy is a moron.

That the guy is a moron.

it's good you feel comfortable judging someone based on a single news article.

except the way I read that was, he bit into the burger, found cheese, they called mcdonald's to bitch about finding cheese, and then he started to have a bad reaction.

It's hard to tell sometimes whether you're going to have an attack or not. He could have bit into it, swallowed, went "fuck cheese, those bastards", they called McDonald's to bitch thinking he was safe and it was just one bite, and then he started having a serious attack.

I don't read that as they called mcdonald's while he was suffocating to death. I see that as they called to complain before the reaction hit.

The lawyer does say that he started having a reaction immediately and that the first thing they did was call McDonald's. Now, they may have thought it was going to be a mild reaction and then it got worse, but it does say the reaction started immediately.

Wow you AND dakini both blessed with psychic powers. you two should form a team and sell your services to court rooms everywhere, spare us the messy and expensive bother of ever having trials.
Oh, look who is king of sarcasm and being a rude jerk in forums now! Let's not discuss the possibility that this guy is just using this to try and get rich which seems quite likely given his actions surrounding the incident, let's just side with the incompetent boob who nearly killed himself on cheese, let's also ignore the earlier posts discussing the apparent lack of cheese allergies that nearly kill anyone. Let's just assume that this guy is telling the exact truth, that he's not lying or exaggerating to get rich off a large corporation with deep pockets.

it's good you feel comfortable judging someone based on a single news article.

I think this is a pretty big deal, I mean, if you're deathly allergic to a common substance, I feel you would be well advised to have the appropriate, easily obtained, medical equipment readily available to counteract that problem.

The lawyer does say that he started having a reaction immediately and that the first thing they did was call McDonald's. Now, they may have thought it was going to be a mild reaction and then it got worse, but it does say the reaction started immediately.

You're interjecting silly little things like facts, evidence, conflicting statements, common sense. Things that Neo Art takes to mean that you're physic.

it's good you feel comfortable judging someone based on a single news article.
Yeah, it's not like I didn't run a google search on this incident and find a pile of other articles on it. Yeah, definitely I totally just guessed that because the man is suing McDonald's he's a moron.


Seriously, haven't you ever read the Darwin awards stories and said to yourself "What a dumbass"? Same thing except that this dumbass lived to tell the tale.

Oh, look who is king of sarcasm and being a rude jerk in forums now!

The irony, it burns!

Let's not discuss the possibility that this guy is just using this to try and get rich which seems quite likely given his actions surrounding the incident, let's just side with the incompetent boob who nearly killed himself on cheese, let's also ignore the earlier posts discussing the apparent lack of cheese allergies that nearly kill anyone. Let's just assume that this guy is telling the exact truth, that he's not lying or exaggerating to get rich off a large corporation with deep pockets.

oh there's quite a big difference between "there is a possibility" and "it's obviously a con".

Anything is POSSIBLE. There are a ton of things that are POSSIBLE. The question is which one of them is TRUE.

And that is why we have these things called trials. That is why we have this thing called discovery. So that we may find out which among the myriad of possibilities is the most likely to be true.

What we do not do is try ot make absolute assertions based on one short news article heavily devoid of crucial facts. To do so is in direct opposition to why we have trials in the first place.

Is it possible it's true? Sure. Is it possible it's not? Absolutly. Is it a pretty silly thing to do to claim things to be true or false based soley on a singular news article? you betcha.

With that aside, what I do find absolutly abhorant is the idea floated around here that, even if his story is 100% true, it is still somehow HIS fault because the mcdonald's employees were incompetant.

http://www.dailymail.com/story/News/2007081043/Man-says-hold-the-cheese-claims-McDonalds-didnt-sues-for-10-million/


Apparently this man has a massive cheese allergy and after specifically ordering a Quarter Pounder without cheese, he bit into it and guess what... he found cheese! He had a massive allergic reaction and had to be rushed to the hospital. Now he is suing McDonalds for $10 mil.

Now why do I say he is an incompetent idiot? Has anyone ever been to McDonalds? Anything with cheese on it has cheese clearly melted to the wrapper and half melted off the side of the burger. It is impossible to not know something has cheese on it. Even a blind person could tell a McDonalds burger had cheese on it because it is everywhere yet a man who was deathly allergic to it didn't bother checking and somehow failed to notice any cheese until he bit into it. I think this guy almost qualifies for Darwin Honorable Mention.

Has anyone ever worked a fast food resturant? More often than not, unless their horribly shorthanded, the one you tell your special restrictions to isn't the one making your meal. Often, the owner is a horrible ninny who doesn't update the equipment, and there isn't a place on the register to specify such things. It has to be told. If you're busy, and there is a screen full of orders, you'll have to make a guess as to which order the order-taker is referring to. (I worked a KFC for nearly a year and a half. It was awful and I've vowed never to go back into fast food unless I'm just desperate for a paycheck.) Okay, they were wrong for putting the cheese on there. Stupidity on their part. But if Dude is deathly allergic, don'cha think it would have been prudient to check. Stupidity on his part. It's kinda like the woman who sued because there wasn't a "Hot" label on the side of her coffee cup. I really hope it just gets thrown out of court. I don't pay taxes for them to be wasted in this way.

With that aside, what I do find absolutly abhorant is the idea floated around here that, even if his story is 100% true, it is still somehow HIS fault because the mcdonald's employees were incompetant.

They are McDonalds employees working in a McDonalds fast food joint. It is unrealistic to expect them to fill orders perfectly - and plain stupid if one of their most popular products can kill you.

They are McDonalds employees working in a McDonalds fast food joint. It is unrealistic to expect them to fill orders perfectly - and plain stupid if one of their most popular products can kill you.

I also find it quite odd and frankly a little silly that a simple matter of "no cheese" meaning "no cheese" is somehow expecting perfection.

It's not expecting perfection. It's not expecting exactly 15 pickle slices and 47 seasame seeds on the bun. It is expecting that after you ask 5 seperate people that there is no cheese, and be told 5 different times "there is no cheese" to not find a big fucking slice of cheese.

That is not expecting perfection. That is expecting a basic level of reasonable service. And yes, you better damned believe it is the obligation of the company to ensure that their employees perform with a basic level of reasonable competance. And if said employees of the company do NOT perform with a basic level of reasonable competance, that is the fault of the company.

That is how we function in our society. That is what we expect from people. We expect that when you take the effor to put your product into the public sphere you take reasonable precautions. If you want to make money from the public you take reasonable efforts to ensure your product is safe for the public. Incompetance is not an excuse. If you can not reasonable precautions to ensure your product is safe, you don't get to do business.

I don't care if it's McDonald's or the fucking Ritz. If you want to do business, ANY BUSINESS, you take reasonable steps to ensure your product is safe.

I also find it quite odd and frankly a little silly that a simple matter of "no cheese" meaning "no cheese" is somehow expecting perfection.

Again: McDonalds.

They are McDonalds employees working in a McDonalds fast food joint. It is unrealistic to expect them to fill orders perfectly - and plain stupid if one of their most popular products can kill you.

I've been to many places much better than McDonalds and had an order fucked up. It happens, and if you have a potentially fatal allergy to a common and readily noticeable substance one should take a moment to fucking check. Unless of course you're trying to get grounds for a lawsuit.

Again: McDonalds.

Again: Business. And a business doesn't get a free pass because their employees are incompetant. All businesses are bound by the same ethical, moral, and legal obligations, that they take reasonable steps to ensure quality and safety. And the mere fact that the bulk of your work force is minimum wage earning high school dropouts doesn't excuse you from your obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure quality and safety.

McDonald's doesn't get to use the incompetance of their employees as an excuse. They are a business, they deliver product to the public, they have legal obligations to take reasonable steps to ensure the quality of their product.

McDonald's isn't in some wonderous class by itself where standards no longer apply. It doesn't matter if you or I or anyone else expects McDonald's to conform to the same basic minimum requirements as a five star restaurant. As a matter of law, they are.

I've been to many places much better than McDonalds and had an order fucked up. It happens, and if you have a potentially fatal allergy to a common and readily noticeable substance one should take a moment to fucking check. Unless of course you're trying to get grounds for a lawsuit.
Or, you know, actually go in to the restaurant and make this life or death order face to face rather than putting your trust in a cheap two way speaker and the vain hope that the people at the pay window will have the faintest idea what has or hasn't been put in the burgers.

Or, you know, actually go in to the restaurant and make this life or death order face to face rather than putting your trust in a cheap two way speaker and the vain hope that the people at the pay window will have the faintest idea what has or hasn't been put in the burgers.

Maybe I'm paranoid, but I think I'd check before I left the window. I'm silly like that.

Maybe I'm paranoid, but I think I'd check before I left the window. I'm silly like that.

I know I normally pull into the lot and check my order ... they get it wrong about every 1 in 6 times or so ... I really dislike pickles

I know I normally pull into the lot and check my order ... they get it wrong about every 1 in 6 times or so ... I really dislike pickles

I don't eat fast food. The pizza place I usually go to has a pretty lousy track record of getting my order right though. They get it wrong probably 1/10 times. Green peppers, ugh!

McDonald's doesn't get to use the incompetance of their employees as an excuse. They are a business, they deliver product to the public, they have legal obligations to take reasonable steps to ensure the quality of their product.

Oh, McDonalds is definately liable. Doesn't take away the fact that the man is either a moron for trusting them or was hoping for his order to go wrong.

It's not expecting perfection. It's not expecting exactly 15 pickle slices and 47 seasame seeds on the bun. It is expecting that after you ask 5 seperate people that there is no cheese, and be told 5 different times "there is no cheese" to not find a big fucking slice of cheese.
Did you happen to actually read the article? He asked three people, tops if there was cheese on it. He might have just asked two people (if the order taker was one of the two people in the window). He might have asked five times, but that doesn't mean he asked five people.

Did you happen to actually read the article? He asked three people, tops if there was cheese on it. He might have just asked two people (if the order taker was one of the two people in the window). He might have asked five times, but that doesn't mean he asked five people.

These days the order taker is usually the person taking the money, or even distributing the food since taking money and handing out food have been combined into one job.

And the Quarter Pounder still doesn't have cheese on it.

We must outlaw all fast food to protect people with allergies and children.

These days the order taker is usually the person taking the money, or even distributing the food since taking money and handing out food have been combined into one job.

And the Quarter Pounder still doesn't have cheese on it.
It probably depends on how busy it is. I worked at a Tim Hortons with a drive through and most of the day there was one person who took the order and a separate person who passed the food out the window and collected the money. But if it wasn't busy then the person passing the food out the window would also take the orders.

Thats a fun system.

He asked them to make special accomodations, they agreed to, they failed. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of it. Should he have looked? Probably, to be on the safe side.

But, they agreed to take certain precautions and they did not, they breached their duty to him. Idiot or not, careless or not, they did not do as they had agreed to do and as such caused this man harm. That is negligence.dude, You are speaking like a lawyer again. (Yes, yes I know you are)
:p