Melkor said:
I hate people like you who try to sue large companys. It really pisses me off. So you go sick from McDonalds food, tough ****. Get over it.
It's because of people like you that insurance is so high for smaller companys.
OK, well that's a helpful response...
Macdonalds has been required by law for years to publish the ingredients of their food, and provide the ingredients list on request- PRECISELY because people with allergies need to know what's in the food they eat so they can avoid -- milk, nuts, eggs, gluten, MSG, whatever they are allergic to. And it's not a matter of just feeling punky, people die from their food allergies.
The issue, legal or otherwise, is that Macdonalds DID publish an ingredient list, and then adulterated the food with other potentially hazardous ingredients without notice to the customers. To make a case, you have to prove not only that you got sick, but that the defendent was negligent in some way that contributed to your sickness. The unlabelled milk ingredients may well qualify as negligence.
There are two ways to force a company to comply with standards of conduct - regulation and litigation. The FDA and local health authorities can use regulation to force compliance. The consumer can use litigation to both get compensation for their injury, and to seek punitive damages that will hurt the company for their negligence (punitive more so in the USA than in Canada).
Example: If you park without plugging your $0.25 in the meter, your fine isn't $0.25, it is $35.00, to slap you upside the head that you don't do it again and disincent someone else from cheating. Same principle. Now this has been taken to extremes -- class action suits because of plastic audio players that scratch -- but a lawsuit - or a class action lawsuit where large numbers of plaintiffs pool their complaints and resources against a defendent - is an entrenched principle of the Western system.
