NationStates Jolt Archive

What is it with you being an ass?

RO is a donkey?

also, on the "I got fired because I sent my boss a book without looking" bit. It depends on jurisdiction but most places have some form of damage limitation that only allows recovery for injuries that were "logical probable and forseeable" from your conduct.

Is someone getting fired a logical, probable, and forseeable consequence of selling him the wrong book? Maybe not, and some jurisdictions that have this rule the damages suffered are just too attenuated, too unreasonable.

The larger reason such a suit might fail is because the damages were just too unforseeable from the act.

Now, is it forseeable that when someone says "no cheese" that they might be allergic and suffer an adverse reation from being given cheese?

yeah, that seems pretty reasonably forseeable to me.

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.

Good point, I wonder though how easy it is to hide a slice of cheese on a burger, vs how easy it is to hide roofing nail in a bit of battered fish?

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"?)

Stella Liebeck. Findlaw. Look it up.
And for the seven thousandth time, they were liable because they held it at a temperature that was unsafe, they KNEW they were holding it at a temperature that was unsafe, previous customers had been harmed, they refused to pay medical bills for THIRD DEGREE BURNS to the groin (which was demonstrated to be entirely their fault as if the coffee was held at the proper, safe temperature, it would have cooled as it fell enough to leave no more than some temporary redness and stinging.

Third degree burns basically means MELTED skin.

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.

And if you said, "There's no poison in it, it's only beer....."
As they said, "There's no cheese in it, it's only a burger...."

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.
Not really... the probability that he wanted to defraud the company is much higher than the probability of intervention.

Don't you mean, doesn't mean carp? *tee hee*

:D

Pantless, what is it with you and FoxNews links and Daily Mail?

It's not the Daily Mail from the UK. It's a local paper that covered this story -- which clicking the link would have shown.

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?

Did they put it in, for example, your kid's Happy Meal?

And if you said, "There's no poison in it, it's only beer....."
As they said, "There's no cheese in it, it's only a burger...."
And then you look at it and say "This here burger has cheese on it!"
And they reply "No it doesn't!"
And it turns into a Monty Python skit but you were still able to see that there was cheese on it.

And if you said, "There's no poison in it, it's only beer....."
As they said, "There's no cheese in it, it's only a burger...."


Did you just gloss over he posts where I said, I'm not talking about law? In fact true to my nature I said it twice, in two seperate posts.

So bearing that in mind, he is still responsible for the actions that he takes, if you eat, YOU do it, and YOU are responsible for it.

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 incorrectly.

Did you just gloss over he posts where I said, I'm not talking about law? In fact true to my nature I said it twice, in two seperate posts.

So bearing that in mind, he is still responsible for the actions that he takes, if you eat, YOU do it, and YOU are responsible for it.

I understand that, but I'm having trouble understanding how this responsibility manifests. In what ways am I responsible?

Did they put it in, for example, your kid's Happy Meal?
Umm... maybe... I can't think of where that scenario was going.

And then you look at it and say "This here burger has cheese on it!"
And they reply "No it doesn't!"
And it turns into a Monty Python skit but you were still able to see that there was cheese on it.
Does it involve someone whipping the cheese out of the burger and waving it around?
Then the employee says "No, there's cheese in your hand, but not in the burger" or something along those lines...

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.

Oddly enough, the rest of us are.

I understand that, but I'm having trouble understanding how this responsibility manifests. In what ways am I responsible?

That was a reply to Kagee, but nevermind.

You are having problems understanding that you are responsible for your actions?

If you leave the house and shut and lock the front door, who is responsible for performing the action of shuting and locking the front door?

Oddly enough, the rest of us are.

*shrug* and I'm not.

That was a reply to Kagee, but nevermind.

You are having problems understanding that you are responsible for your actions?

If you leave the house and shut and lock the front door, who is responsible for performing the action of shuting and locking the front door?

If you buy a toaster new and you plug it in and it catches fire and burns down your kitchen.....whose fault is that?

That was a reply to Kagee, but nevermind.

You are having problems understanding that you are responsible for your actions?

If you leave the house and shut and lock the front door, who is responsible for performing the action of shuting and locking the front door?

but if responsibility means "to endure the consequences", then if you poison me by giving me poison that i drink, and I sue you, that is a consquence that you endure.

I know you're not talking law, but even to abstract it from law, even though I drank it, you have responsibilities. Moreover it is not so easy to abstract "legal" responsibilities from other ones. Legal responsibilties are merely responsibilities like any other, but enforced by force of law, not circumstance.

Does it involve someone whipping the cheese out of the burger and waving it around?
Then the employee says "No, there's cheese in your hand, but not in the burger" or something along those lines...
Couldn't hurt.

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.

Good argument for the case -- well said. Since the bloke in question could easily have checked, however, I still smell a con.

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.

After some recollection after my last post ("QED on the QPC"), I remembered an incident from my time at McDawdles. Someone came through the drive-thru when I was the mic jockey. He made a QPC "grill" order (McD's terminology for something not on the standard menu, and, incidentally, the last word the people in the back want to hear during any kind of rush) that was fairly complex for McD's: no pickles, no mustard. Without being trained or told to do so, once I handed the bag with the man's order through the window, I said "it's pretty hectic in here, sir, so will you please make sure we got that one right for you?" I figured I couldn't check by unwrapping, but if I posed the request for verification in such a way as to make it look like good customer service, he'd comply and be gone a lot faster than if we'd fucked it up and he had to come back...significantly angrier than when we last saw him.

I assure you I wasn't thinking those exact thoughts. More like "ask him to check it while he's still here so we don't get a "rebounder". In fact, those were similar to the words I used when I was called to the manager's office on my break to be chastized for wasting time talking to customers during a rush. That's why I only lasted six months. A company who lip-services customer service and chides employees who go out of their way to provide it is a company I'll neither work for nor patronize.

That was the kicker -- the guy I said that to checked, found his QPC to be exactly as he ordered it, and thanked me for having him make sure. Odds are, the order was right, sight unseen (we were a new store -- I was one of the first people hired, and the managers were still veterans training us newbies and watching like hawks), but the 15 to 20 seconds it took the guy to unwrap his dinner and make sure it was right saved a lot more time later. But McDiddle's isn't all that interested in their employees thinking for themselves. I understand why, of course, but that manager should have praised my conscientiousness instead of discouraging it.

Some people abuse petty authority because they know it's the only authority they will ever have.

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.

Inconvenience? Doesn't that depend on the disability in question? Also, federal law enters into that picture (PL 94-142, the Americans With Disabilities Act). I'm not sure how violations of that nature are handled, but to the person in the chair, that kind of bait-and-switch is more than an inconvenience.

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

The Boondocks, FTW.

There already was a lable on the cups saying the coffee was hot. That's besides the point.

I may be misremembering, but it was my understanding that as a result of this case, McDonald's and other restaurants felt it prudent to add the warning to their hot beverage cups.

If you buy a toaster new and you plug it in and it catches fire and burns down your kitchen.....whose fault is that?

What lawfully, or who is responisble for perfomring the action of plugging in the toaster?

If you buy a toaster new and you plug it in and it catches fire and burns down your kitchen.....whose fault is that?

Depends if it is visibly broken (IE side removed) I personally would say both ... they are responsible for the manufacture and you are responsible for not being a reasonable person and plugging in a clearly unsafe device

Now if the device looked to appearances to be in good order and in fact had a hidden defect then it is the manufactures fault as you as a reasonable person did not see a flaw in the device

[QUOTE=Katganistan;12968677]


And shit like that is why there is such a movement by complete morons to try to reign in the legal industry.


If my opinion was the same as theirs, I would consider myself an idiot.

Apparent the legal systems of the WORLD are therefore idiots (I selected an article from outside the US to prove it's not just 'sue-happy Americans.) And the food industry. And the victims of products that have harmed them. Because there couldn't be the tiniest possibility that your opinion is mistaken.

What lawfully, or who is responisble for perfomring the action of plugging in the toaster?

who is responsible for the toaster catching the house on fire?

Not really... the probability that he wanted to defraud the company is much higher than the probability of intervention.

As is alluded to in which article about the incident? or are you just pulling this assertion out of thin air?

but if responsibility means "to endure the consequences", then if you poison me by giving me poison that i drink, and I sue you, that is a consquence that you endure.

I know you're not talking law, but even to abstract it from law, even though I drank it, you have responsibilities. Moreover it is not so easy to abstract "legal" responsibilities from other ones. Legal responsibilties are merely responsibilities like any other, but enforced by force of law, not circumstance.

Yeah I get that, but when you asked me how do I define responsibily didn't I whitter on about perfoming the actions.

If I lied and told you that it was not poision and you drunk it, then yes we would both shoulder some responsibily. I for feeding you misinformation, you for performing the action of drinking it.

Do you disagree then that ultimatly you are responsible for your actions?

who is responsible for the toaster catching the house on fire?

Both you and the manufacture of the toaster.

Inconvenience? Doesn't that depend on the disability in question? Also, federal law enters into that picture (PL 94-142, the Americans With Disabilities Act). I'm not sure how violations of that nature are handled, but to the person in the chair, that kind of bait-and-switch is more than an inconvenience.
But it's not really the travel agent's fault. I mean, if every building is supposed to be wheelchair accessible in a certain place then it's a reasonable assumption for the travel agent (who might not have too many wheelchair bound clients) to make that this hotel will have wheelchair access. And at any rate, both the hotel and the travel agent will probably work to fix the problem and get the customer sent to another hotel that does have wheelchair access because neither wants to lose future business.

As is alluded to in which article about the incident? or are you just pulling this assertion out of thin air?
No. We know that people who seek to defraud companies with false lawsuits exist, we don't know that aliens exist, let alone those who wish to harm those with cheese allergies. Thus I'm saying that the probability of the first is higher than the probability of the second.

Think of it like the probability of an electron tunneling through the walls of a finite well versus the probability of finding the electron somewhere in the middle of the well.

I may be misremembering, but it was my understanding that as a result of this case, McDonald's and other restaurants felt it prudent to add the warning to their hot beverage cups.

from wiki:

Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient.

That warning lable has been there since before this case, it was only after though that people started noticing.

Incidently, the day after the case, McDonald's sent out a company wide directive lowering the temperature of their coffee by 20 degrees.

Umm... maybe... I can't think of where that scenario was going.

Well, if the person who puts together the order for your child's Happy Meal puts a loaded gun into it, and a kid kills himself, who is responsible?

Do Happy Meals generally come with loaded guns?

Would a reasonable parent, who knows little Jie Lee has no allergies to wheat, cheese, or anything in the ordered meal, necessarily open the bag to check it?

Do you think the person who put the bag together is going to prison for a very very long time, or that a jury would accept, "Well, the kid played with it, it's his fault... oh, and the parent's, for not making sure there was not a loaded gun in the Happy Meal. Even though McDonald's doesn't sell guns and there would be no expectation that a gun would end up in Jie Lee's hands."

here is what bothers me about this whole thing, besides not checking.

His mother Trela Jackson and friend Andrew Ellifritz are parties to the lawsuit because they say they risked their lives rushing Jeromy to United Hospital Center in Clarksburg.

McDonald's representatives offered to pay half of Jeromy's medical bills -- which totaled about $700. When Houston became involved, he said the company offered to pay all the medical costs.

Seriously, they should of offered to pay all the bills.
But $10 mil for a $700 hospital bill? This is like that woman that burned herself with their coffee. I do believe some of these people see places like McDs as a place to get rich quick!
Who is to say he did not notice the cheese? People have majorily harmed themselves to set up for big pay-offs in the past.
I can see a few thousand, but these major pay-off suits encourage other people to seek far more then proper compensation for their injuries.

*shrug* and I'm not.

And since this is about a lawsuit, one would be OFF topic for discussing things other than how the law applies here?

Or are you glossing over that?

This is like that woman that burned herself with their coffee.

Christ not another one

Well, if the person who puts together the order for your child's Happy Meal puts a loaded gun into it, and a kid kills himself, who is responsible?

Do Happy Meals generally come with loaded guns?

Would a reasonable parent, who knows little Jie Lee has no allergies to wheat, cheese, or anything in the ordered meal, necessarily open the bag to check it?

Do you think the person who put the bag together is going to prison for a very very long time, or that a jury would accept, "Well, the kid played with it, it's his fault... oh, and the parent's, for not making sure there was not a loaded gun in the Happy Meal. Even though McDonald's doesn't sell guns and there would be no expectation that a gun would end up in Jie Lee's hands."
How about a better example.

So you're at a store that sells guns and the shop keeper is showing you a gun, he hands it to you, you ask if it's loaded, he says no, it shouldn't be, you point it at your buddy (who came gun-shopping with you) and pull the trigger for fun. It just happens that the shop keeper was wrong. It wouldn't be reasonable for the shop keeper to expect that the guns in his shop were loaded (that seems like it would be really stupid), but is it his fault because you pointed it at your friend and neither of you knew it was loaded or is it yours for pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger without making sure for yourself that it wasn't loaded?

After some recollection after my last post ("QED on the QPC"), I remembered an incident from my time at McDawdles. Someone came through the drive-thru when I was the mic jockey. He made a QPC "grill" order (McD's terminology for something not on the standard menu, and, incidentally, the last word the people in the back want to hear during any kind of rush) that was fairly complex for McD's: no pickles, no mustard. Without being trained or told to do so, once I handed the bag with the man's order through the window, I said "it's pretty hectic in here, sir, so will you please make sure we got that one right for you?" I figured I couldn't check by unwrapping, but if I posed the request for verification in such a way as to make it look like good customer service, he'd comply and be gone a lot faster than if we'd fucked it up and he had to come back...significantly angrier than when we last saw him.

I assure you I wasn't thinking those exact thoughts. More like "ask him to check it while he's still here so we don't get a "rebounder". In fact, those were similar to the words I used when I was called to the manager's office on my break to be chastized for wasting time talking to customers during a rush. That's why I only lasted six months. A company who lip-services customer service and chides employees who go out of their way to provide it is a company I'll neither work for nor patronize.

That was the kicker -- the guy I said that to checked, found his QPC to be exactly as he ordered it, and thanked me for having him make sure. Odds are, the order was right, sight unseen (we were a new store -- I was one of the first people hired, and the managers were still veterans training us newbies and watching like hawks), but the 15 to 20 seconds it took the guy to unwrap his dinner and make sure it was right saved a lot more time later. But McDiddle's isn't all that interested in their employees thinking for themselves. I understand why, of course, but that manager should have praised my conscientiousness instead of discouraging it.

And yet I don't think anyone here would argue that taking the two seconds to say to the customer, "Would you make sure we got it right" would have absolved them of fault in this particular scenario. Merely saying, "I'm not sure -- you'd better check," would have put the ball back in his court rather than "Oh yeah, there's no mustard on here."

(Incidentally -- mustard on McD's? That's definitely not a New England/Mid Atlantic region thing!)

Christ not another one

I can sympathize. You should see people in science-related threads.

(Incidentally -- mustard on McD's? That's definitely not a New England/Mid Atlantic region thing!)
I thought they always did that?

Granted, it's been a while since I ate at McDonald's, but I've eaten at them in Ontario, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Italy (yeah, blasphemy, I know, I was broke and 16, what do you want?) and they always had mustard, ketchup and pickles by default. I think they might have also had mayonaise.

I thought they always did that?

Granted, it's been a while since I ate at McDonald's, but I've eaten at them in Ontario, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Italy (yeah, blasphemy, I know, I was broke and 16, what do you want?) and they always had mustard, ketchup and pickles by default. I think they might have also had mayonaise.

It really depends on the region. I stopped at a McDonald's on the main highway between Paris and Brussels, and they had ketchup-mixed-with-mayo as a condiment.

...for fries...

......it was actually pretty good....:)

from wiki:



That warning lable has been there since before this case, it was only after though that people started noticing.

Incidently, the day after the case, McDonald's sent out a company wide directive lowering the temperature of their coffee by 20 degrees.

Ok, I did misremember. But this goes to show why the often mislabeled "frivolous suit" was necessary -- because now McDonald's customers no longer have to worry about their genitals (or anything else) being melted.

http://www.personalmd.com/healthtopics/crs/burn3.htm

Yes, hot coffee is supposed to be hot. It's not supposed to melt your skin off.

How about a better example.

So you're at a store that sells guns and the shop keeper is showing you a gun, he hands it to you, you ask if it's loaded, he says no, it shouldn't be, you point it at your buddy (who came gun-shopping with you) and pull the trigger for fun. It just happens that the shop keeper was wrong. It wouldn't be reasonable for the shop keeper to expect that the guns in his shop were loaded (that seems like it would be really stupid), but is it his fault because you pointed it at your friend and neither of you knew it was loaded or is it yours for pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger without making sure for yourself that it wasn't loaded?

In your example, it would be the fault of the person who broke the safe firearms handling procedures (didn't check the chamber to make sure it was unloaded, pointed a firearm at someone else, didn't have the firearm on safe, and didn't keep his finger off the trigger).

This is like that woman that burned herself with their coffee. I do believe some of these people see places like McDs as a place to get rich quick.

I do believe someone else is quoting the Liebeck case incorrectly without knowing the barest facts of it, or the findings.

It really depends on the region. I stopped at a McDonald's on the main highway between Paris and Brussels, and they had ketchup-mixed-with-mayo as a condiment.

...for fries...

......it was actually pretty good....:)
Ah, that does sound pretty good (also good to see that you won't accuse me of blasphemy since you've also gone to a country known for awesome food and eaten at a shithole fast food place). But yeah, mayon on fries = good, ketchup on fries = good, all they need is some mustard to put on those puppies too and they're all set. :)

How about a better example.

So you're at a store that sells guns and the shop keeper is showing you a gun, he hands it to you, you ask if it's loaded, he says no, it shouldn't be, you point it at your buddy (who came gun-shopping with you) and pull the trigger for fun. It just happens that the shop keeper was wrong. It wouldn't be reasonable for the shop keeper to expect that the guns in his shop were loaded (that seems like it would be really stupid), but is it his fault because you pointed it at your friend and neither of you knew it was loaded or is it yours for pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger without making sure for yourself that it wasn't loaded?

How is that at all comparable? Any person knows that guns are always considered to be loaded. Even if the person handing it to you says it's not. Even if it came fresh out of the box from the company. Why? Because guns are dangerous weapons, meant only for hitting and possibly destroying the thing aimed at.

Are burgers understood to be a dangerous weapon?

It would be more akin to the shopkeeper handing you a gun with a cracked magazine straight from the factory, and your hand being blown off when you pulled the trigger -- and it would be the manufacturer who would be on the hot seat there.

I thought they always did that?

Granted, it's been a while since I ate at McDonald's, but I've eaten at them in Ontario, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Italy (yeah, blasphemy, I know, I was broke and 16, what do you want?) and they always had mustard, ketchup and pickles by default. I think they might have also had mayonaise.

I've had them in NYC and never had mustard. (The plain cheapo hamburger, plain cheapo cheeseburger, the Quarter Pounder, and in my never-to-be-repated days of wasted youth, the Big Mac (which I suppose has it mixed into their secret sauce -- but that's ok, it doesn't bug me there. ;))The first time I came across mustard on a burger was a Ruby Tuesday's in Maryland, and it was QUITE the unexpected (and unpleasant) surprise.

How is that at all comparable? Any idiot knows that guns are always considered to be loaded. Even if the person handing it to you says it's not. Even if it came fresh out of the box from the company. Why? Because guns are dangerous weapons, meant only for hitting and possibly destroying the thing aimed at.

Are burgers understood to be a dangerous weapon?

It would be more akin to the shopkeeper handing you a gun with a cracked magazine straight from the factory, and your hand being blown off when you pulled the trigger -- and it would be the manufacturer who would be on the hot seat there.
For this man, apparently cheese is as dangerous as a gun. So perhaps he should assume that every sandwich he didn't make himself is loaded with cheese.

Ah, that does sound pretty good (also good to see that you won't accuse me of blasphemy since you've also gone to a country known for awesome food and eaten at a shithole fast food place). But yeah, mayon on fries = good, ketchup on fries = good, all they need is some mustard to put on those puppies too and they're all set. :)

You've obviously never tried to find a place to eat on a highway in France. It's damn near impossible :D

For this man, apparently cheese is as dangerous as a gun. So perhaps he should assume that every sandwich he didn't make himself is loaded with cheese.

Should he? yes. But McD's is the food expert (yes, even I groan to say that) and either has established safe-handling procedures they failed to follow regarding allergens (see that load of links I provided earlier) or SHOULD have established safe-handling procedures, which will likely be the result of said lawsuit.

Should he? yes. But McD's is the food expert (yes, even I groan to say that) and either has established safe-handling procedures they failed to follow regarding allergens (see that load of links I provided earlier) or SHOULD have established safe-handling procedures, which will likely be the result of said lawsuit.
I'm going to guess that the result of this lawsuit will be different coloured boxes for cheese sandwiches and that's about it... maybe special coloured boxes for special orders?

and she eats the two products from McDonalds that do not have it -- yogurt without granola and salad without croutons.

Not to be a nitpicker, but this apparently is all in the States, yes? Because over here such a thing shouldn't happen - not because people would sue the place for millions but because the food product investigators (don't know correct word in English, sorry) would close the place down until a thorough investigation as to the "why this happened" had been conducted.

And they have wheat-free rye burgers over here - and if you're not allergic to just wheat but all its relatives as well, they also serve glutein-free burgers made of don't-know-it-in-English flour. :)

Oh, and at least over here quater-pounder has cheese as a pre-set.

I'm going to guess that the result of this lawsuit will be different coloured boxes for cheese sandwiches and that's about it... maybe special coloured boxes for special orders?

And even that tiny precaution on McDonald's part would have prevented this -- yes? So if the result of the suit is to add in that tiny precaution, then the suit would not in fact have been frivolous.

most people who are allergic to cheese would also, I assume, be allergic to most or all milk products.

Some people can be allergic to the additives (or bacteria/yeast/whatever, if it's natural cheese) that cause the cheese to solidify, instead of being allergic to lactose/milk proteins.

or even myself, because I have mild but adverse reactions to artificial sweeteners.

Ah, I'm not the only one. ^_^ So far I've gotten diet coke at McDonalds five times, but since the taste difference between the two is very distinctive, I've always gone back and gotten the real coke. I'm not deathly allergic to it, so a mouthful won't kill me, but drinking a full mug would cause me diarrhea or stomach pains.

Yet I wouldn't sue them even if I had to stay up all night and miss school/work the next day due to needing to sit tight in the toilet. I'd let them know, of course, but suing would be a waste of time. :p

Not to be a nitpicker, but this apparently is all in the States, yes? Because over here such a thing shouldn't happen - not because people would sue the place for millions but because the food product investigators (don't know correct word in English, sorry) would close the place down until a thorough investigation as to the "why this happened" had been conducted.

And they have wheat-free rye burgers over here - and if you're not allergic to just wheat but all its relatives as well, they also serve glutein-free burgers made of don't-know-it-in-English flour. :)

Oh, and at least over here quater-pounder has cheese as a pre-set.

In many places this appears to be the case. :D Maybe next time I am near a McDonald's where I am, I will take a picture of the menu board so that the doubting Thomases who are lucky enough to have two separate items on their menu see that in order places, they do not appear.

And even that tiny precaution on McDonald's part would have prevented this -- yes?
Probably. Although maybe the order without cheese might have gotten mixed up with the order that didn't have pickles because they're both in the box that denotes a special order.

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

Frivolous lawsuits in general. Like the one that caused the addition "not suitable to drying pets" to the microwave oven manuals... :headbang:

Frivolous lawsuits in general. Like the one that caused the addition "not suitable to drying pets" to the microwave oven manuals... :headbang:
Or "Caution: do not attempt to stop with hands" to chainsaws.

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

But if he was deathly allergic to cheese, wouldn't he have known his life was in danger when he bit into the cheese? It's rather suspicious that his friends/mom would first call the restaurant (and if they drove to another town/whatever, how did they even have the phone number of that restaurant and how much time did they waste in looking for it - or if they had it written down beforehand, how was it NOT a scam???) and then drive _themselves_ instead of waiting for the ambulance.

Now if one of his friends was a paramedic or they lived like 5 minutes drive away from the hospital, then I'd understand. Otherwise it stinks like "insert your favourite smelly cheese here" to me.

Apparent the legal systems of the WORLD are therefore idiots (I selected an article from outside the US to prove it's not just 'sue-happy Americans.) And the food industry. And the victims of products that have harmed them. Because there couldn't be the tiniest possibility that your opinion is mistaken.
In no way will I concede my opinion is mistaken when it concerns lack of common sense leading to successful lawsuits by said person.

"Caveat venditor" is a crock and if you think it's the law of the land then you are part of the problem.

This is a frivolous lawsuit that should be laughed out of court. The complainant should be fined for wasting the court's time AND my tax dollars. He should have known better than to trust his life in the hands of a bunch of kids who spit in every fifth order of fries. Stupid.

Or "Caution: do not attempt to stop with hands" to chainsaws.

I thought that one was "do not try to stop" with something considerably less suitable... wasn't it usually attributed to a Swedish chainsaw maker, and isn't it supposed to go, "do not attempt to stop chain with hands, feet or genitals"?

"Caveat venditor" is a crock and if you think it's the law of the land then you are part of the problem.

This is a frivolous lawsuit that should be laughed out of court. The complainant should be fined for wasting the court's time AND my tax dollars. He should have known better than to trust his life in the hands of a bunch of kids who spit in every fifth order of fries. Stupid.

Fortunately a court of law will decide that, and not just someone's 9 post puppet.

I thought that one was "do not try to stop" with something considerably less suitable... wasn't it usually attributed to a Swedish chainsaw maker, and isn't it supposed to go, "do not attempt to stop chain with hands, feet or genitals"?
Yeah, something like this.

RO is a donkey?

Mule!

Mule!

half breed. :p

half breed. :p

So true!

All this thread about cheese?

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


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

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

I agree that this man is an idiot. On the other hand, he specifically asked for a meal without cheese. McDonalds did nothing to suggest he would get cheese, so I think he has every right to sue.

I agree that this man is an idiot. On the other hand, he specifically asked for a meal without cheese. McDonalds did nothing to suggest he would get cheese, so I think he has every right to sue.

Indeed. Of course, if I had any place in the actual decision making process, I'd laugh in his face when he told me the amount he is suing for. I'd then say that McD's should pay him the exact amount of his medical bills plus the cost of the order. Maybe a little extra for the "ZOMG! I WAS SCARED!" factor.

And, just to be a bitch, I might even argue that he should get absolutely nothing for being a greedy bastard, but I don't think that would fly very far in legal terms.

Indeed. Of course, if I had any place in the actual decision making process, I'd laugh in his face when he told me the amount he is suing for. I'd then say that McD's should pay him the exact amount of his medical bills plus the cost of the order. Maybe a little extra for the "ZOMG! I WAS SCARED!" factor.

And, just to be a bitch, I'd might even argue that he should get absolutely nothing for being a greedy bastard, but I don't think that would fly very far in legal terms.

I think there should almost be something built into the system ... when you ask for something fucking unreasonable you get nothing or at least a reduced amount down to the bare minimum

I think there should almost be something built into the system ... when you ask for something fucking unreasonable you get nothing or at least a reduced amount down to the bare minimum

I believe that plaintiff's lawyers should have to pay the defendant's legal expenses out of their own pocket if the case doesn't go their way.

They should also be required to pay a fine to the court, in proportion to the money originally demanded.

Of course, I also believe that lawyers should go to jail with their clients.

So true!

All this thread about cheese?

Mule cheese? Gross.

Mule cheese? Gross.

Don't look at me. I didn't make this thread.

But it's not really the travel agent's fault. I mean, if every building is supposed to be wheelchair accessible in a certain place then it's a reasonable assumption for the travel agent (who might not have too many wheelchair bound clients) to make that this hotel will have wheelchair access. And at any rate, both the hotel and the travel agent will probably work to fix the problem and get the customer sent to another hotel that does have wheelchair access because neither wants to lose future business.

So travel agents aren't responsible if the information they pass on to a customer as gospel truth is, in fact, wrong? Why wouldn't an agent call and verify with the porperty about their ADA compliance status (or similar inquiries outside the US)? I'm not saying the agent deserves to be sued, per se, unless some kind of injury or loss of property/liberty happened as a result. That's the problem with many lawsuits -- it's a gross overreaction to a problem that can be far mroe easily resolved with consideration and diplomacy.

And yet I don't think anyone here would argue that taking the two seconds to say to the customer, "Would you make sure we got it right" would have absolved them of fault in this particular scenario. Merely saying, "I'm not sure -- you'd better check," would have put the ball back in his court rather than "Oh yeah, there's no mustard on here."

(Incidentally -- mustard on McD's? That's definitely not a New England/Mid Atlantic region thing!)

It's all regional. We don't have fried green tomatoes in the PNW, but they're on the menu at Denny's-like diners across the South. And they're yuummy. They, conversely, don't have fresh-caught wild Pacific salmon on their menus (unless it's insanely expensive), whereas the PNW is rife with it....and God bless them, too.

I thought they always did that?

Granted, it's been a while since I ate at McDonald's, but I've eaten at them in Ontario, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Italy (yeah, blasphemy, I know, I was broke and 16, what do you want?) and they always had mustard, ketchup and pickles by default. I think they might have also had mayonaise.

The McD's I hit in Kobe, Japan had a "hot dog burger", sushi, and banana shakes. Chocolate's not all that big a deal in the usual Japanese fare. In fact, what looks like a chocolate center is far more likely to be fig paste...and when you're expecting the former when you bite into something, the latter, while nice in its own right, is a huge disappointment.

Frivolous lawsuits in general. Like the one that caused the addition "not suitable to drying pets" to the microwave oven manuals... :headbang:

Yeah, you know there is something very interesting about the lawsuit filed by the woman whose pet died in the microwave because she was never explicitly warned about not putting her pet in the microwave.

It never happened. (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/techno/microwavedpet.asp)

It, like many other absurd cases that are used to point out the stupidity of the legal system do nothing more than point out the stupidity of those who mention them. It is not real. It never occured.

Man who tries to stop chainsaw with his hand? Fake.

Man who tries to rob home and gets locked in garage and sues owner? Fake.

Woman who trips over her own child in the store and sues the store? Fake.

Man who wrecks winnabego by driving into the lake and sues because he was not explicitly told that it would not run under water? Woman who slips on her own spilled drink? Man who sets self on fire and sues because it said "inflammible" which he thought meant "not flamible"? Woman who tries to sneak into a club through a window and falls, suing club?

Fake fake fake fake fake. They are all fucking fake. These don't represent the idiocy of the tort system, they represent the idiocy of people who believe it.

Yeah, you know there is something very interesting about the lawsuit filed by the woman whose pet died in the microwave because she was never explicitly warned about not putting her pet in the microwave.

It never happened. (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/techno/microwavedpet.asp)

How funny, I first heard that story from my tort tutor who mentioned it as a genuine case.

Perhaps I should try and find her email address and pass on the link.

Man who sets self on fire and sues because it said "inflammible" which he thought meant "not flamible"?

I might have to sue you for stalking...without a permit!

So travel agents aren't responsible if the information they pass on to a customer as gospel truth is, in fact, wrong? Why wouldn't an agent call and verify with the porperty about their ADA compliance status (or similar inquiries outside the US)? I'm not saying the agent deserves to be sued, per se, unless some kind of injury or loss of property/liberty happened as a result. That's the problem with many lawsuits -- it's a gross overreaction to a problem that can be far mroe easily resolved with consideration and diplomacy.
If it's the law that this place should comply with such and such standards and they don't then that's not something they should expect.

Also, I'm willing to bet that both the hotel and the travel agent would be very cooperative and helpful when it comes to finding the person another place to stay.

If it's the law that this place should comply with such and such standards and they don't then that's not something they should expect.

So, let me make sure I got this straight. It's reasonable for the travel agent to believe that a hotel has certain accomodations, sight unseen, because they are supposed to have it.

It is unreasonable for a purchaser to expect his burger to have been prepared in a certain way, sight unseen, even though it's supposed to.

Am I getting that one right?

What is the difference between a Cheese Burger without the cheese and a normal Ham Burger?

So, let me make sure I got this straight. It's reasonable for the travel agent to believe that a hotel has certain accomodations, sight unseen, because they are supposed to have it.

It is unreasonable for a purchaser to expect his burger to have been prepared in a certain way, sight unseen, even though it's supposed to.

Am I getting that one right?
It's reasonable for the travel agent to assume this because there are certain laws that hotels are supposed to comply with. It is not reasonable to assume that the employees at a McDonalds will get your order right.

Also, your snopes link + some random wandering on my part brought up an attempt to defraud (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/food/chili.asp) a fast food company.

It's reasonable for the travel agent to assume this because there are certain laws that hotels are supposed to comply with. It is not reasonable to assume that the employees at a McDonalds will get your order right.

No point trying to reason with the unreasonable.

If it's the law that this place should comply with such and such standards and they don't then that's not something they should expect.

Also, I'm willing to bet that both the hotel and the travel agent would be very cooperative and helpful when it comes to finding the person another place to stay.

I'd make that bet, too. Good call.

So, let me make sure I got this straight. It's reasonable for the travel agent to believe that a hotel has certain accomodations, sight unseen, because they are supposed to have it.

It is unreasonable for a purchaser to expect his burger to have been prepared in a certain way, sight unseen, even though it's supposed to.

Am I getting that one right?

Yes and no.

The man in the wheelchair isn't usually in danger of an allergic reaction to an absence of a ramp. Federal law does not mandate that all fast food orders be correct, with the attendant penalties for breach of said law. Apart from those two points, yes, you've got it. :rolleyes:

Also, I don't think the travel agent should say a property has an amenity to a customer if they don't know for sure or have assertions from a qualified representative of the property. It's a phone call, big whoop. Besides, if you're selling this stuff, isn't it your own best interest and the interest of customer service to know as much as you can about it?

Which relates back to fast food. I was shown all aspects of the operation of the McD's I worked at for just that reason. I never worked the grill, but I was taught how to do it.

At this point, we're arguing semantics, and that's really tiresome. I agree the man has a legitimate lawsuit. I disagree that he's entitled to anything beyond medical costs. I'm done.

Federal law does not mandate that all fast food orders be correct, with the attendant penalties for breach of said law. .

Federal law? No.

State law? You betcha. Because, see, when I say, "I want a burger with out cheese" and you say "OK that will be 5 bucks please go to the next window" you and I have entered into an oral contract.

And when he received confirmation that his order was, in fact, what he ordered, and then proceded to pay for it, he fulfilled his end of the contract. At which point they are bound, by law, to fulfill their end of the contract. Once they accepted payment for a product or service they are required to provide that product or service as they have been contracted to do.

Failure to do so is breach of contract, and means they are liable for all damages therein.

Federal law? No.

State law? You betcha. Because, see, when I say, "I want a burger with out cheese" and you say "OK that will be 5 bucks please go to the next window" you and I have entered into an oral contract.

And when he received confirmation that his order was, in fact, what he ordered, and then proceded to pay for it, he fulfilled his end of the contract. At which point they are bound, by law, to fulfill their end of the contract. Once they accepted payment for a product or service they are required to provide that product or service as they have been contracted to do.

Failure to do so is breach of contract, and means they are liable for all damages therein.

And that's what Small Claims Court is for. Good Lord, the LAST thing we need is to have everyone sue. Almost everyone is already too much! If the error results in actual damage more than (what's the Small Claims limit? $500? $700?) the limit for SCC, then by all means, sue in civil court if you can look yourself in the mirror and say you've genuinely lost something that deserves more compensation than what you've lost.

One more time -- I don't doubt the validity of the suit, I doubt its necessity.

What is the difference between a Cheese Burger without the cheese and a normal Ham Burger?

The difference is that in some places, and we've confirmed so far Greater Seattle and NYC, there is no menu item of Quarter Pounder. There is ONLY a menu item of Quarter Pounder with Cheese. (Supposedly, this is because few people ask for a plain Quarter Pounder.)

If you want your Quarter Pounder without cheese, you must tell them so and get it as a special order.

What is the difference between a Cheese Burger without the cheese and a normal Ham Burger?

I'm guessing it's got something to do with the cheese.