NationStates Jolt Archive

Those Mexicans fuck up orders all the time. At least 50% of the time we'd have to send a cheeseburger back, even when we say "PLAIN hamburger KETCHUP ONLY". I hope he is awarded much more than $10M.

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.

All the fast food restaurants around here have converted to one person windows. Even the ones built years back where one person took the money and the other dispensed food. So now one window is blocked off and unusable. In the off chance two windows are actually manned, the money taker is also taking the drive through orders.

Those Mexicans fuck up orders all the time. At least 50% of the time we'd have to send a cheeseburger back, even when we say "PLAIN hamburger KETCHUP ONLY". I hope he is awarded much more than $10M.

Ditto.

Those Mexicans fuck up orders all the time. At least 50% of the time we'd have to send a cheeseburger back, even when we say "PLAIN hamburger KETCHUP ONLY". I hope he is awarded much more than $10M.
The racism and ignorance could be cut with a knife.

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!yeah, thats ~the rate I get when I ask for exemptions. 1/10.. All restaurants combined.

If I had a deadly allergy to cheese, -you bet- I would check Myself. EVERYTIME.

Those Mexicans fuck up orders all the time. At least 50% of the time we'd have to send a cheeseburger back, even when we say "PLAIN hamburger KETCHUP ONLY". I hope he is awarded much more than $10M.

Ah, yes. Blame it on the furriners. Because they're what's wrong with this country. Most of the people who've fucked up my orders have been Americans - disaffected kids who don't give a shit either way. At least the ones with accents are trying.

Why would anybody eat at McDonald's ??

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.Plus, in my experience the ER will charge you just for talking to the triage nurse, if they take your information.

This happened to me recently. When I had my first kidney stone attack, I didn't know what it was: I only knew that I had acute (and I mean FUCKING ACUTE) abdominal pain. The nearest hospital was just a few minutes away on country roads, and I didn't feel like I was dying... at least not at first... so my girlfriend calmly drove me there.

The dope at triage didn't take any of my vitals, barely looked at me, and handed me forms to fill out. Erica actually did this because by that point I was in too much pain to think, let alone write. Then I started vomiting VIOLENTLY in the waiting room. The nurse came out with a bucket and informed me that it would be five hours before I could get a bed... despite the fact that there were only two other people waiting, and both of them looked just fine.

We actually grabbed an ambulance AT that hospital and got them to take me to a much better hospital, where I was examined and treated promptly.

Later, I got a $600 bill. From the FIRST hospital. They hadn't treated me. They hadn't even touched me.

It actually pisses me off that my insurance paid the bastards. After much arguing I got the hospital to waive the copay... as if they care about my measly $30 when insurance is shelling out hundreds for doing nothing. I just wouldn't pay it on principle.

It's things like this that make me think this guy's story is ridiculous. $700? They'd charge him that much just for enjoying their air conditioning for a few minutes.

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.The story is contradictory at best.

Jeromy took one bite and started having the reaction, Houston said. One of the three immediately called the McDonald's to let restaurant employees know they had messed up the order, but had to cut the call short when Jeromy started having a bad reaction, Houston said.Sounds to me like he "started" to have a reaction, they called to bitch, then they decided it might be better to get some medical bills on record while he was still breaking out in hives.

It doesn't say, "Jeromy took one bite and realized there was cheese," and then they called. It says he took one bite and started having the reaction.

What was his condition scientifically called? If it is life-threatening, I am surprised to see that he had lived for this long. Hopefully he does not have any children to carry on the fatal gene. He needs a Darwin Award.

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.Oh, lighten up.

None of us here has the power to condemn the man.

Unless he turns out to frequent Nationstates, he's not even around to be offended.

If we're not allowed to let our imaginations play freely with cases of apparent stupidity or deceit, what will these forums come to?

Is anybody up for a good old round of religion-bashing? How about we beat our heads against the mighty wall of creationism for a while?

At least this case has the barest glimmer of forensic interest. We get to discuss what makes a story credible. No, we don't have all the facts. No, we have no certain way to determine who is correct.

But that's what makes this one fun. :)

Oh, lighten up.

None of us here has the power to condemn the man.

Unless he turns out to frequent Nationstates, he's not even around to be offended.

If we're not allowed to let our imaginations play freely with cases of apparent stupidity or deceit, what will these forums come to?

Is anybody up for a good old round of religion-bashing? How about we beat our heads against the mighty wall of creationism for a while?

At least this case has the barest glimmer of forensic interest. We get to discuss what makes a story credible. No, we don't have all the facts. No, we have no certain way to determine who is correct.

But that's what makes this one fun. :)Ignore him ,he has to go around claiming the high ground in case of a barbarian attack.

Think about this: they "immediately" called McDonald's.

What, do these people have McDonald's on speed-dial or something? How long did it take to look it up in the phone book, including the time to locate the correct McDonald's in what is probably a sizable list (it's not, alas, like they're uncommon).

So this guy knows he has a cheese "allergy." He doesn't, apparently, own an epi-pen. But rather than call an ambulance or (as they ultimately chose) get on the road in a timely manner in order to avoid nearly killing themselves "rushing" to get him to the hospital... they stood around trying to get McDonald's on the phone?

Come on. So much doesn't add up. Cheese allergies are rarely severe. Cheese allergies are dose-dependent. Cheese allergies, even in large doses, do not usually produce symptoms in a matter of minutes... maybe hives, at the most.

But granting him a 1-in-a-million life-threatening allergic reaction to one bite of cheese... his family is apparently more interested in bitching to McDonald's than getting him on the way to finding help.

Oh, and did I mention that the allergenic property of cheese apparently increases with the age of the cheese? Who here believes that McDonald's puts a fine, aged cheddar on their burgers?

Anybody?

No?

Plus, in my experience the ER will charge you just for talking to the triage nurse, if they take your information.

This happened to me recently. When I had my first kidney stone attack, I didn't know what it was: I only knew that I had acute (and I mean FUCKING ACUTE) abdominal pain. The nearest hospital was just a few minutes away on country roads, and I didn't feel like I was dying... at least not at first... so my girlfriend calmly drove me there.

The dope at triage didn't take any of my vitals, barely looked at me, and handed me forms to fill out. Erica actually did this because by that point I was in too much pain to think, let alone write. Then I started vomiting VIOLENTLY in the waiting room. The nurse came out with a bucket and informed me that it would be five hours before I could get a bed... despite the fact that there were only two other people waiting, and both of them looked just fine.

We actually grabbed an ambulance AT that hospital and got them to take me to a much better hospital, where I was examined and treated promptly.

Later, I got a $600 bill. From the FIRST hospital. They hadn't treated me. They hadn't even touched me.

It actually pisses me off that my insurance paid the bastards. After much arguing I got the hospital to waive the copay... as if they care about my measly $30 when insurance is shelling out hundreds for doing nothing. I just wouldn't pay it on principle.

It's things like this that make me think this guy's story is ridiculous. $700? They'd charge him that much just for enjoying their air conditioning for a few minutes.the first time I was in Quebec City (Canada) as a US tourist, some 3 years ago, I was driving a Hertz rental, I was going the wrong way and I hit another Car, they called the ambulance, took me to the hospital, did some scans/x-rays/tests/ prescriptions/treatments/etc.. kept me there for few days.

and.. guess what what my bill when it was all over.

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.

You don't need to be an anti-Capitalist to think many lawsuits are greedheaded assholes and their clients/lawyers going for the deepest pockets they can find. This drives UP the cost of business, thereby affecting EVERYONE, consumer and corporation alike. The difference is that the corporation can pass that cost on to the consumer, who is screwed. Quoth Carlin: "Whoever coined the term 'let the buyer beware' was probably bleeding out of his asshole at the time.'"

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.

*snip*

Wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG. The "menu item" is called the Quarter Pounder WITH CHEESE at every McDonald's you will ever visit. Getting one WITHOUT cheese is the special order. That's why this lawsuit stinks to high heaven. If even Quentin Tarantino and the French ("Royale with cheese") know it, why didn't this schlimazel?

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

Uh...last I checked, this isn't a courtroom. You can trumpet your imagined moral superiority all you want, that doesn't make you any more correct. We're looking at the available evidence, correlating that with the prevalence for frivolous and greedheaded lawsuits in the US and drawing conclusions, and guess what? We get to do that. Sorry if you don't agree, and guess what? You get to do that!

What you will NOT get away with is being all high and mighty because the majority of the room has come to the same conclusion, given the story and our own experiences. So rail on, Don Quixote, 'cause you're no more right, but you're one hell of a lot more obnoxious.


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.

That's just it -- nobody but him and perhaps his family knows if the story is even HALF true, let alone 100%. We're betting it's not. You're acting like an arrogant asshole. I think we win.

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.

Yes. It. Does. The register code back when I worked at a McD's in high school was "QPC", which stood for "Quarter Pounder w/Cheese." Whenever someone came in wanting one without cheese, we hit the "grill" button, which was the computer's way of saying "non-standard order".

How many times will I have to post this fact?

Think about this: they "immediately" called McDonald's.

What, do these people have McDonald's on speed-dial or something? How long did it take to look it up in the phone book, including the time to locate the correct McDonald's in what is probably a sizable list (it's not, alas, like they're uncommon).

So this guy knows he has a cheese "allergy." He doesn't, apparently, own an epi-pen. But rather than call an ambulance or (as they ultimately chose) get on the road in a timely manner in order to avoid nearly killing themselves "rushing" to get him to the hospital... they stood around trying to get McDonald's on the phone?

Come on. So much doesn't add up. Cheese allergies are rarely severe. Cheese allergies are dose-dependent. Cheese allergies, even in large doses, do not usually produce symptoms in a matter of minutes... maybe hives, at the most.

But granting him a 1-in-a-million life-threatening allergic reaction to one bite of cheese... his family is apparently more interested in bitching to McDonald's than getting him on the way to finding help.

Oh, and did I mention that the allergenic property of cheese apparently increases with the age of the cheese? Who here believes that McDonald's puts a fine, aged cheddar on their burgers?

Anybody?

No?

QFT about the QPC.

What we do not do is try ot make absolute assertions based on one short news article heavily devoid of crucial facts. I try not to make absolute assertions.. at least not sans some research.

but i wonder If this is not You making an absolute assertion.. on page 1they 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.

It looks to me like you are issuing a final Judgment (Negligence, breach of duty) and you have yet to see the service contract ,that the Client agrees to, when he pays for a Big Mac.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG. The "menu item" is called the Quarter Pounder WITH CHEESE at every McDonald's you will ever visit. Getting one WITHOUT cheese is the special order. That's why this lawsuit stinks to high heaven. If even Quentin Tarantino and the French ("Royale with cheese") know it, why didn't this schlimazel?
wrong. here it's Quarter Pounder - [price] and then underneath it says "with cheese - [price]"

but i wonder If this is not You making an absolute assertion.. on page 1Nice!

I frequently have the sense Neo Art does not apply his holier-than-thou principles consistently... I'm just generally too lazy to start hunting through threads looking for proof.

;)

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.
Reasonably so. And if Micky D's employees get a lot more careful with special orders for the next few months, then some good will come out of it.

the first time I was in Quebec City (Canada) as a US tourist, some 3 years ago, I was driving a Hertz rental, I was going the wrong way and I hit another Car, they called the ambulance, took me to the hospital, did some scans/x-rays/tests/ prescriptions/treatments/etc.. kept me there for few days.

and.. guess what what my bill when it was all over.
I'm not sure if they bill tourists... if you had been a resident of Quebec I know it would be free, I'm not sure what the protocol is for giving emergency care to out of towners though.

So what was your bill?

Wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG. The "menu item" is called the Quarter Pounder WITH CHEESE at every McDonald's you will ever visit. Getting one WITHOUT cheese is the special order.

I made this point several times now, but no one has seen fit to answer it.

I try not to make absolute assertions.. at least not sans some research.

but i wonder If this is not You making an absolute assertion.. on page 1

It looks to me like you are issuing a final Judgment (Negligence, breach of duty) and you have yet to see the service contract ,that the Client agrees to, when he pays for a Big Mac.

Even Judge Judy would tell you it's an oral contract.

It looks to me like you are issuing a final Judgment

Why in the world would I be issuing a "final judgement?" I say that those claims are a legitimate reason for a lawsuit. I said nothing about how he would win a lawsuit.

There is a massively important difference between bringing a lawsuit and winning a lawsuit. All one needs to bring a lawsuit is to allege sufficient facts to substantiate his claims.

To win a lawsuit requires meeting the requisite burden of proof. I said absolutly nothing about winning it, I said those facts were sufficient reasons for a lawsuit. It meets the burden to not get the lawsuit dismissed.

Whether it's sufficient to win a lawsuit is an entirely other matter.

(Negligence, breach of duty) and you have yet to see the service contract ,that the Client agrees to, when he pays for a Big Mac.

This statement would make sense if negligence (a tort law concept) had ANYTHING to do with a service agreement (a contract law concept).

As I pointed out waaaaaay long ago on an earlier page, when you get in to a car, do you have a contract with every other drive on the road? Of course not. Do you have a duty to those drivers to act reasonably? you fucking betcha.

if you breach that duty and cause injury, is it negligence? You fucking betcha.

Where the hell does this absolutly stupid idea come from that somehow to discuss the validity of a negligence claim I would need to see a contract agreement? They're two entirely fucking different avenues of law, and why would someone need a contract in order to necessitate a tort law claim?

Even Judge Judy would tell you it's an oral contract.

Well, that is true. That is however entirely besides the point as a negligence claim is entirely different, and uses an entirely different avenue of law, than a breach of contract claim.

I suppose theoretically he could argue a breach of contract claim for failure to deliver on an oral contract. He would, however, likely only be able to recover the cost of the cheeseburger.

But since he's making a TORT law claim, and not a CONTRACT law claim, the existance of a contract, ANY contract, is entirely irrelevant.

I frequently have the sense Neo Art does not apply his holier-than-thou principles consistently... I'm just generally too lazy to start hunting through threads looking for proof.

Let me get this straight. Yo uclaim to teach law, yet you somehow don't get the difference between tort law and contract law?

Really? For shame.

Well, that is true. That is however entirely besides the point as a negligence claim is entirely different, and uses an entirely different avenue of law, than a breach of contract claim.

I suppose theoretically he could argue a breach of contract claim for failure to deliver on an oral contract. He would, however, likely only be able to recover the cost of the cheeseburger.

But since he's making a TORT law claim, and not a CONTRACT law claim, the existance of a contract, ANY contract, is entirely irrelevant.

I was only mentioning it in the sense that he says he wants to SEE a contract.
It's an oral one, insofar as I say I want chicken nuggets, and they are supposed to deliver chicken nuggets if they accept my money.

There is a massively important difference between bringing a lawsuit and winning a lawsuit. All one needs to bring a lawsuit is to allege sufficient facts to substantiate his claims.Right.

We all agree he can bring a lawsuit. It's actually not that hard.

Now we're discussing what he would need to win. We're discussing the kinds of questions we would want answered. We're speculating about holes in his story that any decent attorney would look into.

No one is saying she can predict, as a prophet, what will happen with this case.

But it is certainly worthwhile, if only for the sheer enjoyment, to speculate.

Your position here, as elsewhere, seems to be that it is inappropriate or even unethical for us to engage in this endeavor.

I do not think you have proved your case.

You claim to teach law, yet you somehow don't get the difference between tort law and contract law?I do teach law, but when have I ever entered that worthless debate? So far as it goes, you have dealt with it handily.

I only object to your stance (as it appears to me) that we simply should not bother to speculate about the facts of the case, to poke holes in the facts that are available, and so on.

Let me get this straight. Yo uclaim to teach law, yet you somehow don't get the difference between tort law and contract law?

Really? For shame.

I think the point is that you're castigating people for making assertions when you're making assertions of your own.

The story as is, and admittedly there are few details, simply doesn't sound right.

The point most people are making is that the guy should have checked his burger - not in any legal sense, but because it's his life that's in jeopardy. I can understand not being able to check in the case of nut oil but cheese is freaking cheese.

I'm not sure if they bill tourists... if you had been a resident of Quebec I know it would be free, I'm not sure what the protocol is for giving emergency care to out of towners though.

So what was your bill?the bill was zero.
I dont know why.
I could not believe it. Now I feel I gotta buy Quebec/Canadian products for my life time.. just a way to say thanks.

I also gave free lodging to 4 Quebecois (net pals).. the fact that they were good looking females.. is just coincidence :D

What you will NOT get away with is being all high and mighty because the majority of the room has come to the same conclusion, given the story and our own experiences. So rail on, Don Quixote, 'cause you're no more right, but you're one hell of a lot more obnoxious.



That's just it -- nobody but him and perhaps his family knows if the story is even HALF true, let alone 100%. We're betting it's not. You're acting like an arrogant asshole. I think we win.


Now let me make sure I get this absolutly, 100% correct. You talk about ME having an attitude. You talk about ME being arrogant. You talk about ME being obnoxious. You, a poster, no more and no less than I am, go on about what "will NOT get away with" (emphasis your own), and yet you talk about ME being high and mighty.

I was thinking of having a yogurt in a minute or two. Am I not going to get away with that either? Should I call you while I eat it, make sure I'm not doing it too arrogantly? Which would be the less obnoxious flavor? Wild berry or strawberry banana?

But hell, as long as we're on the subject, let me tell you what I find arrogant. Let me tell you what I find obnoxious.

What I find obnoxious, what I find arrogant, are people who try to make statements about things they know absolutly, 100% nothing about. What I find obnoxious and arrogant are individuals who either somehow try to pretend to know legal matters in some effort to sound "smart" or, even worse, have bought into their own dillusion and actually believe they know what they're talking about.

I am talking about having to, on near daily basis around, encounter statements that are just basically, fundamentally, totally wrong. Statements that a first semester law student wouldn't make. Statements made by people who either are desperate to pretend they know what they are talking about, or actually believe they do, and statements that are just totally, demonstrably stupid.

Statements about how in a lawsuit a prosecutor tries to prove someone guilty.

Arguments that try to quote a court opinion to back up their position and quote a bloody concurrence, or, even better, the bloody dissent.

Obnoxious smarmy arrogance that questions how I could discuss a position of negligence not having seen the contract when tort law and contract....nothing to do with each other.

Silly factually wrong statements that the fact that their employees are incompetant somehow makes them as a matter of law immune from the standard of care.

Arguments about how people shouldn't get fired from their job because of the first amendment.

These are stupid statements. These are statements that someone with the most fundamentally basic understanding of how the legal system works would NEVER make.

We laugh at arrogant asses who poke around under a hood pretending to know how to fix their car. We chuckle at folks who with smug senses of superiority proclaim their expert status as accountants and then can't figure out a 1040 EZ form. At best we find such folks amusing. At worse we find them arrogant and obnoxious.

So why have we somehow developed the attitude around here that it's somehow acceptable for people to pretend to know about law. And I'm not talking about making simple mistakes in overly complicated minutia. I'm not talking about not quite grasping the difference between strict scrutiny and heightened scrutiny. I'm talking just absolute totally factually WRONG things. Completely WRONG things.

So forgive me if I get a tad bit testy from it. Forgive me if I get my feathers a tad bit ruffled for having to deal with the same stupidity over and over again, to demonstrate why, yet again, obnoxiously stupid and factually wrong legal statement made yesterday is still some obnoxiously stupid and factually wrong legal statement today. That, no, a lawsuit is not the same thing as a criminal trial, that yes, there is a difference between contract law and tort law. That a dissent is not binding precident and should not be cited in an argument to back up your claim as to what the law is, and that no, just because you think you saw it on law and order last month doesn't make it true, and a myriad of other just absolutly totally BASIC things, argued by people who would presume to understand the law.

Hold your opinion all you want, sure. I prefer to not make firm judgements with insufficient facts, but go ahead and hold them. But really, one who doesn't know the law...really shouldn't pretend to, and forgive me if the constant attitude I see around here that people who have obviously demonstrated extreme ignorance about even basic legal concepts are somehow magically right.

The point most people are making is that the guy should have checked his burger - not in any legal sense, but because it's his life that's in jeopardy. I can understand not being able to check in the case of nut oil but cheese is freaking cheese.

Exactly.

When it comes down to my life or death I don't trust anyone.

Open the damn burger and look for the cheese in a well lit area, it's always visible if it's there. Hell, poke both sides of the patty to check if it's too dark to see properly.

The guy and his family are looking for a handout plain and simple. Many times it doesn't matter if you even have a hope of winning the law suit. A corporation like McDonalds will settle out of court quickly to avoid the bad PR. I'd be interested to know how many similar lawsuits his family has filed over the years.

the bill was zero.
I dont know why.
I could not believe it. Now I feel I gotta buy Quebec/Canadian products for my life time.. just a way to say thanks.

I also gave free lodging to 4 Quebecois (net pals).. the fact that they were good looking females.. is just coincidence :D
The bill was probably zero because we have universal health care. I just didn't know that it was extended to visitors (especially since residents have to carry health insurance cards, but maybe that's just to keep track of what services get used with the most frequency and all that).

I do teach law, but when have I ever entered that worthless debate? So far as it goes, you have dealt with it handily.

I only object to your stance (as it appears to me) that we simply should not bother to speculate about the facts of the case, to poke holes in the facts that are available, and so on.

that's just is. Discussion, speculation, fine, great, that's fun, that's fine. Half the time I've been playing devil's advocate. I agree, I find the fact they called McDonald's first to be highly odd and very unusual.

I find statements like "it's obviously a con" to be disengenuous. I also find the blame the victim mentality of "it's his fault he nearly died he should have realized they were incompetant" to be highly distasteful and we would find such things in other circumstances to be extremely abhorant.

Those things...irk me, the second more than the first. I find absolute statements in a situation anything but absolute to be silly. Although admittedly you've refrained from that, and that's great. Others have not.

But it's things like I just said that REALLY get to me. Why in the WORLD am I trying to defend myself by having to explain, AGAIN, that no, contract law and tort law are not the same thing?

I've a question then (or more):

What is the legal status of the signs that say 'please check your change before leaving the shop?'

Is there a McDonald's sign that says 'please check your order before leaving the establishment'.

Does America have common law - in that if McDonalds can show that a certain % of orders are given wrong, and that this can be held as an expectation, that there's a certain responsibility on behalf of the customer to check the order is right?

Would this affect the case?

I've a question then (or more):

What is the legal status of the signs that say 'please check your change before leaving the shop?'

Is there a McDonald's sign that says 'please check your order before leaving the establishment'.

Does America have common law - in that if McDonalds can show that a certain % of orders are given wrong, and that this can be held as an expectation, that there's a certain responsibility on behalf of the customer to check the order is right?

Would this affect the case?
Not in America. Keep in mind McDonald was sued for millions of dollars because some one spilled McDonalds hot coffee on themselves while trying to drink it in a moving car.

A corporation like McDonalds will settle out of court quickly to avoid the bad PR. McDonald has probably settled several times before to avoid bad PR..

Let me say first, that I do respect the Legal knowledge of NeoArt, TCT, AnarchyeL and the other Law Professionals. (even If sometimes I say stuff.. me bad)
BTW.. as for Yogurt flavors.. Wild berry is nice, mango is nice too.
...

My opinion on this issue is more like this, if guilty -For the first offense- restaurant should pay back the Hospital fees + a 5000-10000$ fine given to the heart/Diabetics/Cancer/etc foundation.. and the guilty employee should lose a day salary.

This sentence should be like automatic.. and it would be more than enough to encourage Managers and employees to keep an eye on cheese orders.

giving ten million to this family, is just going to encourage some individuals to find a way to get the golden ticket.

My opinion on this issue is more like this, if guilty -For the first offense- restaurant should pay back the Hospital fees + a 1000-5000$ fine given to the heart/Diabetics/Cancer/etc foundation.. and the guilty employee should lose a day salary.
This happened two years ago, the employee has probably quit.

Not in America. Keep in mind McDonald was sued for millions of dollars because some one spilled McDonalds hot coffee on themselves while trying to drink it in a moving car.

I think there was more to the case that is commonly believed - the cup collapsed and the coffee was extraordinarily hot if I recall but I'll go find the actual case.

Link (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm)

I've a question then (or more):

What is the legal status of the signs that say 'please check your change before leaving the shop?'

Is there a McDonald's sign that says 'please check your order before leaving the establishment'.

Does America have common law - in that if McDonalds can show that a certain % of orders are given wrong, and that this can be held as an expectation, that there's a certain responsibility on behalf of the customer to check the order is right?

Would this affect the case?


That is an interesting question. It makes a good argument, and I don't think it's without merit. The problem is, typically, the burden to hold the duty is on the one providing the service. The duty is on McDonald's to operate with a reasonable standard of care. It would be a very interesting argument for them to argue that they are so obviously and universally known to have incompetant employees that it was unreasonable for a customer to expect them to operate reasonably.

It's an interesting argument, and may have some merit, but basically what that argument means is "hey, everybody knows we suck, it was unreasonable to expect us to do what we are legally required to do"....I don't think a court, for a public policy reason, will buy that, as it would give incentive to actually not train their employees.

Not in America. Keep in mind McDonald was sued for millions of dollars because some one spilled McDonalds hot coffee on themselves while trying to drink it in a moving car.

no they weren't.

That is an interesting question. It makes a good argument, and I don't think it's without merit. The problem is, typically, the burden to hold the duty is on the one providing the service. The duty is on McDonald's to operate with a reasonable standard of care. It would be a very interesting argument for them to argue that they are so obviously and universally known to have incompetant employees that it was unreasonable for a customer to expect them to operate reasonably.

It's an interesting argument, and may have some merit, but basically what that argument means is "hey, everybody knows we suck, it was unreasonable to expect us to do what we are legally required to do"....I don't think a court, for a public policy reason, will buy that, as it would give incentive to actually not train their employees.

Right - Can McDonalds be held to 100% perfection on orders, given it's a fast-food restaurant, given it's a drive-thru and given the person himself has said he was in a hurry?

Could they claim that they're absolutely held to change the product if the order is wrong, but they cannot be held absolutely responsible for a wrong order?

This mistake is only an issue because the guy was allergic to cheese - is that a standard too high for McDonalds to reasonably meet?

EDIT: It sounds like I'm making the same point but I'm trying present it in a better way than I did before.

EDIT EDIT: I'm guessing this is why the claim of '5 times' is coming in, the plaintiff needs to show he took reasonable precautions himself, and that is why he says he ate it in a darkened cinema as well - it needs to meet the standards of reasonable.

But it's things like I just said that REALLY get to me. Why in the WORLD am I trying to defend myself by having to explain, AGAIN, that no, contract law and tort law are not the same thing?I sympathize. Expertise is respected little enough on an Internet forum... half because few people are ever really sure you have the education you claim to have, half because conservatives have been remarkably successful in convincing people that scientists, lawyers, and scholars of every stripe really have no special claim to authority.

Nevertheless, I generally find that confidence and a solid explanation go a lot further than anything remotely stinking of arrogance.

Of course, it's tough not to be angered when people blindly, stupidly refuse to admit the most obvious point. In those cases, I generally withdraw with a comment to the effect that the reasonable readers of the thread should be convinced regardless of the stubborness of others.

It's not worth my time to "win" debates against such utter asses. And that's precisely because of my education.

I think there was more to the case that is commonly believed - the cup collapsed and the coffee was extraordinarily hot if I recall but I'll go find the actual case.Yes, it was also not the first time that those particular cups had collapsed, resulting in burns (much more minor, I believe) to other patrons.

There's a rather clear case of negligence there. Not only were they specifically at fault for making cups with cheap glue and coffee far hotter than one has a right to expect, but existing cases had already alerted them to the situation.

Rarely a clearer case has there been, actually.

If the suit turned out properly (and assuming American laws on negligence are similar to ours), it would be ruled as negligence on the part of MacDonalds/the employee, with contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff which would reduce the amount of damages he could claim (unless contributory negligence is a complete defence in the US)

...but it'll probably be settled and that won't be officially decided...

...or he'll be beaten into the ground by MacDonald's super team of lawyers :gundge: :sniper:

(Yes, I realise this has been noted by people above me. I don't care. :P

Oh and, *pats Neo Art* there there, just kick him, hard, and run away :D problem solved...

Finally yes, I used emoticons. Invalidate my post if you will!)

Incidentally, now that I've shifted to a genuine "legal" mode, whatever merit the allergy case may have I don't think there is any merit to the claim that the mother and friend are party to damages for their harrowing ride.

McDonald's mistaken cheese placement simply is not a proximate cause of their distress. They had the option of calling an ambulance. There is no reason to believe that this would have been an undue burden in the circumstance, nor to believe that a reasonable person should not think of calling an ambulance.

One might, on a stretch, be able to make a case for risk enhancement: McDonald's action increased the likelihood that the family would make the fool move to go careening down the highway running red lights or whatever... but I think it's a stretch.

If the facts are as they are claimed, McDonald's is liable for this man's injury and distress. The corporation is not, however, responsible for the family's foolish response to that distress.

Oh and no cheese. Oh and with cheese. Sound quite similar hey??
Can I smell a scam here?? Quick 10 million, i'd do it.

If I was working at a fast food store and someone walked up to me and ordered a burger that generally comes without cheese, and then mentioned something about cheese at the last minute, I would prosume he wanted it added on. Anyhoo I still hope he wins, cause i fucking hate mcdonalds!!!

Not in America. Keep in mind McDonald was sued for millions of dollars because some one spilled McDonalds hot coffee on themselves while trying to drink it in a moving car.

This is absolutely incorrect. It was not a moving car. She was not trying to drink it, but to add cream and sugar to it - in the passenger seat, parked in the parking lot. The coffee was so hot (way beyond industry standard or even a safe temperature) that it caused third degree burns on her thighs and genitals. McDonald's point-blank lied in the case, claiming that most of their customers waited to drink their coffee and that's why it was so hot, despite their own internal memos plainly stating that market research pointed to most people drinking it immediately. Also, the woman in that case originally asked only for medical costs only. It was only when McDonald's refused that she brought a lawsuit against them.

Incidentally, now that I've shifted to a genuine "legal" mode, whatever merit the allergy case may have I don't think there is any merit to the claim that the mother and friend are party to damages for their harrowing ride.

McDonald's mistaken cheese placement simply is not a proximate cause of their distress. They had the option of calling an ambulance. There is no reason to believe that this would have been an undue burden in the circumstance, nor to believe that a reasonable person should not think of calling an ambulance.

One might, on a stretch, be able to make a case for risk enhancement: McDonald's action increased the likelihood that the family would make the fool move to go careening down the highway running red lights or whatever... but I think it's a stretch.

If the facts are as they are claimed, McDonald's is liable for this man's injury and distress. The corporation is not, however, responsible for the family's foolish response to that distress.

The problem is that proximite cause is one of those squishy maliable constructs. It is unarguable that, should this be true, but for McDonald's actions, they would not have taken the risk, but I am iclined to agree that it is far too removed from the initial act.

My big problem from this doesn't even just lie with the causation, it lies with the duty. Certainly, as their customer, McDonald's owed a duty to him. And in failing to do what they agreed to, they violated their duty to him, the customer.

What duty did they have to them? Negligence requires a breach of duty, what was the duty here to them?

If the suit turned out properly (and assuming American laws on negligence are similar to ours), it would be ruled as negligence on the part of MacDonalds/the employee, with contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff which would reduce the amount of damages he could claim (unless contributory negligence is a complete defence in the US)


I'm inclined to agree, and for what it's worth, different states have different standards. in some states contributory negligence is a complete defense. In others it is only a defense if the contribution was more than half. In some states it's not a defense at all and merely is a matter for damages.

My big problem from this doesn't even just lie with the causation, it lies with the duty. Certainly, as their customer, McDonald's owed a duty to him. And in failing to do what they agreed to, they violated their duty to him, the customer.

What duty did they have to them? Negligence requires a breach of duty, what was the duty here to them?Duty of care depends in the abstract only on the definition of acts that could reasonably cause harm to others. There are cases in which this can be reasonably extended to second or even third parties to the case, but as with most things in tort liability a lot depends on context.

Imagine a city in which there were no ambulances. Causing acute medical distress to any given person has, then, as an immediate consequence the necessity that others must take steps--very possibly dangerous steps--to preserve the life of their acquaintance.

In such a city, I think that one has a duty of care extending to those who will suffer as a result of the medical distress of a second party.

In a city that DOES have an ambulance service, however, one does not have a duty to those responsible for the medical treatment of a friend because the medical distress of a friend simply does not cause them to drive fast: they can call an ambulance, which is actually the preferable move anyway.

In other words, from the perspective of legal theory duty and causation are intimately related concepts that cannot be neatly disentangled. This is probably one of the reasons that proximate causation remains such a relatively contentious matter of definition.

I prefer, in theoretical terms, to approach things from the direction of causation because it is (I think) more explicit about the context of reasonable expectations. "Duty" falls a little close to "contract" conceptually (as evidenced by the persistent confusions on this thread) in that it tends to connote a direct relationship when in fact no theoretical principle strictly demands a direct relation.

In other words, I think the argument for causation is the theoretical foundation of any argument for duty. In MOST circumstances this results in the judgment that some level of direct association is required to impose a duty, but this is by no means the case necessarily.

Case in point: the argument that states can sue tobacco companies for damages relating to health care costs expended on smokers. The companies had no direct exchange with the state, but the circumstances of the provision of health care generate a plausible causal link. This causation generates a duty despite the "thirdness" of the relation.

If I approach things from the abstract, it's because (to be more specific) what I teach is legal theory. I get into the specifics of the positive law only in an attempt to explore the foundations upon which it lies.

;)

Right - Can McDonalds be held to 100% perfection on orders, given it's a fast-food restaurant, given it's a drive-thru and given the person himself has said he was in a hurry?

Could they claim that they're absolutely held to change the product if the order is wrong, but they cannot be held absolutely responsible for a wrong order?

This mistake is only an issue because the guy was allergic to cheese - is that a standard too high for McDonalds to reasonably meet?

EDIT: It sounds like I'm making the same point but I'm trying present it in a better way than I did before.

EDIT EDIT: I'm guessing this is why the claim of '5 times' is coming in, the plaintiff needs to show he took reasonable precautions himself, and that is why he says he ate it in a darkened cinema as well - it needs to meet the standards of reasonable.

No, I understand exactly what you are saying, I think. The question is, I believe you're saying, is that is it reasonable to expect an organization like McDonald's to not put cheese on an order that is ordered without cheese.

Which at the end of the day is the question. The standard of law is and always has been "exercise reasonable diligence under the circumstances". But what ARE the circumstances?

Is McDonald's held to the same legal standard of, say, the Ritz, in that they are both food service organizations? Or is the ritz, a place where you sit down, have a waiter pay attention to you, write down your order by hand, deliver it by hand, and have cooks supervise the preparation of which have a different standard than a fast food joint?

Some would argue what is reasonable for a place that serves food. Others would say no, the question is, what is reasonable for a fast food company?

But even if we lower the standard of care to that of "a fast food company" and question what is reasonable behavior just for a fast food company and NOT expect it to adhere to the standards of a full restaurant, is it still reasonable to expect that when someone says "no cheese" that there be no freaking cheese?

Does a company, as a matter of public policy, get to say "our employees as a whole are so incompetant that it is not reasonable to expect them to perform even rudimentary safety procedures"? Do we really want to allow that? The whole doctrine of respondeat superior has been held ot say that no, you don't get to shield yourself behind your employee's incompetance.

I would argue that, as a matter of public policy, we don't let that argument go forward. Companies have requirements to fulfill certain expectations, and they are bound to fulfill those expectations.

If I approach things from the abstract, it's because (to be more specific) what I teach is legal theory. I get into the specifics of the positive law only in an attempt to explore the foundations upon which it lies.

;)

true, and theory is interesting, but there must be some level of grounded practicality. Breach of duty is a necessary element in the prima facie case. So while yes, duty CAN extend to second, or even third parties.

However, on a much more practical position, does a restaurant have a duty to someone that is not their customer?

Is McDonald's held to the same legal standard of, say, the Ritz, in that they are both food service organizations? Or is the ritz, a place where you sit down, have a waiter pay attention to you, write down your order by hand, deliver it by hand, and have cooks supervise the preparation of which have a different standard than a fast food joint?It depends.

When dealing with basic standards relating to the health and welfare of a patron, I think there is (and should be) no difference.

On the other hand, someone might justifiably claim that a botched dinner at the Ritz ruined an important dinner (business, anniversary, what-have-you), whereas such a claim at McDonald's would be absurd (no matter how deeply sentimental you happen to be about Chicken McNuggets).

This is, of course, more a matter of principle than it is of positive law. But it should be a truism by now that principle has just important a place, if not sometimes more important, than positive rules in judgment on a case.

However, on a much more practical position, does a restaurant have a duty to someone that is not their customer?In this case? No.

But they do have plenty of duties to people who are not their customers. They have a duty, for instance, to keep their sidewalks clear of debris/snow/garbage.

To use an example more nearly mirroring the third-partyness of the current case:

If a restaurant's negligent sanitary standards result in one person getting an infectious disease, not only that victim but everyone he infects has some claim against the restaurant.

Actually, that suggests an even better example.

In the current case, one victim has a clear claim against the restaurant (again, assuming his story is true).

His associates want to state a claim based on the actions they felt compelled to take to deal with his situation. I maintain that they do not, in fact, have a valid claim because "feeling compelled" is not the same thing as being compelled, by necessity, to respond in a certain way.

A better but parallel case would be the following:

A patron contracts a highly infectious disease due to poor sanitary conditions at a restaurant.

Not only must he seek expensive treatment, but for the next month his friends and family must both care for him and take extraordinary precautions against contracting the disease themselves. They must wear masks around him, wash with special soap... perhaps they must receive some vaccine.

I would say they have a reasonable claim to be parties to the case. Since these are reasonably predictable consequences of getting someone terribly ill, I think the restaurant's duty extends to them.

EDIT: I'm not necessarily saying they'd win. But I do think they'd have a very good case, certainly as compared to people who didn't bother to call an ambulance.

It depends.

When dealing with basic standards relating to the health and welfare of a patron, I think there is (and should be) no difference.

Perhaps. One could also argue that the Ritz has more opportunity to "get it right" in that they don't do it as quickly and aren't as under such pressure to get it out fast.

On the other hand, someone might justifiably claim that a botched dinner at the Ritz ruined an important dinner (business, anniversary, what-have-you), whereas such a claim at McDonald's would be absurd (no matter how deeply sentimental you happen to be about Chicken McNuggets).


Ahh but that would seem more a matter for damages than duty.

Ahh but that would seem more a matter for damages than duty.Maybe. Either way I think it should be nearly self-evident that as a matter of principle the Ritz could be held liable in a broader range of cases than McDonalds. When people choose a restaurant with a certain expectation, within bounds of reason it is appropriate to hold them to that expectation and everything it implies.

Yes, "certain bounds of reason" is muddy. That's why it's a principle, not a rule.

:p

Maybe. Either way I think it should be nearly self-evident that as a matter of principle the Ritz could be held liable in a broader range of cases than McDonalds. When people choose a restaurant with a certain expectation, within bounds of reason it is appropriate to hold them to that expectation and everything it implies.

Yes, "certain bounds of reason" is muddy. That's why it's a principle, not a rule.

:p

Feh, theorists, hehe. What's that old expression? Those who can, do, those who can't somethingsomething :p

*snip*

Actually, I think the Ritz has better protection.

The difference is that McDonalds wraps its food, and therefore it is less reasonable, or openly possible, for the customer to check the food than it is for the Ritz, where the food is in plain sight on delivery.

My issue is that this guy has a cheese allergy, and I think this is why the lawyer made the point about '12 million people with allergies'. If I'm allergic to something, then I have certain responsibility to ensure that the service provider is fully informed of that circumstance, and that I took reasonable steps to ensure the product was free of whatever food I was allergic to.

Now, we have a circumstance here where the customer is saying he took all reasonable steps given that he was in a hurry on the way to a cinema - it's a fast-food place after all.

I think that McDonalds can lose this case because the food is wrapped, and therefore, if the plaintiff can show he asked, specifically on being handed the food, then McDonalds is at fault.

Maybe. Either way I think it should be nearly self-evident that as a matter of principle the Ritz could be held liable in a broader range of cases than McDonalds. When people choose a restaurant with a certain expectation, within bounds of reason it is appropriate to hold them to that expectation and everything it implies.

Yes, "certain bounds of reason" is muddy. That's why it's a principle, not a rule.

:p

I'm just not sure on this - I think both McDonalds and the Ritz are equally at fault if a product is in a food that they claim does not have that product.

I quite like Katganistan's example of nut oil - clearly the burden lies on the restaurant because the consumer cannot check it, as opposed to cheese liberally sprinkled on top.

Yet for McDonalds, they wrap the food, lessening the burden on the consumer, especially if that consumer has openly stated, taken reasonable steps, to ask that the product is not in the food.

Feh, theorists, hehe. What's that old expression? Those who can, do, those who can't somethingsomething :pOr, you could reason that all you lawyers read Supreme Court opinions... while Supreme Court justices read theory. ;)

I'm just not sure on this - I think both McDonalds and the Ritz are equally at fault if a product is in a food that they claim does not have that product."Equally at fault" in the sense that it should not be easier to win one's case in one than in the other, yes.

What I am stating is that the range of damages you could sue for at the Ritz is significantly greater than what you could sue for at McDonald's. If you take a business contact to dinner at the Ritz and their horrendous service ruins the deal, I'm not convinced you have no basis to sue.

At McDonald's, on the other hand, that would be absurd.

Reasonable expectations about service have some bearing here. Just not when it comes to poisoning someone.

I'm just not sure on this - I think both McDonalds and the Ritz are equally at fault if a product is in a food that they claim does not have that product.

I quite like Katganistan's example of nut oil - clearly the burden lies on the restaurant because the consumer cannot check it, as opposed to cheese liberally sprinkled on top.

Yet for McDonalds, they wrap the food, lessening the burden on the consumer, especially if that consumer has openly stated, taken reasonable steps, to ask that the product is not in the food.

that's one way, on the other, the food is unwrapped before eatting it, typically, so either customer has equal opportunity to inspect the food before eatting it. It's not like they eat it wrapper and all.

"Equally at fault" in the sense that it should not be easier to win one's case in one than in the other, yes.

What I am stating is that the range of damages you could sue for at the Ritz is significantly greater than what you could sue for at McDonald's. If you take a business contact to dinner at the Ritz and their horrendous service ruins the deal, I'm not convinced you have no basis to sue.

At McDonald's, on the other hand, that would be absurd.

Reasonable expectations about service have some bearing here. Just not when it comes to poisoning someone.

Amm...not sure how that's too relevant. Your example is about an expectation of quality of service. This is different in that the service may be fine, but there's a product in the food that should not be there, it's a fine distinction but it's there.

Isolating this to a wrongly delivered order, I'm sure I've read a case - and grant that I'm English and I only have an LLB from 10 years ago - that restaurants have less burden to deliver orders correctly in terms of making a case against them, it happens. There's a point where it's actionable but the burden is less than say, amm.., medical equipment (though that may be extreme).

For the Ritz, you can see it's a wrong order, for McDonalds, that's not so easy.

Amm...not sure how that's too relevant. Your example is about an expectation of quality of service. This is different in that the service may be fine, but there's a product in the food that should not be there, it's a fine distinction but it's there.I was thinking more broadly than food where it shouldn't be, yes.

Perhaps we've crossed wires.

I was thinking more broadly than food where it shouldn't be, yes.

Perhaps we've crossed wires.

On NSG? Shurely not :)

that's one way, on the other, the food is unwrapped before eatting it, typically, so either customer has equal opportunity to inspect the food before eatting it. It's not like they eat it wrapper and all.

Yeah, hence the cinema.

It's less reasonable for someone to check the food order from McDonalds because it's take-away and it's wrapped.

I'd say in this case, that if he can show he asked, and especially at the point of being given the food, then he has a pretty good case.

McDonalds shouldn't be liable for wrong orders, but if its specifically ordered and then that order is confirmed on handing over - especially if cheese allergies are common enough - then that's a strong case.

As Neo Art said previously, this is a case about how McDonalds handles its orders and if there's a overt chance that the order is mishandled between giving the order and receiving the food, then they're liable.

At the least, the person handing over the food should have clear knowledge that the food being handed over is what they are saying it is. If that takes implementing a simple series of steps then McDonalds should be doing that.

I think there is something to be said for that. Yeah the amount is obscene. Yeah the guy was probably stupid. Yeah he should have checked. Yeah it might be an attempt to get some money. Yeah there are a whole lot of random things that seem off about the whole thing.

But, if the story is true, McDonald's, after multiple requests, after multiple confirmations, served someone something that could have killed him.

And I think that's the most important part of this. That's the part that really needs to be emphasized. He asked them not to, and they did it anyway, because they just didn't care. He had a fatal allergy, and they didn't care.

And we don't allow this in our society. We don't accept this. We don't say that you get to not care. You open a business in america, that business comes with certain responsibilities.

And no matter how bizaare we think the claim, no matter how irresponsible we think the family, no matter how obscene we think the value sought, we have had enough people here talk about how often their order got screwed up to believe that yes, it's certainly possible that at least that part of it is true.

And if it is true, it means that this company was given a specific request to make important dietary accomodations, they agreed to, and they just didnt' care. And they shouldn't get not to care.

*snip*

Yup, there's 2 aspects to this case. One is the simple legal issue, what that is and who is therefore liable.

The second is the amount asked for and the proximity issue of the co-plaintiffs, which is what, in addition to a gut 'goddamn litigation culture' set off by an association with McDonalds/coffee case, sets people off.

It makes the case seem more about getting money than having justice served.

So in one sense this is an interesting case legally, in another it's an example of how the law is a means to an end, not an end in itself these days because the money is more important than the justice.

It's a rather capitalistic way of looking at the law except I feel it's a case of causing greater inefficiency than the opposite because the law is not a product.

wrong. here it's Quarter Pounder - [price] and then underneath it says "with cheese - [price]"

Okay, then, not every McDonald's everywhere, then. I stand corrected. Just every one I've been into since being able to read. That's not all that many, truthfully. In fact, I'd love to be able to be proven wrong about that in person, given the location on your posts...someday.

the bill was zero.
I dont know why.
I could not believe it. Now I feel I gotta buy Quebec/Canadian products for my life time.. just a way to say thanks.

I also gave free lodging to 4 Quebecois (net pals).. the fact that they were good looking females.. is just coincidence :D

One of them wasn't Christine Young, by any chance, was one?

Now let me make sure I get this absolutly, 100% correct. You talk about ME having an attitude. You talk about ME being arrogant. You talk about ME being obnoxious. You, a poster, no more and no less than I am, go on about what "will NOT get away with" (emphasis your own), and yet you talk about ME being high and mighty.

Yes. Yes I did. Why? Because, moreso than I ever have, you presume to chide everyone here about what assumptions we cannot make because we don't have 100% of the truth. Well, neither do you. The difference is, we're basing our conjecture on all available evidence. You're presuming a point of view that automatically validates the lawsuit. We've even conceded that the lawsuit is justified but that the damages sought are outrageous. You again chide us for assuming. So fuck no, you won't get away with that. What does that mean? It means I won't let you post your pseudo-intellectual drivel without it going challenged...

I was thinking of having a yogurt in a minute or two. Am I not going to get away with that either? Should I call you while I eat it, make sure I'm not doing it too arrogantly? Which would be the less obnoxious flavor? Wild berry or strawberry banana?

...and the fact that you rush to such reduction to absurdity proves to me that I've touched a bare, jangling nerve about you and your superiority complex. How childish.

But hell, as long as we're on the subject, let me tell you what I find arrogant. Let me tell you what I find obnoxious.

Unnecessary! You spare no effort to do that in just about every single one of your posts. But do go on.

What I find obnoxious, what I find arrogant, are people who try to make statements about things they know absolutly, 100% nothing about. What I find obnoxious and arrogant are individuals who either somehow try to pretend to know legal matters in some effort to sound "smart" or, even worse, have bought into their own dillusion and actually believe they know what they're talking about.

I don't pretend to know legal matters. I do know how to use spell check. That aside, however, nobody is saying that they absolutely, 100% KNOW what's happening here. This is a general forum, not a law review site, so you can take your pretention to legal knowledge and blow it out your ass. We who post here have repeatedly said that the case in question sounds fishy at best, and that the damages being sued for are the icing on the cake with regard to the premise that the suit is being undertaken for financial gain as opposed to any kind of just compensation. You're free, as ever, to disagree.

The fact that you can sit there and say we know "absolutly [sic], 100% nothing about" a story whose source was posted online and and about which more online is available is ludicrous at best and plain arrogant at worst. Neo, we can all read, okay? Do you understand that? Do you have some access to this story the rest of us don't?

I am talking about having to, on near daily basis around, encounter statements that are just basically, fundamentally, totally wrong. Statements that a first semester law student wouldn't make. Statements made by people who either are desperate to pretend they know what they are talking about, or actually believe they do, and statements that are just totally, demonstrably stupid.

You aren't forced to read anything here. You choose to. That makes you a kind of masochist, doesn't it?

They're called opinions. Once more -- this is NOT a courtroom. All we have is what's reported, and what's reported looks extremely dubious. If you don't see it that way, that's fine. Many people here, myself included are of the opinion that the damages being sued for are egregious and that anyone with such an obvious allergy should be one hell of a lot more cautious. I've looked online at places like WebMD and found that the vast majority of cheese/dairy allergies aren't life-threatening so much as they're varying degrees of lactose intolerance. In short, a restaurant error, similar to that of transmitting foodborne germs with regard to its effect on those susceptible, does not deserve $1M in compensation. Also, $700 for an ER visit is woefully low.

In shorter -- there is something rotten in the state of Denmark, Horatio. No more, no less. The fact that you have deemed yourself LAW-MAN, DEFENDER OF ALL THINGS JURISPRACTICAL is of absolutely no consequence to the DISCUSSION of the possible horseshit this case may or may not be. You seek to stifle speculation in the name of due process which this forum is in no way responsible to observe.

Shorter still -- lighten the fuck up, already.

Statements about how in a lawsuit a prosecutor tries to prove someone guilty.

Arguments that try to quote a court opinion to back up their position and quote a bloody concurrence, or, even better, the bloody dissent.

Obnoxious smarmy arrogance that questions how I could discuss a position of negligence not having seen the contract when tort law and contract....nothing to do with each other.

I've not made any such statement. I make and have never made any claim to know anything important about the way lawsuits function. To me, a "torte" is a baking term, and a lot more interesting to me than the legal term. Aim your legal complaints elsewhere, jack.

Silly factually wrong statements that the fact that their employees are incompetant somehow makes them as a matter of law immune from the standard of care.

These statements, while certainly factually suspect, can be independently verified once one has received an order that WASN'T out of the ordinary and have had THAT screwed up. Is it fair to tar the entire foodservice field with that brush? Not at all. Is it accurate? It can be. As such, while it's not a statement I'd base anything but a casual conversational assertion on (which is, incidentally, what goes on here, not law), it isn't wholly without merit.

Arguments about how people shouldn't get fired from their job because of the first amendment.

These are stupid statements. These are statements that someone with the most fundamentally basic understanding of how the legal system works would NEVER make.

Uh...I'm not sure I've heard the Bill of Rights mentioned here, slim, but I'll take that on faith -- I owe you that much just for all of your typing.

You vastly overestimate the "basic understanding" of the legal system possessed by the average American. I'd say remnants of Perry Mason, L.A. Law, Ally McBeal, and the like are about as close to that knowledge as most Americans get.

We laugh at arrogant asses who poke around under a hood pretending to know how to fix their car. We chuckle at folks who with smug senses of superiority proclaim their expert status as accountants and then can't figure out a 1040 EZ form. At best we find such folks amusing. At worse we find them arrogant and obnoxious.

Faulty premise. I'd never let someone poke under the hood of my car that wasn't a trained mechanic. I did on my first car (a cute little 1981 Toyota Tercel on which I could actually change out the alternator and change the oil myself), but not with the technological complexity happening in largely sealed engines now. I don't know these people you're talking about. I've never met anyone who couldn't do their own taxes who then go around claiming accounting expertise. Maybe you live in a weird place.

So why have we somehow developed the attitude around here that it's somehow acceptable for people to pretend to know about law. And I'm not talking about making simple mistakes in overly complicated minutia. I'm not talking about not quite grasping the difference between strict scrutiny and heightened scrutiny. I'm talking just absolute totally factually WRONG things. Completely WRONG things.

Holy shit, brother. This is an ONLINE FORUM for a NATION SIMULATOR -- a GAME. The only "attitude" being developed around here is YOURS! You seem to think that nobody is entitled to an opinion unless they're a documented expert on whatever subject was originally posted! That's just insane, unreasonable and will drive you crazy...or has driven...whatever.

If people wanted to dissect the absolute legal issues here, they'd look them up and present what they found -- and guess what? They aren't even required to do that to post here, no matter what you think! If someone claims to have expertise as a lawyer, I'd expect that they'd know a few things, and if I really TRULY gave a shit about the subject in contention, I'd research myself to make sure that what the person so claiming was saying wasn't complete horseshit. But I don't care.

All I care about is that real, honest people with real, honest grievances needing real, honest justice are forced to wait for YEARS because court dockets across this country are clogged to the gills in frivolous lawsuits made by people who can't let anything go or who can see a quick and easy payday in a settlement from a deep-pocketed company in order to avoid trial (and the attendant publicity).

So forgive me if I get a tad bit testy from it. Forgive me if I get my feathers a tad bit ruffled for having to deal with the same stupidity over and over again, to demonstrate why, yet again, obnoxiously stupid and factually wrong legal statement made yesterday is still some obnoxiously stupid and factually wrong legal statement today. That, no, a lawsuit is not the same thing as a criminal trial, that yes, there is a difference between contract law and tort law. That a dissent is not binding precident and should not be cited in an argument to back up your claim as to what the law is, and that no, just because you think you saw it on law and order last month doesn't make it true, and a myriad of other just absolutly totally BASIC things, argued by people who would presume to understand the law.

You won't be forgiven by me. But then again, you don't have to be. You don't answer to me. However, I'll corner you on your bullshit whenever I see it, 'cause that's one aspect of my personality. People who take themselves or trivial things too seriously need puncturing, and that's just one of the many services I offer, free of charge and of warranty.

And I don't watch Law and Order.

Hold your opinion all you want, sure. I prefer to not make firm judgements with insufficient facts, but go ahead and hold them. But really, one who doesn't know the law...really shouldn't pretend to, and forgive me if the constant attitude I see around here that people who have obviously demonstrated extreme ignorance about even basic legal concepts are somehow magically right.

I've never pretended to know the law. I've been given sunshine enemas by lawyers too many times ot ever trust the law again. Unless there's some serious legal malady I can correct with a lawsuit, I'm going to let everything actionable slide by and let karma deal with it. Why? Karma is far more efficient, even if it's not as quick. That said, I'd wager that karma, over the long term, is probably just as fast as a civil suit, and (Kenneth Lay, for example) sometimes faster.

In conclusion, Neo, I sincerely appreciate your passion for all things accurately legal, and I have no doubt that it is a pet peeve of yours when people misinterpret or show willful ignorance about the subject. I feel the same way when someone calls all music performed by symphony orchestras "classical". It sets my teeth on edge. That doesn't make it okay for me to lash out at them and vilify them as ignorant. If I have made my best concerted attempt to educate someone as to the true nature of my subject and they continue to abuse the facts about it, so what? I did my job and shared my knowledge and it was rejected. Shit, man, that's practically a proverb -- look at our President!

However, worse than that is to continue to rant on about it when it doesn't matter. We come to General to speculate and debate and run things through the sausage grinder of public debate. Like sausage and legislation, it ain't a pretty process.

Once more, feel free to remain agitated about how law is bandied about here -- but don't expect any sympathy if you can't just let it go when it needs to be let go.

Cheers.

I think there is something to be said for that. Yeah the amount is obscene. Yeah the guy was probably stupid. Yeah he should have checked. Yeah it might be an attempt to get some money. Yeah there are a whole lot of random things that seem off about the whole thing.

But, if the story is true, McDonald's, after multiple requests, after multiple confirmations, served someone something that could have killed him.

And I think that's the most important part of this. That's the part that really needs to be emphasized. He asked them not to, and they did it anyway, because they just didn't care. He had a fatal allergy, and they didn't care.

And we don't allow this in our society. We don't accept this. We don't say that you get to not care. You open a business in america, that business comes with certain responsibilities.

And no matter how bizaare we think the claim, no matter how irresponsible we think the family, no matter how obscene we think the value sought, we have had enough people here talk about how often their order got screwed up to believe that yes, it's certainly possible that at least that part of it is true.

And if it is true, it means that this company was given a specific request to make important dietary accomodations, they agreed to, and they just didnt' care. And they shouldn't get not to care.

Excellently said. Had you started with this bare-bones statement, it would have saved a lot of typing. You'd never have to post replies to anyone who replied to this because your point was so well made here. Anyone seeking to refute you would have to look at those words and realize they were typing just to see their own words.

I agree with you. My disagreement comes from how much pure law is outweighed by what appears for all the world to be taking a noble idea (people deserve legal protection and companies are liable) and twisting it to greedy ends simply because they can. This is one that karma will have to sort out. While we can never know for certain exactly who's complaints are legitimate and who's are get-rich-quick schemes, we can certainly speculate, and that's one of the things online fora are very good for -- speculation.

Right - Can McDonalds be held to 100% perfection on orders, given it's a fast-food restaurant, given it's a drive-thru and given the person himself has said he was in a hurry?

Could they claim that they're absolutely held to change the product if the order is wrong, but they cannot be held absolutely responsible for a wrong order?

This mistake is only an issue because the guy was allergic to cheese - is that a standard too high for McDonalds to reasonably meet?

EDIT: It sounds like I'm making the same point but I'm trying present it in a better way than I did before.

EDIT EDIT: I'm guessing this is why the claim of '5 times' is coming in, the plaintiff needs to show he took reasonable precautions himself, and that is why he says he ate it in a darkened cinema as well - it needs to meet the standards of reasonable.

A bit off topic, but who the hell takes McDonald's food to a movie? That's against theater policy, isn't it?

No, I understand exactly what you are saying, I think. The question is, I believe you're saying, is that is it reasonable to expect an organization like McDonald's to not put cheese on an order that is ordered without cheese.

Which at the end of the day is the question. The standard of law is and always has been "exercise reasonable diligence under the circumstances". But what ARE the circumstances?

Is McDonald's held to the same legal standard of, say, the Ritz, in that they are both food service organizations? Or is the ritz, a place where you sit down, have a waiter pay attention to you, write down your order by hand, deliver it by hand, and have cooks supervise the preparation of which have a different standard than a fast food joint?

Some would argue what is reasonable for a place that serves food. Others would say no, the question is, what is reasonable for a fast food company?

But even if we lower the standard of care to that of "a fast food company" and question what is reasonable behavior just for a fast food company and NOT expect it to adhere to the standards of a full restaurant, is it still reasonable to expect that when someone says "no cheese" that there be no freaking cheese?

Does a company, as a matter of public policy, get to say "our employees as a whole are so incompetant that it is not reasonable to expect them to perform even rudimentary safety procedures"? Do we really want to allow that? The whole doctrine of respondeat superior has been held ot say that no, you don't get to shield yourself behind your employee's incompetance.

I would argue that, as a matter of public policy, we don't let that argument go forward. Companies have requirements to fulfill certain expectations, and they are bound to fulfill those expectations.

I agree in principle, but, having observed fast food workers touch all manner of germ-laden things and then food, I've only ever gotten food poisoning from sit-down, high-end restaurants. So either the US weirdness about placing the kitchen out of view makes no sense (which, if you've dined in Europe, you might reasonably conclude it doesn't), or high-end restaurant workers are filthier than their short-order counterparts, or that fast food corporations have engineered a largely foolproof training system that gets the point of foodborne illness across better than training at the Ritz level. None of those conclusions make me feel any safer.

i still say, way would anyone who wasn't an idiot and didn't have to, WANT to eat at macdognails?

i think they should just pay up and be done with it.
maybe not as much as he's asking. they should cover his medical and throw in a couple of extra grand for his suffering.

but they should be held liable for his medical for the rest of his life. anything even remotely related to the incident. if the circumstances are such as to actually warrent, which it sounds very much as if they do.

let me put it this way, they can certainly afford the hit, and if by some bizaarness it actually brought them down, who the hell would miss them?

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

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.

Wow!

Okay lets get some things right.

Insulting behavour. You started that on me by questioning my reading comprehension, because mind you, you failed to understand me.

Spelling, yeah I have problems with that.

Did you even read the reason I gave you for my repeated asking of the same question? Please show my browbeating and insulting tactics, because I assure you that was not my intent, and if that is what you picked up, I would love to know where from.

You'll note that when I write, quite offten I put in a lili' heh, I do this because years talkin' in these pleaces have taught me that you can't get inflections on words, you cannot sense my emotion, my lil' heh shows you just how seriouse I am an that moment, and points towards how my words should be taken.

Now I'm sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick, and made 2+2=5, but you got it wrong, you got me wrong, and you are wrong to come on with the insults because of your failer to understand me.

Dishonourable to sue. Anybody can make a mistake, he ought to have the good grace to accept as much and forgive; not that such decency has any place in the considerations of many today.

Moreover, he was asking for it. Anybody who has frequented McDonalds even once will be aware that they are supremely incompetant, and that cheese is likely to contaminate most of the materials.

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.

It is a fine line then I guess. Where do we draw this line, you know the one that says our personal responisblity for ourselves stops somewhere and others then become responsible.

All that you say is undoubtbly correct, yes I guess this man will get away with his suite, but to my mind it stinks worse than fish.

As I have been saying, two things spring to mind.

Bearing in mind this line of personal responsiblity if I had his condition, I just would not chance the food in McDonalds, so either the mans an idiot(as the title of the thread suggests) or the man is conning.

Wow I come back here after a good nights kip and find the cheese row still going.

I'm sooo proud of you all my fellow NSG'ers! *sniffle*;)

A bit off topic, but who the hell takes McDonald's food to a movie? That's against theater policy, isn't it?
Yes, yes it is. Though I'm not sure they were in a theatre, but if they were I would like to know how they got in a whole bag of McDonalds.

Also, who thinks McDonalds is the first place to call when some one who knows they have a severe allergy bites into food with that allergen in it?

Who would have guessed cheese was more controversial than religion or politics...

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.


Just a guy in need of some quick cash…

I think some of the posters are off whack here. The guy is clearly an idiot to want to eat in MacDonalds in the first place. Even their so called "healthy" salads contain more salt than a Big Mac ffs.......

Who would have guessed cheese was more controversial than religion or politics...

It's really a thing of people with common sense vs 'lawyers' like Neo Art - it's a fight of where the line of responsibility lies and who and how people should be able to hold other people responsible. The fight against the 'litigation' culture is as strong or stronger than any religion or politics fight.


I see this as obvious bullshit - man didn't check his food despite knowing he had a severe cheese allergy (and food is very easy to check for cheese from McDonalds) and the first place they called knowing he had bitten into cheese with a severe cheese allergy is McDonalds? Besides the fact he is obviously a dumbass, that moves makes it even more suspicious as to why McDonalds should be blamed. Did some one else order a QP WITH Cheese?

Neo Art and some others would have us believe this man is totally innocent of any wrong doing and McDonalds should be some safe haven for food allergy sufferers everywhere. If people like them get their way, McDonalds (and every other fast food and normal restaurant) will have us signing wavers before we receive our food so that we can't sue them for wrong orders and that it is the customer's responsibility to make sure they got what they ordered.

I've gotten the wrong thing at fast food places before, I checked what I got and told them and they replaced it, the end.

Legal case or no, the guy's still an idiot.

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?

My thoughts exactly. If the meals were otherwise identical, one has to wonder if they're just trying to milk McDonalds? :P

Jeromy took one bite and started having the reaction, Houston said. One of the three immediately called the McDonald's to let restaurant employees know they had messed up the order, but had to cut the call short when Jeromy started having a bad reaction, Houston said.

THIS is what makes me very suspicious of the whole incident... Your friend's life is in danger and you FIRST CALL THE RESTAURANT TO TELL THEM THEY FUCKED UP?!?!?!?

I think some of the posters are off whack here. The guy is clearly an idiot to want to eat in MacDonalds in the first place. Even their so called "healthy" salads contain more salt than a Big Mac ffs.......
Salt is actually only unhealthy to certain people, to anyone else it's fine. The trouble is that I don't think it's easy to identify which people will have problems with salt.

Legal case or no, the guy's still an idiot.

Agreed.

And for clarification: McDonalds employees screwed up, yes. McDonalds should pay the medical bills and some inconvenience compensations, yes. But NOT millions. And McDonalds screwing up doesn't mean the guy didn't screw up AS WELL. After all, it's his life. If he's not tired of it, he should have checked, outside the dark room. And double-checked to see it wasn't his buddy's burger he was biting into.

An interesting side-thought: would he have gotten the same reaction if he'd tongue-kissed someone who'd just eaten cheese? Because that opens up interesting possibilities... :p :D

The guy is an idiot and the whole juridical system in USA is idiot. I mean, one had an allergic reaction and now he should have 10 MILLION DOLLARS! That is just insane. A maximum of thousand dollars plus the medical fees should be alright, if it is restaurant´s fault. If one is allergic, allergic reactions should be just normal life (I know from experience).

Now, we have a circumstance here where the customer is saying he took all reasonable steps given that he was in a hurry on the way to a cinema - it's a fast-food place after all.Wouldn't "all reasonable steps" involve examining the sandwich? Even in a darkened movie theater, it's not pitch black, there's still ambient light, to say nothing of the reflected light from the screen. Furthermore, the cheese is typically oily, making it likely to reflect even the poor light in a darkened room.

I'm certainly not saying he deserves what he got, or that he's a con artist, but self-inspection seems like a reasonable action. Even though he mentioned his allergy five times, that final step should be second nature, even with food that doesn't normally involve cheese. Again, this is a slice of cheese, not something invisible like gluten, nut-based oils, or machinery that came in contact with the allergen two hours ago.

And, for what it's worth, cheese is included by default at my local McDonald's.

I'm certainly not saying he deserves what he got, or that he's a con artist, but self-inspection seems like a reasonable action. Even though he mentioned his allergy five times, that final step should be second nature, even with food that doesn't normally involve cheese. Again, this is a slice of cheese, not something invisible like gluten, nut-based oils, or machinery that came in contact with the allergen two hours ago.
But I thought cheese was some expert assassin that snuck up while you wern't looking and jumped in your mouth.

Wouldn't "all reasonable steps" involve examining the sandwich? Even in a darkened movie theater, it's not pitch black, there's still ambient light, to say nothing of the reflected light from the screen. Furthermore, the cheese is typically oily, making it likely to reflect even the poor light in a darkened room.

I'm certainly not saying he deserves what he got, or that he's a con artist, but self-inspection seems like a reasonable action. Even though he mentioned his allergy five times, that final step should be second nature, even with food that doesn't normally involve cheese. Again, this is a slice of cheese, not something invisible like gluten, nut-based oils, or machinery that came in contact with the allergen two hours ago.

And, for what it's worth, cheese is included by default at my local McDonald's.

I've made assumptions on this as well for what it's worth, on these exact points as well, but...

Nowhere does it say a cinema, it says watching 'a movie in a darkened room' - I'd almost have to say it wasn't a cinema otherwise they'd have said it. Does this change things much? Possibly not but...

Second, nowhere does it say that he got a QP with cheese instead, it says there was melted cheese inside. Given the disparities in McDs QPs, although my own also comes with cheese by default - I have to wonder whether the staff simply whipped out the cheese from a pre-made, leaving traces inside.

So there's a lot of assumptions here but in the end, technically, he made a clear order. They should be held liable if they disregarded that order, whether by a systematic fault in the ordering process, or by wilful stupidity on behalf of the employees.

Finally, he had a mild reaction first, whereupon the friend or mother called McDonalds to shout at them - fair enough - they cut the call off at the point where the reaction was bad enough that it meant taking him to a hospital.

In the end, why should a restuarant be able to get away with simply ignoring a pointed request - because hey, it's his responsibility no? - to the endangerment of someone else.

Anyway, ultimately we've had 22+ pages on extremely scant details but, well it's been a change from the usual debate points.

I think there is something to be said for that. Yeah the amount is obscene. Yeah the guy was probably stupid. Yeah he should have checked. Yeah it might be an attempt to get some money. Yeah there are a whole lot of random things that seem off about the whole thing.

But, if the story is true, McDonald's, after multiple requests, after multiple confirmations, served someone something that could have killed him.

And I think that's the most important part of this. That's the part that really needs to be emphasized. He asked them not to, and they did it anyway, because they just didn't care. He had a fatal allergy, and they didn't care.

And we don't allow this in our society. We don't accept this. We don't say that you get to not care. You open a business in america, that business comes with certain responsibilities.

And no matter how bizaare we think the claim, no matter how irresponsible we think the family, no matter how obscene we think the value sought, we have had enough people here talk about how often their order got screwed up to believe that yes, it's certainly possible that at least that part of it is true.

And if it is true, it means that this company was given a specific request to make important dietary accomodations, they agreed to, and they just didnt' care. And they shouldn't get not to care.
Agreed 100%.

It's like I tell my girls, you are responsible for your own health, meaning if they ask someone if something is gluten free and the person says "probably" that's a sign they should stay the hell away from it. However, we can't be responsible for other people's irresponsibility, if they ask me or their dad if it's gluten free and we say "yeah" and it's not, it's our fault they are sick, because we know better.

Not in America. Keep in mind McDonald was sued for millions of dollars because some one spilled McDonalds hot coffee on themselves while trying to drink it in a moving car.

WRONG.
I suggest you actually look up the Stella Liebeck case.

Here, for the lazy: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.atla.org/PressRoom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx

It's really a thing of people with common sense vs 'lawyers' like Neo Art - it's a fight of where the line of responsibility lies and who and how people should be able to hold other people responsible. The fight against the 'litigation' culture is as strong or stronger than any religion or politics fight.


I see this as obvious bullshit - man didn't check his food despite knowing he had a severe cheese allergy (and food is very easy to check for cheese from McDonalds) and the first place they called knowing he had bitten into cheese with a severe cheese allergy is McDonalds? Besides the fact he is obviously a dumbass, that moves makes it even more suspicious as to why McDonalds should be blamed. Did some one else order a QP WITH Cheese?

Neo Art and some others would have us believe this man is totally innocent of any wrong doing and McDonalds should be some safe haven for food allergy sufferers everywhere. If people like them get their way, McDonalds (and every other fast food and normal restaurant) will have us signing wavers before we receive our food so that we can't sue them for wrong orders and that it is the customer's responsibility to make sure they got what they ordered.

I've gotten the wrong thing at fast food places before, I checked what I got and told them and they replaced it, the end.

And yet again: the menu item is Quarter Pounder with Cheese (at least in some places). You MUST state you want a Quarter Pounder WITHOUT CHEESE to get a cheeseless one, in some places.

See links above, as well as post from person who actually WORKED in McDonald's earlier in this thread.

Wow!

Okay lets get some things right.

Insulting behavour. You started that on me by questioning my reading comprehension, because mind you, you failed to understand me.

Spelling, yeah I have problems with that.

Did you even read the reason I gave you for my repeated asking of the same question? Please show my browbeating and insulting tactics, because I assure you that was not my intent, and if that is what you picked up, I would love to know where from.

You'll note that when I write, quite offten I put in a lili' heh, I do this because years talkin' in these pleaces have taught me that you can't get inflections on words, you cannot sense my emotion, my lil' heh shows you just how seriouse I am an that moment, and points towards how my words should be taken.

Now I'm sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick, and made 2+2=5, but you got it wrong, you got me wrong, and you are wrong to come on with the insults because of your failer to understand me.

Did I fail to understand that Smunkee quite clearly said, "No, I do not believe the man is an idiot" when you told her that's what she actually thought?

Did I fail to understand that you asked her the same question repeatedly when in essence she had already answered you by telling you of her own allergy and that she does, in fact, frequent restaurants that serve food containing them?

If there is anyone here who has made five from 2+2, it is not I.

If I had a fatal allergy, I wouldn't put my life in the hands of some people making minimum wage. Soon we will have to sign waivers so we can't hold restaurants responsible when they mess up an order.

Nowhere does it say a cinema, it says watching 'a movie in a darkened room' - I'd almost have to say it wasn't a cinema otherwise they'd have said it.This is a good point, but still... even if I was at home watching a movie with all the lights off, there'd still be some light around, from the television (or whatever) if nothing else. Otherwise, you'd be watching... darkness. Also, you'd think you'd unwrap your burger before killing all the lights. I know that People Are Stupid(TM), but this seems to be getting to the point of engineering an unreasonable and unlikely situation just so the problem can happen.

Which raises questions of intent again.

Yes, I know, we don't have all the information and are just trying to come up with scenarios; I'm trying to eliminate unreasonable ones, I guess.

Second, nowhere does it say that he got a QP with cheese instead, it says there was melted cheese inside.Well, it seems safe to assume it was a 1/4# w/cheese, but you have a point. As an aside, this is painting the image of a cheese-injected burger. Ironically, I had cheddar wurst for dinner last night.

Given the disparities in McDs QPs, although my own also comes with cheese by default - I have to wonder whether the staff simply whipped out the cheese from a pre-made, leaving traces inside.Ehh... yanking off pickles or tomatoes is one thing, I don't think they usually rip off a slice of half-melted cheese.

So there's a lot of assumptions here but in the end, technically, he made a clear order. They should be held liable if they disregarded that order, whether by a systematic fault in the ordering process, or by wilful stupidity on behalf of the employees.Agreed. They're certainly at fault, and I'm not arguing compensatory damages (and neither was McDonald's as they offered to pay his bill). The problem is the absurd punitive that's being sought. Granted, plaintiffs' lawyers usually aim high on this kind of thing, but ten million is simply ludicrous.

And, sadly, depending on where the suit was filed, they'd easily get it. My own state has an abysmal record in this regard.

In the end, why should a restuarant be able to get away with simply ignoring a pointed request - because hey, it's his responsibility no? - to the endangerment of someone else.Again, I'm not saying they should "get away" with anything. I'd even be fine with a mild punitive ruling. The problem is the huge amount being asked for. Also, the question of how responsible he is needs to enter into the equation.

Essentially: how important is it for him to check his food before eating it, knowing that he could have a fatal reaction to it? How much responsibility is he required to take for his own well-being, and what actions should he be required to take to insure that well-being? It is not unreasonable to expect McDonald's to get a simple request correct, especially after telling them numerous times, and especially after giving the reason for that request. However, it is also not unreasonable to expect him to look at his food before he eats it.

I mean, I don't like fast-food pickles, so I frequently request "no pickles". It's not a matter of my continued existence, and it's not even a matter of not liking pickles in general; I just don't like their pickles. Still, I check every time in case there's little discs of nasty in there. If I can be bothered to check to save myself mild irritation, he should be bothered to check to save his own life.

Anyway, ultimately we've had 22+ pages on extremely scant details but, well it's been a change from the usual debate points.I think the later is the primary reason for the former, personally.

If I had a fatal allergy, I wouldn't put my life in the hands of some people making minimum wage. Soon we will have to sign waivers so we can't hold restaurants responsible when they mess up an order.

If you had a fatal allergy you are putting your life in others hands no matter where you are or what you do. There isn't a 100% exposure free alternative.

If you had a fatal allergy you are putting your life in others hands no matter where you are or what you do. There isn't a 100% exposure free alternative.I mean if I had a fatal allergy to something kind of blatantly obvious, not "peanut particles" or gluten or such. Like say I was fatally allergic to cheese (aka milk proteins), McDonalds food that comes with cheese wouldn't be high on my list of things to go try and buy, even "without cheese," and what's more, I wouldn't trust my life in the hands of people earning minimum wage. This guy is an idiot from start to finish.

Did I fail to understand that Smunkee quite clearly said, "No, I do not believe the man is an idiot" when you told her that's what she actually thought?

Did I fail to understand that you asked her the same question repeatedly when in essence she had already answered you by telling you of her own allergy and that she does, in fact, frequent restaurants that serve food containing them?

If there is anyone here who has made five from 2+2, it is not I.

I'm not going to spend much more time on this, I'll admit I do like a bit of a shouting match at times, but this is getting quite frankly silly.

But really the truth here is that you have misunderstood my intent, and you have misconstrued my words. Let me go through it just once more for you.

I asked a specific question, for a specific reason, I wanted an answer to that question, not one close to it, not a close allogory.

I wanted to know specificly if Smunkee had a cheese allergy would she eat in McDonalds.

The reason I had to ask that more than once was because she did not answer what was simply a yes or no question, and instead choose to hedge around it.

Because of this 'hedgeing' I wondered why she would not give me a straight answer, so I persued it like the type of rabid lawers we see so much of on Stateside TV.

That's about it really, there was no ill intention, I certianly meant Smunkee no ill will and if you read back you will see that I started insulting you after you started on me. Now can we stop this?

And yet again: the menu item is Quarter Pounder with Cheese (at least in some places). You MUST state you want a Quarter Pounder WITHOUT CHEESE to get a cheeseless one, in some places.

See links above, as well as post from person who actually WORKED in McDonald's earlier in this thread.

LOL -- it's summer and I have no life. Or rather, it's summer, I was at the mall. Looked on the McD's menu board and what do I see:

#2 Quarter Pounder with Cheese.
#3 Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese.

No cheeseless option on the board.

But wait, there's more. I wasn't hungry yet, so I wrapped up at the mall, went grocery shopping and decided to hit another drive through MdD's half a mile away.

Drive through menu board: Quarter Pounder with Cheese.
So I order (in the interests of science only, of course.) I was very careful to say: "Let me have the Quarter Pounder meal." NO mentioning of cheese. When asked for the drink order: Diet Coke, no ice.

Guess what I got. The correct soda, iceless, and... a Quarter Pounder with cheese.

No big for me, (I'm mildly lactose intolerant, but a lactaid prevents grief for me) but goes to show that the gent in the original story very well may have HAD to have told them, repeatedly, "No cheese, I am allergic," to have a prayer of a cheeseless burger.

At least, that's how it rolls in South Brooklyn.

Who would have guessed cheese was more controversial than religion or politics...

The French?

LOL -- it's summer and I have no life. Or rather, it's summer, I was at the mall. Looked on the McD's menu board and what do I see:

#2 Quarter Pounder with Cheese.
#3 Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese.

No cheeseless option on the board.

But wait, there's more. I wasn't hungry yet, so I wrapped up at the mall, went grocery shopping and decided to hit another drive through MdD's half a mile away.

Drive through menu board: Quarter Pounder with Cheese.
So I order (in the interests of science only, of course.) I was very careful to say: "Let me have the Quarter Pounder meal." NO mentioning of cheese. When asked for the drink order: Diet Coke, no ice.

Guess what I got. The correct soda, iceless, and... a Quarter Pounder with cheese.

No big for me, (I'm mildly lactose intolerant, but a lactaid prevents grief for me) but goes to show that the gent in the original story very well may have HAD to have told them, repeatedly, "No cheese, I am allergic," to have a prayer of a cheeseless burger.

At least, that's how it rolls in South Brooklyn.

That's how it rolls in greater Seattle, too.

QED on the QPC.

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.

I personally know a twat that sued for that. as if the grape was some clever trap that she unwillingly stepped into.

People slip & fall on ice when its cold and icy out.

Everything that happens is someone else's fault and compensation is due.

Lawyers are destroying nature's survival of the fittest.

I'm not going to spend much more time on this, I'll admit I do like a bit of a shouting match at times, but this is getting quite frankly silly.

But really the truth here is that you have misunderstood my intent, and you have misconstrued my words. Let me go through it just once more for you.

I asked a specific question, for a specific reason, I wanted an answer to that question, not one close to it, not a close allogory.

I wanted to know specificly if Smunkee had a cheese allergy would she eat in McDonalds.

The reason I had to ask that more than once was because she did not answer what was simply a yes or no question, and instead choose to hedge around it.

Because of this 'hedgeing' I wondered why she would not give me a straight answer, so I persued it like the type of rabid lawers we see so much of on Stateside TV.

That's about it really, there was no ill intention, I certianly meant Smunkee no ill will and if you read back you will see that I started insulting you after you started on me. Now can we stop this?

1) It's an analogy (http://m-w.com/dictionary/analogy). An allegory (http://m-w.com/dictionary/allegory)is something completely different. Which begs the question yet again about comprehension. If we're not speaking the same language, it's pointless for you to tell me *I* have problems understanding.
2) http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12962167&postcount=150 This is where Smunkee FIRST says she has eaten in places that can cross-contaminate her food.



Originally Posted by Peepelonia View Post
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

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12962215&postcount=159

You ask about eating at McDonald's with a cheese allergy -- which is asking her in essence what she answered in the previous post.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12962237&postcount=164
Smunkee answers: 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. Translation: I go to restaurants that serve products that I am dangerously allergic to, and when I tell them, they accommodate me. Again, answering the same question with an example of her personal experience with her own dangerous allergy.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12962266&postcount=168
Asking the question for a THIRD time, when it's been answered already.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12962278&postcount=169 Smunkee answers a third time:
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.
So for the third time: yes, she eats at places, and specifically at McDonald's, that serve foods she is allergic to.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12962305&postcount=172 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'?
You accuse her of not having answered the question she has actually answered directly three times: YES, she eats at McDonalds even though they serve foods she are allergic with, and then go further by telling her what she thinks, which is not supported in the least by anything she has said to you or anyone else in the thread.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12962313&postcount=174 Smunkee EXPLICITLY tells you, "No, that's not my answer." and that if he asked for it without cheese it should come without cheese.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12962332&postcount=178 You ask a FOURTH TIME, accusing her of not having answered, when all Smunkee has done in this thread thus far is answer you.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.

Do you comprehend now that asking a question that has been answered four times is browbeating someone? Do you comprehend that your statement that she thinks "God no[,] the man[']s an idiot["] was exactly the opposite of what she was conveying? If not, then the previously mentioned reading comprehension skills and ability to read between the lines are faulty.

Observing that you are not understanding the answers you were repeatedly given is NOT an insult.

Being told that I cannot read between the lines when the timeline above shows that apparently you failed to understand that "yes, I eat at places that serve foods which I am horribly allergic to, even McDonald's" means the same thing as "Yes, I would eat at McDonald's if I had an allergy to cheese" was just plain funny. Dangerous allergy to the food in the same restaurant + affirmative answer to eating at same restaurant despite it carrying the food one is allergic to = same result.

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.
Except that was not at all what she said, that leap of logic was what you IMAGINED her response to be, despite all evidence to the contrary.

It's like asking someone, "Would you like to have pizza for dinner," and when they tell you, "I'd prefer to go to a steakhouse," asking them again, "But do you want pizza?" (Hint: context -- NO, I don't want pizza, I'm telling you I want steak.)

Are you seeing that badgering someone with the same question when they've answered it repeatedly is not good debating?

Are you understanding that telling someone else what they really think is silly at best, offensive and in more serious cases, flamebaiting at worst?

Did you really think that telling someone "Just answer the question" and "Yes or no will do" is NOT condescending and obnoxious?

Was the observation that you either did not understand what was said before or were simply ignoring the answer properly responded to by calling someone "knicker boy?"

Stick a fork in it, it's done.

What an idiot , Most people would still check there burgers even after asking for no cheese. That and the cheese is actually all over the place .. Sort of like melted plastic.
He probably just did this to make a profit.

What an idiot , Most people would still check there burgers even after asking for no cheese. That and the cheese is actually all over the place .. Sort of like melted plastic.
He probably just did this to make a profit.Well, most people don't eat at McDonald's in the first place. And surely someone who is highly allergic does not go there, simply because there is no way to be sure what ingredients exactly are contained in the, ahem, food they serve. The only thing this dude was after is the money he could make from suing McDonald's.

LOL -- it's summer and I have no life. Or rather, it's summer, I was at the mall. Looked on the McD's menu board and what do I see:

#2 Quarter Pounder with Cheese.
#3 Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese.

No cheeseless option on the board.

But wait, there's more. I wasn't hungry yet, so I wrapped up at the mall, went grocery shopping and decided to hit another drive through MdD's half a mile away.

Drive through menu board: Quarter Pounder with Cheese.
So I order (in the interests of science only, of course.) I was very careful to say: "Let me have the Quarter Pounder meal." NO mentioning of cheese. When asked for the drink order: Diet Coke, no ice.

Guess what I got. The correct soda, iceless, and... a Quarter Pounder with cheese.

No big for me, (I'm mildly lactose intolerant, but a lactaid prevents grief for me) but goes to show that the gent in the original story very well may have HAD to have told them, repeatedly, "No cheese, I am allergic," to have a prayer of a cheeseless burger.

At least, that's how it rolls in South Brooklyn.

I would like to note that a Big N' Tasty is basically the same thing but without cheese. Like I said, this guy was an idiot from start to finish.

Well, most people don't eat at McDonald's in the first place. And surely someone who is highly allergic does not go there, simply because there is no way to be sure what ingredients exactly are contained in the, ahem, food they serve. The only thing this dude was after is the money he could make from suing McDonald's.

gee, guess I know a lot of idiots.

I mean nearly everyone I know that has food allergies leaves their house and tries to live a "normal" life.......but I guess we are all stupid now?

oh, and yes there is a way to tell what ingredients are in food at various places, even Mc Donald's.

http://app.mcdonalds.com/bagamcmeal?process=menuitems

gee, guess I know a lot of idiots.

I mean nearly everyone I know that has food allergies leaves their house and tries to live a "normal" life.......but I guess we are all stupid now?
"I'm allergic to milk proteins - something that can be found in very obvious things like milk and cheese. I believe I will order a meal in which a basic component is cheese and trust that it won't have cheese on it without checking."

Yes, that would make you stupid.

"I'm allergic to milk proteins - something that can be found in very obvious things like milk and cheese. I believe I will order a meal in which a basic component is cheese and trust that it won't have cheese on it without checking."

Yes, that would make you stupid.

he claims he asked......repeatedly. If they say "nope, no cheese" and there is cheese, they are the ones at fault.

he claims he asked......repeatedly. If they say "nope, no cheese" and there is cheese, they are the ones at fault.

Them being at fault does not exclude him from being an idiot for not checking.

he claims he asked......repeatedly. If they say "nope, no cheese" and there is cheese, they are the ones at fault.

I do wonder about the asking thing. From what I've seen of fast food, the people at the window couldn't possibly know whether or not there was cheese on a sandwich. They would be able to confirm that it had been ordered without cheese, based on what was in the computer system, but they generally don't make the food.

he claims he asked......repeatedly. If they say "nope, no cheese" and there is cheese, they are the ones at fault.
"I have a deathly milk protein allergy. I ask for a meal where cheese is a part, even though I could have asked for any other meal that did not have cheese on it. I trust in the minimum wage laborers at a fast food joint that my order will be exactly as I asked without checking."

To pretend that he isn't stupid, or even not at fault, is the height of absurdity.


I do wonder about the asking thing. From what I've seen of fast food, the people at the window couldn't possibly know whether or not there was cheese on a sandwich. They would be able to confirm that it had been ordered without cheese, based on what was in the computer system, but they generally don't make the food.
Win.

Them being at fault does not exclude him from being an idiot for not checking.

:p guess not.

I would have checked, I always check, being sick is totally not worth the 45 seconds it takes me to check for crumbs.......

but there are things that could make me very sick that I can't check for, things smaller and more homogeneous than crumbs.

When I first saw this I thought it would end up erotic... ;)

But really what the hell, 10 million! I bet his life is only worth 10 thousand! People that take advantege of this type of stuff and sue the crap out of people should be executed!:sniper:

I would like to note that a Big N' Tasty is basically the same thing but without cheese. Like I said, this guy was an idiot from start to finish.

Where did Big N' Tasty come into this discussion? We're talking Quarter Pounders.... and to be quite honest, I was not aware that that was a menu item until you just mentioned it...

Actually, the quarter pounder is smaller (6 oz v. 7.2), marginally fewer calories (410 v. 460) fewer fat calories (170 v 220)... so no, not quite the same thing.

http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.index1.html

Where did Big N' Tasty come into this discussion? We're talking Quarter Pounders.... and to be quite honest, I was not aware that that was a menu item until you just mentioned it...

Actually, the quarter pounder is smaller (6 oz v. 7.2), marginally fewer calories (410 v. 460) fewer fat calories (170 v 220)... so no, not quite the same thing.

http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.index1.html
Your nutrition guide also lists quarter pounders separate from quarter pounders with cheese...

also, if I ate meat and was allergic to cheese and going to eat at McDonald's, I'd totally order a Chipotle BBQ Snack Wrap™ with Crispy Chicken. It almost sounds edible (as far as fast food goes).

I do wonder about the asking thing. From what I've seen of fast food, the people at the window couldn't possibly know whether or not there was cheese on a sandwich. They would be able to confirm that it had been ordered without cheese, based on what was in the computer system, but they generally don't make the food.

I've worked the drive-thru for a few summers and that is true. But, it is still the responsibility of the drive-thru worker to get the right order from the customer to the grill. Besides, the grill is about two steps from the window and it isn't that hard to check before giving the customer an order. If this guy really was that insistent about his order, I would have made sure, myself, since the guys at the grill can easily mess up an order.

I question how insistent about a deadly allergy he could have been at a drive-thru, though. He claims he said no cheese once at the speaker, probably his order, then four more times before leaving. I'm not sure how that McDonald's is run, but I never spoke to a customer more than twice at the window. Once to get the payment and once to give the food, maybe a third time if it was a large order that took a while to cook (in which case I told the customer to wait inside so the drive-thru wasn't slowed down). I can't believe he found the time to make a deadly allergy clear or to repeat "no cheese" four times, unless he was knocking on the window. If he was going that far to be careful, it just doesn't make sense he would still not check his food later.

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.

Last I heard, Burger King's Veggie Burgers are not actually vegetarian (and don't have to be since they don't use the actual word "vegetarian", I guess).

Where did Big N' Tasty come into this discussion? We're talking Quarter Pounders.... and to be quite honest, I was not aware that that was a menu item until you just mentioned it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_N%27_Tasty

Besides, the grill is about two steps from the window and it isn't that hard to check before giving the customer an order. If this guy really was that insistent about his order, I would have made sure, myself, since the guys at the grill can easily mess up an order.
I don't know where you worked but every place I have seen shit is wrapped and put out to be tossed into a bag. The only people that knows what is actually on it until it is unwrapped is who put it together.

As much as a dip shit I think the guy was, part of me almost wants to see him win because supposing this was real and he did in fact have an allergic reaction to the cheese it would have been from fast food workers being oblivious as hell and most of them are.
Those places have a significantly lower accuracy rate on your orders than any other type of restaurant's, and they think "see ID" on the back of a credit card means "ignore this please I want people to be able to steal my card and use it here". I almost want him to win just to show fast food places that they can't be oblivious any more.

I don't know where you worked but every place I have seen shit is wrapped and put out to be tossed into a bag. The only people that knows what is actually on it until it is unwrapped is who put it together.

I find great irony in the fact that the people who are saying "he's an idiot, how hard is it to unwrap the sandwhich and look at it before eatting it" are the same people who are saying "how could the counter people know what's in it, it was wrapped up!"

So fucking unwrap it. It's a folded piece of wax paper, it's not bloody origami, you can wrap it back.

Your nutrition guide also lists quarter pounders separate from quarter pounders with cheese...

also, if I ate meat and was allergic to cheese and going to eat at McDonald's, I'd totally order a Chipotle BBQ Snack Wrap™ with Crispy Chicken. It almost sounds edible (as far as fast food goes).

Indeed, but as has been repeated here ad nauseum, it is a special order which does not seem to exist on many menu boards and must be ordered as Quarter Pounder, hold the cheese.

I mean, I don't like fast-food pickles, so I frequently request "no pickles". It's not a matter of my continued existence, and it's not even a matter of not liking pickles in general; I just don't like their pickles. Still, I check every time in case there's little discs of nasty in there. If I can be bothered to check to save myself mild irritation, he should be bothered to check to save his own life.

I don't like pickles either, I ask for them to be taken out although often, if I'm in a hurry, it's quicker for me to take them out myself. However, when I do ask for them to be taken out, though I'll sometimes check because it's happened often enough, there are times when I don't, I bite and, sure enough, there's a goddamn pickle. Over my life this may well have happened 20-30 times.

Am I an idiot for this? I think I'm just being human.

Now this guy had an allergy but, honestly, let's grant him the time when, for some reason, if just absent-mindedness, he doesn't check for cheese.

As consumers, we're not held up to be gods of perfection, and if we've asked, then it should be served without cheese. Especially from the person who hands us the product - that is where the fault is for McDonalds lies, that the person handing over the cheese does not actually know and worse, affirms the product despite lacking knowledge.

As to the amount, my answer to that is post 322, I'll link it if I can be bothered but I suspect I can't be :)

As consumers, we're not held up to be gods of perfection, and if we've asked, then it should be served without cheese. Especially from the person who hands us the product - that is where the fault is for McDonalds lies, that the person handing over the cheese does not actually know and worse, affirms the product despite lacking knowledge.
You're being quizzed by some one over and over if the burger he ordered without cheese has cheese on it or not, because he is deathly allergic to it? All you know is it was ordered without cheese. What are you going to tell him? You are going to say "No, it doesn't." and assume he isn't a fucking moron and will check himself.

Are you suggesting that minimum wage workers of unskilled laborer should be held up as gods of perfection?

You're being quizzed by some one over and over if the burger he ordered without cheese has cheese on it or not, because he is deathly allergic to it? All you know is it was ordered without cheese. What are you going to tell him? You are going to say "No, it doesn't." and assume he isn't a fucking moron and will check himself.

Then you should be sued.

Then you should be sued.
For what? Not unwrapping your food and checking for you? The person at the register does not know how the food is prepared. They stick it in a bag, print the receipt, poor your soda, and hand it over to you; that's it. Telling you there is no cheese on the burger because that is what is coming up as what you ordered is a good faith statement based on everything they know. I don't think they are supposed to unwrap your food.

For what? Not unwrapping your food and checking for you? The person at the register does not know how the food is prepared. They stick it in a bag, print the receipt, poor your soda, and hand it over to you; that's it. Telling you there is no cheese on the burger because that is what is coming up as what you ordered is a good faith statement based on everything they know. I don't think they are supposed to unwrap your food.

Then there's a problem with McDonalds order and delivery process - you shouldn't be making assurances to someone if you don't actually know the answer.

Remember there's 2 separate issues here:

1. The general opinion on the guy who, as most of us agree, should probably have checked his food, and:

2. The legal issue of whether McDonalds was at fault in delivering a product, which they knew would cause endangerment, and yet assuring the customer that it was ok, when in fact it wasn't.

If it can be shown that there's a fault in that system, that there's been enough other cases, that McDonalds have encountered this before and yet done nothing to change the system - then there's a good case.

Someone earlier has said that, where they worked, if someone was known to have an allergy, then the manager would need to be informed and take responsibility to ensure the food delivered did not have that product.

That makes me think there is legal precedence on this issue.

So there's a case.

:p guess not.

I would have checked, I always check, being sick is totally not worth the 45 seconds it takes me to check for crumbs.......

but there are things that could make me very sick that I can't check for, things smaller and more homogeneous than crumbs.

True in your case it is hard and would not be un reasonable for you to not be able to check your food completely, in your case what makes you sick is not easy to check though you do it to the best of your ability

This guy very clearly did not check to the best of his ability, not even close

Then there's a problem with McDonalds order and delivery process - you shouldn't be making assurances to someone if you don't actually know the answer.
The people taking orders or handling the transactions are not involved in food making. There is nothing wrong with the process. You would be an idiot to think otherwise. You think you can take orders, handle transactions and put together the right burger at the same time?

The people taking orders or handling the transactions are not involved in food making. There is nothing wrong with the process. You would be an idiot to think otherwise. You think you can take orders, handle transactions and put together the right burger at the same time?

I think, if someone asked me pointedly whether there was cheese in the product, that they were allergic and therefore it was important, that I would double-check before giving them assurances.

You'd be an idiot not to.

I think, if someone asked me pointedly whether there was cheese in the product, that they were allergic and therefore it was important, that I would double-check before giving them assurances.

You'd be an idiot not to.
Who you going to check with? The guy making dozens of burgers between the time it was ordered and when you asked? The computer? It tells you it has no cheese on it. Going to open the wrapper? I'm sure that will go well.

Who you going to check with? The guy making dozens of burgers between the time it was ordered and when you asked? The computer? It tells you it has no cheese on it. Going to open the wrapper? I'm sure that will go well.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's against company policy for any number of reasons.

For what? Not unwrapping your food and checking for you?

For saying something that was untrue, causing someone to be harmed.

The person at the register does not know how the food is prepared. They stick it in a bag, print the receipt, poor your soda, and hand it over to you; that's it.

Then the proper thing to do is tell the person asking that you do not know.

Telling you there is no cheese on the burger because that is what is coming up as what you ordered is a good faith statement based on everything they know.

I don't think you know what "good faith" means. "good faith" does not mean giving assurances when you know you are incapable of making such assurances.

In fact, that's largely the definition of bad faith.

I don't think they are supposed to unwrap your food.

So it would appear that McDonald's has little to no quality control to ensure that someone gets what they ordered, and have little to no procedure to ensure that when someone orders something due to allergies, they are not unduly exposed to said allergen.

In fact, if everything you have said is true, it would appear that there was nobody whose job it was to check, nobody whose job it was to ensure that said check was done, nobody whose job it was to inform him that this was done and, even absent all that, nobody whose job it was to inform him that there was none of the above.

There was little to no quality control and assurance that when he placed his order, that order went through the chain and ended up in his hands the way he asked for it.

And when you open your doors to the public, a public that contains people with deathly allergies, when you don't have basic quality control mechanisms in place to ensure that when a person with an allergy orders something, he gets it that way, that is a problem. That is a REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY BIG FUCKING PROBLEM.

You admit yourself, there is NO system in place, nothing, nothing what so ever to ensure that when a man orders a burger without cheese because the cheese will fucking kill him, that he get the burger without cheese or, at very least, be told that they can't accomodate that order.

Moreover I am continually amazed how people can be so indignant as to suggest that when someone orders a burger without cheese, expecting they get a burger without cheese is somehow expecting some inhuman level of perfection.

Frankly speaking when you order a burger without cheese, expecting a burger without cheese isn't expecting perfection. It's expecting basic fucking competance. And if a company is incapable of training their employees to demonstrate basic fucking competance, then they deserve to get sued.

Who you going to check with? The guy making dozens of burgers between the time it was ordered and when you asked? The computer? It tells you it has no cheese on it. Going to open the wrapper? I'm sure that will go well.

If there's no way I can check, or look to rectify the situation, then there's a problem - I certainly shouldn't be affirming that the product has no cheese - if I am, and that affirmation is wrong, then I'm guilty of negligence - if that's due to the fact that I couldn't check then I should either not affirm or I can ask the customer to check it and I'll replace if it has cheese.

There should be a process here. It's not as if it's extremely rare for people to ask for no cheese.

Who you going to check with? The guy making dozens of burgers between the time it was ordered and when you asked? The computer? It tells you it has no cheese on it. Going to open the wrapper? I'm sure that will go well.

so then, you're telling me McDonald's has absolutly no way of reliably ensuring that one of their paying customes is not served a deathly allergen that he specifically said not to give him? That they have absolutly no reliable quality control mechanism to ensure the safety of their customers?

You know what, that sounds like a pretty serious problem to me.

so then, you're telling me McDonald's has absolutly no way of reliably ensuring that one of their paying customes is not served a deathly allergen that he specifically said not to give him? That they have absolutly no reliable quality control mechanism to ensure the safety of their customers?

You know what, that sounds like a pretty serious problem to me.

since we are on the topic of Mc Donald's and their incompetence did you know that for like 2 years they had their fries on the gluten free list meaning they didn't have wheat, and then last year when the new label laws came down from the FDA all of the sudden they were like "oh, wait! they do have wheat on the outside of them! we forgot!" :rolleyes: I seem to remember them getting sued over that too. Not that we ever ate the fries there though since they are cooked in the same oil as the chicken nuggets and would have made us sick anyway, but I am sure other people with less severe problems did.

If there's no way I can check, or look to rectify the situation, then there's a problem - I certainly shouldn't be affirming that the product has no cheese - if I am, and that affirmation is wrong, then I'm guilty of negligence - if that's due to the fact that I couldn't check then I should either not affirm or I can ask the customer to check it and I'll replace if it has cheese.
You are putting your faith in McDonalds to get your order right but a person who only knows what you ordered and confirms it for you based on the only information available to them, your order, and is trusting the person making the burgers to have made it correctly is negligent? Right. Thanks for showing how bullshit the litigation culture is, you and Neo Art both on this point. "I'm an idiot for putting my full faith and trust in some one else but they screwed up something and I didn't bother checking myself, so I should be able to sue them." No, they just messed up an order, that's it. It is statistically impossible for them not to mess up an order eventually. If people can sue for some one messing up an order, the fast food industry is fucked. You should be responsible for yourself. They messed up an order but you are a fucktard for risking your life on something you could have easily checked yourself.

There should be a process here. It's not as if it's extremely rare for people to ask for no cheese.
Yeah. It's called check your damn food before you leave.

Then there's a problem with McDonalds order and delivery process - you shouldn't be making assurances to someone if you don't actually know the answer.

Remember there's 2 separate issues here:

1. The general opinion on the guy who, as most of us agree, should probably have checked his food, and:

2. The legal issue of whether McDonalds was at fault in delivering a product, which they knew would cause endangerment, and yet assuring the customer that it was ok, when in fact it wasn't.

If it can be shown that there's a fault in that system, that there's been enough other cases, that McDonalds have encountered this before and yet done nothing to change the system - then there's a good case.

Someone earlier has said that, where they worked, if someone was known to have an allergy, then the manager would need to be informed and take responsibility to ensure the food delivered did not have that product.

That makes me think there is legal precedence on this issue.

So there's a case.

maybe, but one thing is for sure, mcdonalds rarely gets an order right at the drive thru, and anyone who has been through there more than once has surely had it happen to them. this guy is no exception. :rolleyes:

that guy is retarted, i hate pathetic lawsuits like that, sometimes i want to be a judge just so i can declare those frivilous, they are a waste of time and cost corporations millions of dollars just cause some dumbass thought he deserved some money

You are putting your faith in McDonalds to get your order right but a person who only knows what you ordered and confirms it for you based on the only information available to them - your order - is negligent? Right.

If you're disabled and specifically ask your travel agent for a hotel with wheelchair access, they assure you it does so you pay your money and then, when you arrive, there's no wheelchair access....

Well hey, it's your fault no? You should have checked for yourself, I mean, there's always the Internet, you could have called the hotel yourself.

No fault of the travel agent because you should expect them to tell you whatever they want to without ensuring the veracity of what they say for themselves.

It's negligence.

You are putting your faith in McDonalds to get your order right but a person who only knows what you ordered and confirms it for you based on the only information available to them, your order, and is trusting the person making the burgers to have made it correctly is negligent? Right. Thanks for showing how bullshit the litigation culture is, you and Neo Art both on this point. "I'm an idiot for putting my full faith and trust in some one else but they screwed up something and I didn't bother checking myself, so I should be able to sue them."

I asked you a question, please answer it. So then, you're telling me McDonald's has absolutly no way of reliably ensuring that one of their paying customes is not served a deathly allergen that he specifically said not to give him? That they have absolutly no reliable quality control mechanism to ensure the safety of their customers?

No, they just messed up an order, that's it.

No it isn't - they assured him that it had no cheese - if they had said 'look dude, we're incompetents so I'd really advise you to double-check the burger because we screw up royally on a daily basis - oh, and remember: McDonald's, I'm lovin' it'

Then they have a successful defense at least.

Yet to respond, on being specifically asked - 'no sir, this has no cheese' - without taking any steps to ensure that what you're saying is true - that's a fault of the system.

No it isn't - they assured him that it had no cheese - if they had said 'look dude, we're incompetents so I'd really advise you to double-check the burger because we screw up royally on a daily basis - oh, and remember: McDonald's, I'm lovin' it'

Then they have a successful defense at least.

Yet to respond, on being specifically asked - 'no sir, this has no cheese' - without taking any steps to ensure that what you're saying is true - that's a fault of the system.

??? where did it state that the staff assured him that his QP had no C on it?

I've had them mess up my order even after repeating it back to me (fortunatly it was more becuase of preference and not health related.)

If I had a fatal allergy, I wouldn't put my life in the hands of some people making minimum wage. Soon we will have to sign waivers so we can't hold restaurants responsible when they mess up an order.

well if your community is changing anything like mine is, the first thing you'll notice is that most of those employees are now mexican, and when you ask them questions a lot of the time they will nod vigorously and agree with anything you say so as not to seem rude, so you should (assuming of course that this is a possibility) considering that even the ones of us that grew up speaking english as a first language, don't listen either, always check your order. I'm sure he knew that too, and like it or not I know there are some people who are not the sharpest tools in the shed, but if he's smart enough to check with a lawyer, he's smart enough to check his bag. I smell con. :gundge:

I think, if someone asked me pointedly whether there was cheese in the product, that they were allergic and therefore it was important, that I would double-check before giving them assurances.

You'd be an idiot not to.

at what time did he declare his allergy?

??? where did it state that the staff assured him that his QP had no C on it?

I've had them mess up my order even after repeating it back to me (fortunatly it was more becuase of preference and not health related.)

Good catch, I admit it's assumption on my part:

Jeromy did his part to make it known he didn't want cheese on the hamburgers because he is allergic, Houston said.

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.

I'm assuming that there's a conversation going on here but I don't know the facts for sure - I'll still say it's fairly implied because he's not just saying 'No cheese', he's explaining he cannot eat cheese either.

I find great irony in the fact that the people who are saying "he's an idiot, how hard is it to unwrap the sandwhich and look at it before eatting it" are the same people who are saying "how could the counter people know what's in it, it was wrapped up!"

So fucking unwrap it. It's a folded piece of wax paper, it's not bloody origami, you can wrap it back.

I don't know about you, but nowhere in the story did he ask the window girl to check his food, and if it was me, considering what I've seen some of them doing with their hands, if they just took it upon themselves to open my food for a closer look, I'd crack some skulls. :headbang:

I'm assuming that there's a conversation going on here but I don't know the facts for sure - I'll still say it's fairly implied because he's not just saying 'No cheese', he's explaining he cannot eat cheese either.
except for two points.

1) the quality of the speakers are not very good. ESPECIALLY WHEN GOING THROUGH THE DRIVE THROUGH, I would double check my order. Many times a Regular Diet Coke turns out to be a Regular Coke.

2) the person taking the order is NOT the same person giving the order to the driver. unless that McD's is really, really small.

back to the point that's been mentioned already. so it's the responsiblity of the person handing the food to open it and check it? Did you know that is a health violation? (snicker... at a fast food joint?)

if they get your order wrong, say... put in an extra/wrong burger, they cannot take that burger out once it's in the package. same with fries. Minimal contact with the food is their working standard. if you insist to take it out, go and watch what they do with that item... into the trash it goes. however, YOU can take it out and show them. then they should be replacing it with a freshly made (snicker) burger.

at what time did he declare his allergy?

When he first ordered, and then to two subsequent workers after that.

Houston said his clients were in Morgantown in October 2005 and stopped at the Star City McDonald's on the way home to Clarksburg. Jeromy Jackson was living with his mother at the time.

Jeromy did his part to make it known he didn't want cheese on the hamburgers because he is allergic, Houston said.

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.

"By my count, he took at least five independent steps to make sure that thing had no cheese on it," Houston said. "And it did and almost cost him his life."

except for two points.

1) the quality of the speakers are not very good. ESPECIALLY WHEN GOING THROUGH THE DRIVE THROUGH, I would double check my order. Many times a Regular Diet Coke turns out to be a Regular Coke.

2) the person taking the order is NOT the same person giving the order to the driver. unless that McD's is really, really small.

back to the point that's been mentioned already. so it's the responsiblity of the person handing the food to open it and check it? Did you know that is a health violation? (snicker... at a fast food joint?)

if they get your order wrong, say... put in an extra/wrong burger, they cannot take that burger out once it's in the package. same with fries. Minimal contact with the food is their working standard. if you insist to take it out, go and watch what they do with that item... into the trash it goes. however, YOU can take it out and show them. then they should be replacing it with a freshly made (snicker) burger.

These questions have been answered before.

In Neo Art's defense, I think, on reflection, that he would not agree with the window girl/boy opening the food - no one would.

Yet that has nothing to do with the issue.

Anyway, I think everything that can be said on this subject has been said.

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.

Hey here's a thought. just to spice up the discussion. considering that he waited until he got home to eat his burger, wouldn't it be a real hoot to find out that his burger was in fact, cheese free and the cheese he ate was from his own fridge, and he just said it was on the burger. :eek: just for laffs.

If you're disabled and specifically ask your travel agent for a hotel with wheelchair access, they assure you it does so you pay your money and then, when you arrive, there's no wheelchair access....

Well hey, it's your fault no? You should have checked for yourself, I mean, there's always the Internet, you could have called the hotel yourself.

No fault of the travel agent because you should expect them to tell you whatever they want to without ensuring the veracity of what they say for themselves.

It's negligence.
If you showed up at a hotel and there was no wheelchair access, but you were booked there then you would probably get a refund and some help to the nearest hotel that has wheelchair access. You would probably also not use that travel agent again and tell your friends that they shouldn't use them either.

Also, this would just cause an inconvenience more than anything.

These questions have been answered before.

In Neo Art's defense, I think, on reflection, that he would not agree with the window girl/boy opening the food - no one would.

Yet that has nothing to do with the issue.

Anyway, I think everything that can be said on this subject has been said.

*nods.* While he may be an idiot. As I said before, I wish him luck with his lawsuit. After all, it's Mc D's responsiblity to get the order right.

Hey here's a thought. just to spice up the discussion. considering that he waited until he got home to eat his burger, wouldn't it be a real hoot to find out that his burger was in fact, cheese free and the cheese he ate was from his own fridge, and he just said it was on the burger. :eek: just for laffs.

If that happened... then Mc D's would have him arrested for Fraud. and the title would be more accurate when calling him an "Incompetent idiot"

wrong. here it's Quarter Pounder - [price] and then underneath it says "with cheese - [price]"

I'm glad I'm not the only one who still knows that. :D

Right.

We all agree he can bring a lawsuit. It's actually not that hard.

Now we're discussing what he would need to win. We're discussing the kinds of questions we would want answered. We're speculating about holes in his story that any decent attorney would look into.

No one is saying she can predict, as a prophet, what will happen with this case.

But it is certainly worthwhile, if only for the sheer enjoyment, to speculate.

Your position here, as elsewhere, seems to be that it is inappropriate or even unethical for us to engage in this endeavor.

I do not think you have proved your case.

it's proven, not proved ;)

I remember one time when I was younger, I was on a cTa bus that was in an accident, the thing that was funny about it was that before the police and paramedics arrived several people jumped on the back of the bus and pretended to have been in the accident.....for :eek: money.

I asked you a question, please answer it. So then, you're telling me McDonald's has absolutly no way of reliably ensuring that one of their paying customes is not served a deathly allergen that he specifically said not to give him? That they have absolutly no reliable quality control mechanism to ensure the safety of their customers?

it's deadly:rolleyes:

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

I call shananagans :fluffle:

it's deadly:rolleyes:

deathly
adj 1: having the physical appearance of death; "a deathly pallor"
[syn: deathlike]
2: causing or capable of causing death; "a fatal accident"; "a
deadly enemy"; "mortal combat"; "a mortal illness" [syn: deadly,
mortal]

Now, do you have something relevant to add to the discussion, or are you going to continue to make yourself look silly?

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.

Ahh ... if Quarter Pounders normally do not come with cheese.. and he said 'no cheese' or 'without cheese' .. they might have misunderstood it or didn't hear it all and just heard .. 'cheese' .. since it was the drive thru speaker. But that doesn't excuse the 2 times he told workers at the window. .. unless these employees didn't speak english, but I've never been to a Mc D's who's workers, that dealt with the public, didn't speak pretty much fluent english.

Sounds fishy to me. He supposedly went through all this trouble to specify verbally numerous times of no cheese... but yet he didn't open up that bag right there at the window and look at the damn burgers? Instead runs off and starts chowing down on it in a dark room? Yeah right. For all anyone knows his burgers didn't have cheese and he wolfed down some frakin cheese-wiz to get some cheddar from Mc D's.....or they just dropped by another Mc D's and grabbed some with cheese. But Mc D's would have a hell of time proving something like that, and not wanting this to linger on they'll pay them (there's another hint of BS to me -- mom and buddy trying to get paid too) off to shut them up.

Now this guy had an allergy but, honestly, let's grant him the time when, for some reason, if just absent-mindedness, he doesn't check for cheese.I think the point is: it's one thing to smack your forehead for being an idiot when the item irritates you, but rather another when the item can kill you. You and I might forget to check for pickles, but the worst thing that happens is we need to taste nasty fastfood pickles. If he forgets, he can die. In a situation like that, it's critical to check every time.

As consumers, we're not held up to be gods of perfectionBut the fastfood monkey is? Again, this is why I'm subscribing to the whole partial blame theory. McDonald's is responsible for the majority of the blame, but he's not blameless. I'd probably put it at 60/40.


so then, you're telling me McDonald's has absolutly no way of reliably ensuring that one of their paying customes is not served a deathly allergen that he specifically said not to give him?Well... let's look at it this way:

He trusted his life to the person at the check-out window when s/he said "There's no cheese."

The window person trusted a customer's life when the recept said "No cheese".

Why is it unreasonable for the person who has nothing to do with food prep to trust someone else's life with the word of the cook, but not unreasonable for the person who's life is in question to trust the person who had nothing to do with the food prep?

Also, keep in mind that it could very well be a health code violation for the window person to unwrap and inspect a customer's food. I would imagine that the person next to a window who is handling money (which is far from any definition of clean) has a different sanitary standard than the person handling food back in the kitchen. It's very possible that the window person was not legally allowed to physically check the food, and thus had to trust the word of the person who handed them the food.

And, again, we don't know how the sandwich was wrapped. Did someone grab the wrong sandwich? Was it mislabeled? Did the victim grab his mother's sandwich by mistake?

While I do not know the extent of this man's contributory negligence, I do know one thing...

you can't tame the white supremacist power structure with cheese!

http://z.about.com/d/animatedtv/1/0/d/S/boondocksHuey500.jpg

But the fastfood monkey is? Again, this is why I'm subscribing to the whole partial blame theory. McDonald's is responsible for the majority of the blame, but he's not blameless. I'd probably put it at 60/40.

Nah - it is 100% McDonalds fault. That however in no way means the man was not an idiot for neglecting to check.

it's proven, not proved ;)No, it's proved.

Attributive vs. predicative. ;)

Or maybe not. I'm pretty drunk right now.

No, it's proved.

Attributive vs. predicative. ;)

Or maybe not. I'm pretty drunk right now.

proven on Merriam Webster (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/proven), see section "usage"

If you're disabled and specifically ask your travel agent for a hotel with wheelchair access, they assure you it does so you pay your money and then, when you arrive, there's no wheelchair access....

Well hey, it's your fault no? You should have checked for yourself, I mean, there's always the Internet, you could have called the hotel yourself.

No fault of the travel agent because you should expect them to tell you whatever they want to without ensuring the veracity of what they say for themselves.

It's negligence.
Could you have possibly found any less of a relevant comparison? Disability access is federally mandated. Can the travel agent assure you it has wheelchair access? Yes because they fucking have to. If they don't, you can sue them for breaking the law. That is not even remotely relevant to a fast food restaurant. I already addressed this and your stupid reply is to make a false comparison. Neither the cashier nor order taker can guarantee that your sandwich will be made how you order it nor will the guy making them know which of the 500 quarter pounders that day he made was yours. It is your responsibility that you get what you ordered, end of story.

proven on Merriam Webster (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/proven), see section "usage"They don't really talk about the predicative participle.

But again, I'm not much on fighting it. When I say "drunk," I mean two bottles of wine, some hookah action, clove cigarettes and two lines of snorted Adderall.

Definitely "whatever" mode at this point. :)

Could you have possibly found any less of a relevant comparison? Disability access is federally mandated. Can the travel agent assure you it has wheelchair access? Yes because they fucking have to. If they don't, you can sue them for breaking the law. That is not even remotely relevant to a fast food restaurant. I already addressed this and your stupid reply is to make a false comparison. Neither the cashier nor order taker can guarantee that your sandwich will be made how you order it nor will the guy making them know which of the 500 quarter pounders that day he made was yours. It is your responsibility that you get what you ordered, end of story.

Way to miss the wood because there's a tree in the way.

The relevance of the comparison is in where the burden of service lies. If you're providing a service, then make sure it is what you say it is, because the burden is on you to deliver.

If you say it's something that it's not, to the endangerment or inconvenience of another, then you're liable.

Federal mandate is irrelevant to the point of the comparison.

Way to miss the wood because there's a tree in the way.
You did that in the first place.

Also, I have explained this twice already and I'm not doing it again.

Federal mandate is irrelevant to the point of the comparison.
No it isn't. You are just saying that because it invalidates your stupid comparison.

The relevance of the comparison is in where the burden of service lies. If you're providing a service, then make sure it is what you say it is, because the burden is on you to deliver.

If you say it's something that it's not, to the endangerment or inconvenience of another, then you're liable.

McDonalds being liable still does not mean the man was not an idiot ;)

McDonalds being liable still does not mean the man was not an idiot ;)

That we all seem to agree on :)

I keep trying to find a quote by Nietzche that I'm sure I'm misquoting in memory - the law is a tool for the weak to protect themselves from the strong - although I take it as an example of his disparaging attitude to the weak, it does say something quite fundamental about the law.

If that happened... then Mc D's would have him arrested for Fraud. and the title would be more accurate when calling him an "Incompetent idiot"

If it could be proven, which it wouldn't be. McDonald's will settle out of court for a few million, guy will be rich regardless if he's scamming them or not. It's cheaper for them.

Aren't there warnings for shit like this? You know, those "We can prepare your meal without ________, but we cannot promise that it will be free of all allergenic traces of _______________."

Way to miss the wood because there's a tree in the way.

The relevance of the comparison is in where the burden of service lies. If you're providing a service, then make sure it is what you say it is, because the burden is on you to deliver.

If you say it's something that it's not, to the endangerment or inconvenience of another, then you're liable.

Federal mandate is irrelevant to the point of the comparison.
Yeah, but no one's going to sue their travel agent for being wrong about that. The travel agent will offer a refund and will probably cover the lodging in a new place as an apology.
Sorta like how McDonald's was offering to pay this greedy bastard's medical bill.

It is your responsibility that you get what you ordered, end of story.

So... if I go on Amazon.com and I order The Joy of Cooking but they send me The Joy of Sex instead, it's my fault? :D Or vice versa?

So... if I go on Amazon.com and I order The Joy of Cooking but they send me The Joy of Sex instead, it's my fault? :D Or vice versa?

Yeah but you'd only sue if it was the other way around ;)

Stick a fork in it, it's done.

Ohh wow again, I was right to call you knicker boy, even if you aint a boy you sure do have your knickers in a twist about this

I really don't know what else to tell you. Lets just forget everything else an concentrate on this one simple thing.

I asked a specific question and I had to ask multiple times until that specific question was answerd. I wanted an answer to that specific question, not one close to it, not one that more or less gave me the answer you asumed I was after, but a simple yes or no answer to the question that I asked.

I didn't even ask you, I was converseing with somebody else, then up you pop insulting me about my reading comprehension, which is why I started to respond to you. I now realise what a mistake that was, I have even applogiesd for any misundertanding that may have occour, just get of my back man!

So... if I go on Amazon.com and I order The Joy of Cooking but they send me The Joy of Sex instead, it's my fault? :D Or vice versa?
Again, stupid comparison.
A correct comparison would be Amazon sent you the Joy of Sex instead of the Joy of Cooking and you called and harassed FedEx because the FedEx guy told you that you were getting the Joy of Cooking.

So... if I go on Amazon.com and I order The Joy of Cooking but they send me The Joy of Sex instead, it's my fault? :D Or vice versa?
No, but you could tell them about their mistake and they'd fix it for you.

Though that's a little harder to mix up.

So... if I go on Amazon.com and I order The Joy of Cooking but they send me The Joy of Sex instead, it's my fault? :D Or vice versa?

It would be their fault that the order is wrong and yours for not looking before gifting it out to someone else.

Suing amazon for emotional harm when you clearly should have looked what you were giving out would be in the "stupid" book in my opinion

Again, stupid comparison.
A correct comparison would be Amazon sent you the Joy of Sex instead of the Joy of Cooking and you called and harassed FedEx because the FedEx guy told you that you were getting the Joy of Cooking.

B.S. The Fedex guy has no way of finding out what's in the package. At a Mc Donald's the register guy could have at least asked the guy who made the food who was what maybe 5 feet from him?

I worked in food service before. I was drive-thru girl.

Customer: does this have onions? because I said no onions.
Me: (to line cook) this burrito is NO onions right guys?
Line cook: shit! no! I forgot
Me: (to customer) just a sec, he forgot, let me get you one made right

before I ever handed it out the window.

B.S. The Fedex guy has no way of finding out what's in the package. At a Mc Donald's the register guy could have at least asked the guy who made the food who was what maybe 5 feet from him?

I worked in food service before. I was drive-thru girl.

Customer: does this have onions? because I said no onions.
Me: (to line cook) this burrito is NO onions right guys?
Line cook: shit! no! I forgot
Me: (to customer) just a sec, he forgot, let me get you one made right

before I ever handed it out the window.
And sometimes the person who does the food preparation lies or forgets whether they did or not because they have too many orders and don't want to make a new one.

Again, stupid comparison.
A correct comparison would be Amazon sent you the Joy of Sex instead of the Joy of Cooking and you called and harassed FedEx because the FedEx guy told you that you were getting the Joy of Cooking.

No, THAT is a stupid comparison.

Does the order taker work for McDonald's? Check one []Yes []No
Does the grill person work for McDonald's? Check one []Yes []No
Does the cashier at the window work for McDonald's? Check one []Yes []No
Are the order taker, grill person, and cashier all in the same building?


Is the person who takes your online order an Amazon agent? []Yes []No
Is the person who fills your online order an Amazon agent? []Yes []No
Is the FedEx guy who is called from the FedEx building to come pick up your Amazon order and deliver it to your house an Amazon employee?

I'll make that one easy for you.

[]Yes [X]No.

It would be their fault that the order is wrong and yours for not looking before gifting it out to someone else.

Suing amazon for emotional harm when you clearly should have looked what you were giving out would be in the "stupid" book in my opinion

I'm not saying anything about suing or harm. Pantless has stated that a customer has no right to expect getting what they asked for from a company.

Does that hold true? If I order X and get Y, is it my fault as he has stated?

Ohh wow again, I was right to call you knicker boy, even if you aint a boy you sure do have your knickers in a twist about this

I really don't know what else to tell you. Lets just forget everything else an concentrate on this one simple thing.

I asked a specific question and I had to ask multiple times until that specific question was answerd. I wanted an answer to that specific question, not one close to it, not one that more or less gave me the answer you asumed I was after, but a simple yes or no answer to the question that I asked.

I didn't even ask you, I was converseing with somebody else, then up you pop insulting me about my reading comprehension, which is why I started to respond to you. I now realise what a mistake that was, I have even applogiesd for any misundertanding that may have occour, just get of my back man!
Way to drop it. If you're going to insist on calling me knicker boy, may I make up a nickname for you?

And I thought the guy who sued because a hot pickle fell onto his lap was extreme. Well you think the genius would have the sense to check his meal, especially in a resteraunt ran by Mexicans that barely speak English. I mean if I had some violent allergy to something I would make sure.

I'm not saying anything about suing or harm. Pantless has stated that a customer has no right to expect getting what they asked for from a company.

Does that hold true? If I order X and get Y, is it my fault as he has stated?

Oh then I got it confused my apologies

As far as your analogy goes then

If amazon screwed up my order (Which HAS happened by the way) and sent me the wrong book my only expectation is for a swift exchange or refund. Thats where my expectations end personally.

Way to drop it. If you're going to insist on calling me knicker boy, may I make up a nickname for you?

As long as we drop all this rubbish you can call me what ya like!

And I thought the guy who sued because a hot pickle fell onto his lap was extreme. Well you think the genius would have the sense to check his meal, especially in a resteraunt ran by Mexicans that barely speak English. I mean if I had some violent allergy to something I would make sure.

Where does it say it was run by Mexicans who could not speak English?

Oh then I got it confused my apologies

As far as your analogy goes then

If amazon screwed up my order (Which HAS happened by the way) and sent me the wrong book my only expectation is for a swift exchange or refund. Thats where my expectations end personally.

But that would indicate that yes, you expect to get what you ordered, and that Amazon.com is responsible for filling that order correctly.

None of us are going to argue that if they send Joy of Sex instead of Joy of Cooking, it's going to cause actual harm (unless, perhaps you ordered the one to be sent as a gift to dear old Granny, and she realized that Chicken Surprise was NOT what she was expecting). ;) But we do expect that in business, if you order X and get Y, the fault in receiving the incorrect item does not lie with the consumer.

It would then be reasonable to assume that if I order a steak Medium Rare in a steakhouse, that Well Done is not acceptable and the steakhouse is responsible for delivering the wrong order.

It would then be reasonable to assume that if I went to Applebee's (as I have) and told them to omit the eggs from my fiance's side salad, because he is allergic to them, that the salad should come to the table egg-free. (It hasn't always in the past, and we've sent it back for a fresh one).

It would then be reasonable to assume that if I order a Quarter Pounder without cheese, and I get a Quarter Pounder with cheese, the responsibility lies with......?

And sometimes the person who does the food preparation lies or forgets whether they did or not because they have too many orders and don't want to make a new one.

And that would make them responsible.

No, THAT is a stupid comparison.

Does the order taker work for McDonald's? Check one []Yes []No
Does the grill person work for McDonald's? Check one []Yes []No
Does the cashier at the window work for McDonald's? Check one []Yes []No
Are the order taker, grill person, and cashier all in the same building?

Is the order taker involved in the making of the food? Check one []Yes []No
Is the cashier involved in the making of the food? Check one []Yes []No
Is the person making the food involved with taking the order? Check one []Yes []No
Does the person making the food know which person the food is ultimately going to? Check one []Yes []No


I'm not saying anything about suing or harm. Pantless has stated that a customer has no right to expect getting what they asked for from a company.
Lies and obfuscation. I am making a point that separate jobs are separate and to say that the person handing you your bag after grabbing a sandwich from the pile and putting it in the bag has no idea what is on the sandwich other than what they have seen that you ordered. Same with the person taking the order. The person making the food just makes the order and is not involved with taking or handing out orders.

Are you going to hold FedEx responsible for delivering the Joy of Sex though the package says the Joy of Cooking and them confirming that they are delivering the Joy of Cooking? They don't know what happened at the Amazon packing plant or in the computer processing of the order.


Where does it say it was run by Mexicans who could not speak English?
In the Petty Racist Daily.

And sometimes the person who does the food preparation lies or forgets whether they did or not because they have too many orders and don't want to make a new one.

So because he's lazy and doesn't feel like making another one is an excuse?

So because he's lazy and doesn't feel like making another one is an excuse?
No, but being swamped with orders and not remembering whether he ommitted certain items from a particular burger is.

It would then be reasonable to assume that if I order a steak Medium Rare in a steakhouse, that Well Done is not acceptable and the steakhouse is responsible for delivering the wrong order.

Exactly - they are responsible for delivering the wrong order. That is it. The end. They are not responsible for endangering your life or any subsequent endangerments thereof. They are responsible for screwing up the order, something they will fix if pointed out to them, and nothing else. If people are able to sue every time an order gets fucked up, say good bye to "eating out" anywhere in America.

Oh then I got it confused my apologies

As far as your analogy goes then

If amazon screwed up my order (Which HAS happened by the way) and sent me the wrong book my only expectation is for a swift exchange or refund. Thats where my expectations end personally.

except there's a difference. Short of mild inconvenience, what damages do you suffer? What injury is there to compensate you for?

When amazon makes an error that results in mere annoyance, you can't really expect anything more than a correction of that error in a timely mannor.

When a company's error results in near death, the concept is a bit different. If you go to a pharmacy for allergy medication and they instead accidentally give you Vioxx and you suffer a heart attack, are you seriously going to tell me your only expectation is that they go "oops" and give you the right pills this time?

Exactly - they are responsible for delivering the wrong order. That is it. The end. They are not responsible for endangering your life or any subsequent endangerments thereof. They are responsible for screwing up the order, something they will fix if pointed out to them, and nothing else. If people are able to sue every time an order gets fucked up, say good bye to "eating out" anywhere in America.

The key difference of course being the allergic reaction. So if I went to a restaurant and ordered Penne Pesto without pine nuts, and they gave me Penne Pesto with pine nuts ground into the Pesto sauce, and I had a reaction, I'd be well within my rights to sue, thanks to their negligence.

Exactly - they are responsible for delivering the wrong order. That is it. The end. They are not responsible for endangering your life or any subsequent endangerments thereof. They are responsible for screwing up the order, something they will fix if pointed out to them, and nothing else. If people are able to sue every time an order gets fucked up, say good bye to "eating out" anywhere in America.

That is a bloody good point. Ultimatly unless McDonalds forced open the blokes mouth, shoved the cheese covered meat into his gob and aided his mastication, then really it is down to the bloke innit!

Exactly - they are responsible for delivering the wrong order. That is it. The end. They are not responsible for endangering your life or any subsequent endangerments thereof. They are responsible for screwing up the order, something they will fix if pointed out to them, and nothing else. If people are able to sue every time an order gets fucked up, say good bye to "eating out" anywhere in America.

If they are responsible for delivering the wrong order, and if that order produces demonstrable harm to you, then fortunately for us, they can be held accountable for that harm, your interesting views on agents working in concert for the same company mere feet away from each other to deliver the product the consumer ordered notwithstanding.

Exactly - they are responsible for delivering the wrong order. That is it. The end. They are not responsible for endangering your life or any subsequent endangerments thereof. They are responsible for screwing up the order, something they will fix if pointed out to them, and nothing else. If people are able to sue every time an order gets fucked up, say good bye to "eating out" anywhere in America.

And once again you demonstrate a complete and total failure to understand even the most fundamental tenants of tort law.

In order to succeed in a negligence claim you need to demonstrate four things. There was a duty, a breach of duty, that breach was a causal factor, and that...what is that mysterious fourth element? That strange and wonderful element that must be proven in order to win?

Oh that's right, injury! Yes injury, that strange concept that says that in order to get money from someone in a lawsuit, they actually have had to hurt you in some non negligible way.

I can not understand for the life of me how you can sit there and admit they screwed up the order, admit that the screw up caused him injury, but remain steadfast in your denial that they caused the injury.

If the screwed up oder resulted in harm, and they caused the screwed up order, well...there's a logical connection that can be made here.

But what I want to know is, if this suit goes forward, how will it magically and mystically transform all of tort law to suddenly allow people to sue, and win, for mere, non damaging annoyances? How does one man bringing a lawsuit because McDonald's error caused him to almost die suddenly allow anyone to sue for any wrong order, ever, at any time, regardless of any lack of injury?

you know, our friend injury who we were introduced to at the start of this thread? One of four required elements in a negligence claim?

When a company's error results in near death, the concept is a bit different. If you go to a pharmacy for allergy medication and they instead accidentally give you Vioxx and you suffer a heart attack, are you seriously going to tell me your only expectation is that they go "oops" and give you the right pills this time?
The company's error didn't result in near death. The man's inability to check his food did.

So, you order The Joy of Cooking for your boss from Amazon, you have it giftwrapped and sent to his house without even seeing it. He opens it to find the Joy of Sex, your boss happens to be uptight about these sorts of things and doesn't have a sense of humour so he fires you (or thinks that you're sexually harassing him/her, whatever, you get fired). You don't get to sue Amazon because you lost your job, do you?

That is a bloody good point. Ultimatly unless McDonalds forced open the blokes mouth, shoved the cheese covered meat into his gob and aided his mastication, then really it is down to the bloke innit!

um, no, and that's silly. If a pharmacist gives me the wrong pills and I take them, even if he doesn't force me to take them, and I suffer injury, his fault.

If my mechanic doesn't fix my brakes right, and I get into an accident driving my car, of my own free will, his fault.

If the company that designed my toaster made a defect so that when I plug it in it explodes, even if they don't physically put the cord in my hand and guide it to the electrical socket, when it goes kaboom...their fault.

except there's a difference. Short of mild inconvenience, what damages do you suffer? What injury is there to compensate you for?

When amazon makes an error that results in mere annoyance, you can't really expect anything more than a correction of that error in a timely mannor.

When a company's error results in near death, the concept is a bit different. If you go to a pharmacy for allergy medication and they instead accidentally give you Vioxx and you suffer a heart attack, are you seriously going to tell me your only expectation is that they go "oops" and give you the right pills this time?
There are no damages because I as a reasonable consumer checked my product as it was easy to see the mistake and I corrected it before gifting it to someone else.

Lets say I was an idiot consumer and gifted my item to my boss and as a result lost my job. Would I have the right to sue amazon as their mistake in shipment was clearly the cause of my un-employment?

The company's error didn't result in near death. The man's inability to check his food did.

So, you order The Joy of Cooking for your boss from Amazon, you have it giftwrapped and sent to his house without even seeing it. He opens it to find the Joy of Sex, your boss happens to be uptight about these sorts of things and doesn't have a sense of humour so he fires you (or thinks that you're sexually harassing him/her, whatever, you get fired). You don't get to sue Amazon because you lost your job, do you?

I cant believe we came up with the exact same fucking example lol

The company's error didn't result in near death. The man's inability to check his food did.

So, you order The Joy of Cooking for your boss from Amazon, you have it giftwrapped and sent to his house without even seeing it. He opens it to find the Joy of Sex, your boss happens to be uptight about these sorts of things and doesn't have a sense of humour so he fires you (or thinks that you're sexually harassing him/her, whatever, you get fired). You don't get to sue Amazon because you lost your job, do you?

Conversely, I order pesto pasta, expressly without pine nuts, and it comes with pine nuts in a manner that makes it difficult to verify without tasting, or difficult to notice before consuming. I eat, I have a reaction, I (in this hypothetical case) almost die.

I'd say this is a closer analogy.

The company's error didn't result in near death.

So it was not the cheese that caused the allergic reaction?

So, you order The Joy of Cooking for your boss from Amazon, you have it giftwrapped and sent to his house without even seeing it. He opens it to find the Joy of Sex, your boss happens to be uptight about these sorts of things and doesn't have a sense of humour so he fires you (or thinks that you're sexually harassing him/her, whatever, you get fired). You don't get to sue Amazon because you lost your job, do you?

Honestly I think that would make a very interesting argument. I think it would be a significantly stronger case if at multiple points you contacted amazon and said "you're shipping the joy of cooking, right?"

But I could make an argument that, yes, you could sue them for being at least contributorily at fault.

The key difference of course being the allergic reaction. So if I went to a restaurant and ordered Penne Pesto without pine nuts, and they gave me Penne Pesto with pine nuts ground into the Pesto sauce, and I had a reaction, I'd be well within my rights to sue, thanks to their negligence.
Not quite the same thing. For one, as I pointed out earlier, a milk protein allergy isn't quite the same as being deathly allergic to some particle of something that is pretty much only encountered cooked into stuff. And another thing is that restaurants make stuff to order - quite literally make stuff. Fast food places throw already delivered stuff together in a couple minutes and heat it up.

Lets say I was an idiot consumer and gifted my item to my boss and as a result lost my job. Would I have the right to sue amazon as their mistake in shipment was clearly the cause of my un-employment?

Again, yes, you probably would.

I cant believe we came up with the exact same fucking example lol
Great minds think alike. ;)

So it was not the cheese that caused the allergic reaction?
As has already been pointed out many times in this thread, a $700 hospital bill is probably a lot less than one would get if one was actually near death. But had this guy bothered to look at his food (something one must even do in a sit in restaurant to know if one's food is not prepared to order) then he would have known that his order was wrong.

Honestly I think that would make a very interesting argument. I think it would be a significantly stronger case if at multiple points you contacted amazon and said "you're shipping the joy of cooking, right?"

But I could make an argument that, yes, you could sue them for being at least contributorily at fault.
At least you're consistent.

As has already been pointed out many times in this thread, a $700 hospital bill is probably a lot less than one would get if one was actually near death. But had this guy bothered to look at his food (something one must even do in a sit in restaurant to know if one's food is not prepared to order) then he would have known that his order was wrong.

That's cute, but that's not what I asked. If his story is true, was it the cheese placed on the burger that caused his reaction, yes or no?

At least you're consistent.

That's generally because I know what I'm talking about.

If they are responsible for delivering the wrong order, and if that order produces demonstrable harm to you, then fortunately for us, they can be held accountable for that harm,
Which in this case is crap. He is at fault. He is deathly allergic to milk proteins and dove straight into a burger without checking it for cheese? Had he checked before he left the parking lot, he would have got the correct order. Had he checked before he ate it, he would not have had the reaction. In both case, he would not have grounds to sue - it would be a simple messed up order, something that happens all the time. Considering both of those and the ease of which people can sue big corps, I wouldn't put it past him to have bit into it on purpose. The only witnesses are his family and the first call they make is to McDonalds telling them they messed up the order after he bites into something he has a deathly allergy of? This has scam written all over it.


your interesting views on agents working in concert for the same company mere feet away from each other to deliver the product the consumer ordered notwithstanding.

I work 10 feet away from the guy next to me, I have no idea what the hell he does. As far as I can tell, the people in a fast food restaurant do not interact within one another in such a way that they always know what everyone is doing and how they are doing it. They are not working in concert how you are asserting, they are working in line. It's a damned assembly line, they do their job and pass it on.

That's cute, but that's not what I asked. If his story is true, was it the cheese placed on the burger that caused his reaction, yes or no?
No, it was him eating the cheese on his burger that caused his reaction. If the cheese had just sat on his burger and he hadn't consumed it, then he would have been fine.

No, it was him eating the cheese on his burger that caused his reaction. If the cheese had just sat on his burger and he hadn't consumed it, then he would have been fine.

alright, fair enough, good point.

So now I raise another question.

Did McDonald's as a corporate entity acting through its employees put the cheese there?

Conversely, I order pesto pasta, expressly without pine nuts, and it comes with pine nuts in a manner that makes it difficult to verify without tasting, or difficult to notice before consuming. I eat, I have a reaction, I (in this hypothetical case) almost die.

I'd say this is a closer analogy.
Closer analogy if the man wasn't allergic to common cooking ingredients that are used in the processing of making food.

You are allergic to ketchup and you ask not to add ketchup. Your burger comes with ketchup dripping off the side. Do you get to sue? I should hope not. They messed up an order but you are the dipshit who risked his life. With ketchup, as with cheese, the consumer has the ability and ease with which to check the served food for that which they are allergic to. They do not have to inherently trust the serving staff or kitchen crew, unlike with peanut particles or pine nuts or gluten.

um, no, and that's silly. If a pharmacist gives me the wrong pills and I take them, even if he doesn't force me to take them, and I suffer injury, his fault.

If my mechanic doesn't fix my brakes right, and I get into an accident driving my car, of my own free will, his fault.

If the company that designed my toaster made a defect so that when I plug it in it explodes, even if they don't physically put the cord in my hand and guide it to the electrical socket, when it goes kaboom...their fault.

It's not really silly. I'm not talking law here. Let me state that the bloke will probably be succesful in his suite, I'm not even talking about whether or not he should be able to sue.

What I am saying is ultimatly whatever is put into your body is your responsiblity. Wether he checked for cheese, whether he didn't, I really don't know, but I can be fairly certian that he put the food in his mouth.

What I am saying is ultimatly whatever is put into your body is your responsiblity.
I disagree to the point that there are allergens that cannot be found by the consumer and thus the consumer must trust who and where they are getting their food. A milk protein allergy is not one of them. You know what milk goes into and cheese is one of the more obvious ones. If the allergen is something that the consumer can easily check for themselves, they have the sole responsibility to not die from it.

Which in this case is crap. He is at fault. He is deathly allergic to milk proteins and dove straight into a burger without checking it for cheese? Had he checked before he left the parking lot, he would have got the correct order. Had he checked before he ate it, he would not have had the reaction. In both case, he would not have grounds to sue - it would be a simple messed up order, something that happens all the time.

In fact, you make a very good public policy argument as to why we should LET him sue.

Because McDonald's can have absolutly no precautions to prevent this from happening. None. They could do absolutly entirely 100% NOTHING to safeguard their customers from allergins. And if another customer walks in with an allergy and requests a special order, one of three things can happen:

1) McDonald's serindipidusly gets it right, in which case, no damages
2) McDonald's fucks it all up, customer checks, notices, doesn't consume it, no damages
3) McDonald's fucks it all up, customer checks, notices, eats it anyway, no suit because you can't benefit from intentionally injuring yourself
4) McDonald's fucks it all up, customer doesn't check, eats it, suffers damages, no suit because "he should have checked".

Congratulations, you've just absolved every single fast food company in the country from ever having to ensure that their customer's allergic needs are met, or informed that they can't be met. Under your...nonsensical situation, either the customer notices, and can claim no damages, or doesn't notice, in which case it's his fault.

Except here in the real world we recognize that it's generally not a good idea to craft legal regimes that leave a company judgement proof for their own fuckups.


I work 10 feet away from the guy next to me, I have no idea what the hell he does. As far as I can tell, the people in a fast food restaurant do not interact within one another in such a way that they always know what everyone is doing and how they are doing it. They are not working in concert how you are asserting, they are working in line. It's a damned assembly line, they do their job and pass it on.

And if someone asks you if he knows what he's doing, you wouldn't pretend you do, would ya?

It's not really silly. I'm not talking law here. Let me state that the bloke will probably be succesful in his suite, I'm not even talking about whether or not he should be able to sue.

What I am saying is ultimatly whatever is put into your body is your responsiblity. Wether he checked for cheese, whether he didn't, I really don't know, but I can be fairly certian that he put the food in his mouth.

but then what do you define as "responsibility"? How am I responsible for it, if someone else legally is responsible for the damages that I suffer for it?

Also, I have no idea what Neo Art is saying but I can safely say I agree with none of it knowing his positions on such things.

I disagree to the point that there are allergens that cannot be found by the consumer and thus the consumer must trust who and where they are getting their food. Milk protein allergies is not one of them. You know what milk goes into and cheese is one of the obvious ones. If the allergen is something that the consumer can easily check for themselves, they have the sole responsibility to not die from it.

Heh okay fair point but the fact still remains, when you eat, you put the food into your mouth. Unless of course for some reason you can't.

What I'm wondering is how a thread on personal responsability of eating at McDonalds has gottan all the way to page 32 over the course of just a few days. :rolleyes:

People can piss and moan that he should have checked his burger, before he ate it, but the fact remains he ordered no cheese, they gave him cheese, he had a trip to the hospital.

Legally he has a claim. If he will get 10 million out of it remains to be seen.









(how much did the guy who burned himself with coffee get because the cup didn't say "hot"?)

but then what do you define as "responsibility"? How am I responsible for it, if someone else legally is responsible for the damages that I suffer for it?

Responsiblity as in, the actions that you perform.

If I gave you a bottle of liquid, and said in here is poision drink it.

If you drink it, I have not forced you, you are the one responsible for raising your hand(which holds the bottle), putting it to your lips, drinking and swallowing.

You performed the actions, you are responsible for them.

People can piss and moan that he should have checked his burger, before he ate it, but the fact remains he ordered no cheese, they gave him cheese, he had a trip to the hospital.

Legally he has a claim.
Had he checked his burger, he would have no claim. Which just adds to the suspicion of the whole thing. Especially with them calling the McDonalds to get the messed up order down as a matter of record.

What I'm wondering is how a thread on personal responsability of eating at McDonalds has gottan all the way to page 32 over the course of just a few days. :rolleyes:

Yeah that is kinda funny, and how heated it has been at times!

(how much did the guy who burned himself with coffee get because the cup didn't say "hot"?)

I am unaware of any case where there was a "guy" who burned himself with coffee because it didn't say "hot"

Again, yes, you probably would.

Yeah I saw your in depth answer

Now do you think it would be reasonable to sue for damages above and beyond the "cost" of un employment (the closest analogy I could come to hospital bills)?

Such as emotional damage?

And I guess another shady point I find in this lawsuit in and of itself is the fact that the two people who drove at high speeds endangering others lives rather then calling an ambulance are on this lawsuit

Responsiblity as in, the actions that you perform.

If I gave you a bottle of liquid, and said in here is poision drink it.

If you drink it, I have not forced you, you are the one responsible for raising your hand(which holds the bottle), putting it to your lips, drinking and swallowing.

You performed the actions, you are responsible for them.

but if you gave me poison and lied about it, my drinking the bottle would be YOUR responsibility, both criminally and civilly. How do we define "responsible" if there's no context about in what ways we are responsible?

3) McDonald's fucks it all up, customer checks, notices, eats it anyway, no suit because you can't benefit from intentionally injuring yourself
4) McDonald's fucks it all up, customer doesn't check, eats it, suffers damages, no suit because "he should have checked".
How do you prove the difference between these two cases? This guy could very well have checked and ate it anyways hoping for a lawsuit and the only witnesses are in on the lawsuit.

Had he checked his burger, he would have no claim. Which just adds to the suspicion of the whole thing. Especially with them calling the McDonalds to get the messed up order down as a matter of record.

doesn't matter. He does have a chance to win. Again, weather or not he gets 10 million is up in the air. He might just be awarded the money spent on the food, hospital, and lawyer(s). Or they might settle out of court.

Just because you think it smells fishy, doesn't mean crap.

Just because you think it smells fishy, doesn't mean crap.
Don't you mean, doesn't mean carp? *tee hee*

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.

Pantless, what is it with you and FoxNews links and Daily Mail?

Did McDonald's as a corporate entity acting through its employees put the cheese there?
I suppose so, but if a McDonald's employee had left a gun on the table, said it wasn't loaded and you point the thing at your head and pull the trigger, is it their fault if they were wrong or yours for not checking?

I am unaware of any case where there was a "guy" who burned himself with coffee because it didn't say "hot"

I remember hearing about a man who order coffee at a drive through, put it between his legs and drove off. it spilt he sued because it didn't have a warning that it was hot on the cup.

Don't you mean, doesn't mean carp? *tee hee*

you're going to pun hell, you know that? :p

I remember hearing about a man how order coffee at a drive through, put it between his legs and drove off. it spilt he sued because it didn't have a warning that it was hot on the cup.
A lady ordered a coffee, which was kept at unsafe tempreatures, stopped in the parking lot to add cream and sugar and spilled coffee all over her lap causing third degree burns. She initially just wanted the medical bills covered.

I remember hearing about a man how order coffee at a drive through, put it between his legs and drove off. it spilt he sued because it didn't have a warning that it was hot on the cup.

It was an old woman.

but if you gave me poison and lied about it, my drinking the bottle would be YOUR responsibility, both criminally and civilly. How do we define "responsible" if there's no context about in what ways we are responsible?

Okay yes in the circumstances that you have laid out I would be leagly responsible, but as I have said I am not talking law here.

If you drink the bottle, your brain send a message to your muscles which moves your arm, bringing the bottle to your lips. Once in your mouth, your brain sends a message to your throat muscles, which constrict and you swallow.

At anytime during this process you can choose to abort.

Your actions, your responsibility.

you're going to pun hell, you know that? :p
No, you totally are for ignoring the potential pun in that sentence. :p

Which in this case is crap. He is at fault. He is deathly allergic to milk proteins and dove straight into a burger without checking it for cheese? Had he checked before he left the parking lot, he would have got the correct order. Had he checked before he ate it, he would not have had the reaction. In both case, he would not have grounds to sue - it would be a simple messed up order, something that happens all the time. Considering both of those and the ease of which people can sue big corps, I wouldn't put it past him to have bit into it on purpose. The only witnesses are his family and the first call they make is to McDonalds telling them they messed up the order after he bites into something he has a deathly allergy of? This has scam written all over it.




I work 10 feet away from the guy next to me, I have no idea what the hell he does. As far as I can tell, the people in a fast food restaurant do not interact within one another in such a way that they always know what everyone is doing and how they are doing it. They are not working in concert how you are asserting, they are working in line. It's a damned assembly line, they do their job and pass it on.

It's funny how these articles from restaurant service organizations acknowledge their liability, and how people have in fact been given damages for having an allergen they clearly told the restaurant they COULD NOT HAVE given to them.

http://www.restaurant.org/rusa/magarticle.cfm?articleID=736

http://www.restaurant.org/store/showdetl.cfm?&Product_ID=517&DID=12

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4185/is_20060704/ai_n16511010

http://foodservice.com/editorials/hollis5.htm

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/jfr/h/2005HB-06770-R00PH-JFR.htm

http://www.leighday.co.uk/doc.asp?cat=995&doc=400
A young woman has received damages from a restaurant chain after their insurers admitted liability for the severe allergic reaction she suffered after eating one of their pizzas.

The insurers of ASK Restaurants Ltd, the national pizza chain, have paid damages to the lady who had an anaphylactic shock in reaction to eating a pepper which was included on her pizza topping. This was despite her having given very specific instructions to her waiter as to what she could and could not have on her pizza.

I think that your opinion is not shared by either those who provide food or the legal community.

Yeah I saw your in depth answer

Now do you think it would be reasonable to sue for damages above and beyond the "cost" of un employment (the closest analogy I could come to hospital bills)?

Such as emotional damage?

And I guess another shady point I find in this lawsuit in and of itself is the fact that the two people who drove at high speeds endangering others lives rather then calling an ambulance are on this lawsuit

Now first, let me say one thing. You asked "could I sue", not "could I win", rather different things. You would certainly be able to sue, the necessary elements are there.

Whether or not you WIN depends on your particular jury and whether they believe that your actions broke the causality chain, and if not were you at least contributorily at fault, and how does that jurisdiction deal with contributory negligence?

Now, with that being said, on to the issue of damages. Assume a jury does find that the book company was at least partially at fault, and being partially at fault is still sufficient in that jurisdiction ot have a judgement rendered against you.

Now I think emotional damages, if sufficiently demonstrated, is a perfectly legitimate form of damages. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to.

The difference here is the punitive damages. Selling books is not really something that creates an inherent risk. Sure they can screw up, and in wierd and wackey situations that screw up can cause damages, and when it does they are at fault.

But selling books doesn't typically come with an inherent danger. Selling food, on the other hand, might. And when you sell food, perhaps you should have a much higher standard of care.

Messing up a book is an error, and if they make an error they should pay the consequences of that error, yes. What I don't get is the feeling of any kind of behavior that is almost "crime like" in its callousness. A demonstration of just pure reckless disregard for human health and safety. That's what's necessary for punitive damages. Not merely "they screwed up" but "they screwed up because they just didn't care.

And I get this feeling here.

Hey here's a thought. just to spice up the discussion. considering that he waited until he got home to eat his burger, wouldn't it be a real hoot to find out that his burger was in fact, cheese free and the cheese he ate was from his own fridge, and he just said it was on the burger. :eek: just for laffs.

Just for laffs, let's hypothesize that space aliens beamed the cheese directly into his stomach.

Because it has as much to do with the facts as given as your supposition.

I remember hearing about a man who order coffee at a drive through, put it between his legs and drove off. it spilt he sued because it didn't have a warning that it was hot on the cup.

you heard wrong. Or at least, this particular instance was not widely published.

It was a WOMAN in a PASSENGER SEAT of a STATIONARY car that got third degree burns on a cup that WAS labled, but was kept at highly unsafe temperatures.

There already was a lable on the cups saying the coffee was hot. That's besides the point.

How do you prove the difference between these two cases? This guy could very well have checked and ate it anyways hoping for a lawsuit and the only witnesses are in on the lawsuit.

that's the matter for the lawyers and the jury.

That is a bloody good point. Ultimatly unless McDonalds forced open the blokes mouth, shoved the cheese covered meat into his gob and aided his mastication, then really it is down to the bloke innit!

Who was given something he didn't order.
Much as someone might be upset if they food a roofing nail in their takeaway fish and chips and managed to tear up their mouth.

Pantless, what is it with you and FoxNews links and Daily Mail?
What is it with you being an ass?

[quote]A young woman has received damages from a restaurant chain after their insurers admitted liability for the severe allergic reaction she suffered after eating one of their pizzas.

The insurers of ASK Restaurants Ltd, the national pizza chain, have paid damages to the lady who had an anaphylactic shock in reaction to eating a pepper which was included on her pizza topping. This was despite her having given very specific instructions to her waiter as to what she could and could not have on her pizza.
And shit like that is why there is such a movement by complete morons to try to reign in the legal industry.

I think that your opinion is not shared by either those who provide food or the legal community.
If my opinion was the same as theirs, I would consider myself an idiot.

Also, I have no idea what Neo Art is saying but I can safely say I agree with none of it knowing his positions on such things.

Ad hominem and admission of ignorance?