Yet another McDonald's lawsuit...

[JJChicken]

Originally posted by: LoKe
Sounds like a plant to me. What better way to make a concrete case than to make it abundantly clear that there should be no cheese, then put cheese on it yourself. :laugh:

I LoL'd :laugh:

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: mugs
"He took at least five independent steps to make sure that thing had no cheese on it" but none of these steps involved looking at the burger he was eating?

The lawsuit covers that, it was to dark to see if there was cheese.

 

[nonameo]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: mugs
"He took at least five independent steps to make sure that thing had no cheese on it" but none of these steps involved looking at the burger he was eating?

The lawsuit covers that, it was to dark to see if there was cheese.

Even then, you could explain the situation to the person at the window and ask them to check for cheese. It can be done without touching the burger.

I guess that isn't as common sense though.

 

[Zee]

Jeromy Jackson was living with his mother at the time.

I stopped reading after that.

 

[Kelemvor]

Gotta love the US Justice System.

Suits like these should be thrown out and the plaintiff should have to pay for the court's wasted time.

 

[Chaotic42]

As a former McSoldier, I can say tell you that talking to the people in the windows and expecting them to communicate with the people making the food is like asking someone from Zimbabwe to give a lecture on Quantum Physics in ancient Sumerian to a bunch of lemurs at the Cleveland Zoo. It's probably not going to happen and even if they tried the message probably wouldn't get across.

As for not looking at the cheese because it's too dark, that's a load of bull. At the very least he should have an overhead car light. Even at night you could see the cheese anyway. It's probably not a good idea for someone who is deathly allergic to two grams of cheese to be ordering from McDonald's. Just a thought.

 

[StageLeft]

Stupid. We all know fast food is inaccurate. If you have an allergy, you're responsible for making sure the cheese was gone.

 

[jjones]

The entire thing sounds like a set up. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the lawyer is related to the family.

 

[Triumph]

Fools, that's not real cheese.

 

[sao123]

he's probab ly allergic to peanuts... thats the only thing i've ever encountered with insta anaphylaxic shock

 

[cKGunslinger]

This sounds like the kind of person who picks up a friend's gun and asks, "Hey, is this loaded?" Then proceeds to put it in his face and pull the trigger, trusting his friend's recollection.

So close to a Darwin nomination..

 

[RedBeard]

"he clearly ordered two Quarter Pounders..."

Well if the whole food allergy thing falls through, maybe he can sue for heart disease...

 

[brtspears2]

I'm pretty sure that even if he ordered sandwiches without cheese, the assembly line probably has some cheese residue. I'm fairly sure that the workers don't wash their hand between assembling a Big Mac and a Quarter Pounder.

Beside, my local McDonalds prints out a special ticket for the kitchen if you order something different from the menu. The ticket, along with a red "SPECIAL" sticker is affixed to the wrapper.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: mugs
"He took at least five independent steps to make sure that thing had no cheese on it" but none of these steps involved looking at the burger he was eating?

The lawsuit covers that, it was to dark to see if there was cheese.

Right, too dark to see? Cant turn on the light in the car, or where ever he was? Too dark to see the cheese, but not to dark to eat? Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[ElFenix]

the thing i don't get: if they had to take the burgers out of the bag to sneak them into the movie theater, why didn't they take that opportunity to make sure that they got what they ordered? and how do we know he didn't get his friend's double quarter pounder with cheese while fishing burgers out of his mom's purse in the dark?

 

[Q]

Originally posted by: pyonir
Um...if you are deathly allergic to something...wouldn't you double check whatever you got visually before just taking a bite?

LOL, "QFT" has never been more appropriate here.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: pyonir
Um...if you are deathly allergic to something...wouldn't you double check whatever you got visually before just taking a bite?

You would think so, wouldn't you? But apparently this guy just bites into it and takes his chances.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

People always trying to make a quick buck.

 

[bobert]

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

this is the best part

 

[OVerLoRDI]

Originally posted by: pyonir
Um...if you are deathly allergic to something...wouldn't you double check whatever you got visually before just taking a bite?

Yeah I would imagine so. This guy doesn't seem especially bright. But if he did make it clear to them that he didn't want cheese multiple times he might have a legitimate case, but 12 million dollars? Way over the top.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: pyonir
Um...if you are deathly allergic to something...wouldn't you double check whatever you got visually before just taking a bite?

*DING DING*

Plaintiff is a fucking moron, if you're DEATHLY allergic to cheese, take another "independent step" and visually check for cheese.

I'd like to see the movie theater sue back for bringing outside food in, funnay of the year award right there.

 

[umbrella39]

"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."

Yes, but he failed the most critical step, visual inspection. Fvck these people and fvck their lawsuit. Sounds more like they were driving around town to the drive throughs waiting for someone to screw up their order so they could go back to a "dark room" so they could make a big mess of their clothing while eating McD's in the dark.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: mugs
"He took at least five independent steps to make sure that thing had no cheese on it" but none of these steps involved looking at the burger he was eating?

The lawsuit covers that, it was to dark to see if there was cheese.

I read that. I'm still incredulous. "He took at least five independent steps to make sure that thing had no cheese on it" - that indicates to me that he didn't have much faith in the people who were making his burger. But then he decided to trust them and bite into it without looking at it in the light first? Or hell, he could even feel the burger and notice the cheese.

 

[AbAbber2k]

It's a shame they weren't all "tragically" killed on their way to the hospital. :roll:

 

[DrPizza]

It's a shame that lawyers and insurance agents for companies ever decided that taking a case to court was more expensive than settling out of court. These people, and people in countless other cases, as well as their lawyers, understand that McD's will probably settle out of court for a few 10's of thousands simply to avoid the costs involved.

Newsflash to you lawyers settling out of court: if you'd actually take a few cases to court and win, people wouldn't be filing these frivolous baseless lawsuits against you in hopes of making a fast buck. And, you'd want someone like me on the jury, because while I thought offering to pay his medical bills ($700 sounds like an in and out emergency room visit where they say, "you'll be fine, but we'll run a couple tests so we don't get sued too") was generous and noble, I'd award $0.

Seriously, if anyone is *that* allergic, they don't even risk it. You wouldn't expect McD's to completely sanitize the burger prep area and make sure there aren't any specks of cheese that could possibly adhere to your burger.