~Shard~ said:Let me get this straight - it took you 13 years to figure out what was making you sick?!?
Darwin wrote a theory 'bout that...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Need Help Suing McDonalds!
- Thread starter skoker
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Darwin wrote a theory 'bout that...
L
Lau
Guest
~Shard~ said:I appreciate this from a legal perspective, and see what you're saying, however I still make the case that whether it's eating fast food, smoking, whatever, the fact still remains that, the law aside, the person should not be engaging in those activites in the first place if they actually care about their own health and well-being.
So it would be ok to sue if a so called "high class" restaurant failed to disclose a potential allergy ingredient in their food, it's just not if it's in fast food 'cause it's killing you anyway, right?
Onizuka said:
I find it more ... disingenuous.
What would be the purpose of such a lawsuit? If you want McDonald's to
skoker said:
then it seems your interest is not a larger social good nor the betterment of your own health, but potential profit.
Good for your parents, though. Not for teaching you to sue your way out of your problems, but for forcing you to indepedently seek solutions to real life problems ...
As the parent of a 5 year old with bad milk and peanut allergies, I sympathize, but we have no intent to sue. I would suggest simply not eating there again, particularly if you have had a bad reaction. There is enough dairy in a McD's between all the cheeseburgers, McFlurry's, shakes, etc... that you could probably have a reaction just from being in the place having a Coke.
Note that McD fries and Pizza Hut "vegeterian" pizza have both been busted for using beef derived flavorings a number of years back. http://www.pizzamarketplace.com/news_story_12374.htm
My rant: It would really be nice if companies would standardize on an ALLERGY WARNING format, position and content. Some companies are getting smart and bolding potential allergens in the ingredients, while others are adding "Contains milk" to the "Processed in a plan that also processes milk, tree nuts and peanuts." What irritates me the most is when the have that warning on product that actually contains one of those things, like peanut butter. Ingredients: Peanuts. Processed in a plant that also processes peanuts.
Dairy derived ingredients aren't aways called "Milk", Whey, Casein and Sodium Caseinate are very common ingredients in lots of food that can sometimes cause a reaction in some people. In general however, my son doesn't have a reaction to McD fries or baked goods that may once have contained milk derived products as the proteins have been broken down and thus no longer cause a reaction. We still avoid these foods, but a few fries (i.e. 4-5 fries not even close to a small size portion) now and then are not an issue.
B
Note that McD fries and Pizza Hut "vegeterian" pizza have both been busted for using beef derived flavorings a number of years back. http://www.pizzamarketplace.com/news_story_12374.htm
My rant: It would really be nice if companies would standardize on an ALLERGY WARNING format, position and content. Some companies are getting smart and bolding potential allergens in the ingredients, while others are adding "Contains milk" to the "Processed in a plan that also processes milk, tree nuts and peanuts." What irritates me the most is when the have that warning on product that actually contains one of those things, like peanut butter. Ingredients: Peanuts. Processed in a plant that also processes peanuts.
Dairy derived ingredients aren't aways called "Milk", Whey, Casein and Sodium Caseinate are very common ingredients in lots of food that can sometimes cause a reaction in some people. In general however, my son doesn't have a reaction to McD fries or baked goods that may once have contained milk derived products as the proteins have been broken down and thus no longer cause a reaction. We still avoid these foods, but a few fries (i.e. 4-5 fries not even close to a small size portion) now and then are not an issue.
B
My guess, based on the general principles of tort liability is that you would have a case. At least, that is what I would say on an exam if these facts were presented to me. In no way is my opining legal advice or anything similar, nor should it be regarded as such (5 month until the bar - I ain't taking any chances...)
Duty - McD owes each customer a duty to disclose the ingredients in its products, but only as far as directed by law. A reasonable person would not have a case if McD failed to disclose that there are potatoes in the fries. Milk on the other hand is something that a reasonable person would not expect to be ingesting when consuming fries.
Breach - McD failed to disclose milk was used in the process of producing its fries. Not only was this a breach of FDA regulations (I assume that they are regulations), but it placed the reasonable person in a situation in which he was unaware of a potentially lethal substance. You take your tort vics as you find them
Causation - McD did not disclose that there was milk in the fries. Was there enough milk in the fries to cause S to go to the hospital? Was anything else that might have contributed or caused it to happen consumed? There must be a showing that McD's failure to disclose milk led S to believe that there was no allergenic harm in consuming the fries and that the consumption of the fries led to his going to the hospital
Harm - McD, if they were the cause of the trip(s) to the hospital did cause harm and S should be compensated for that harm. However, his insurance provider will stand as the assignee to receive compensation that is designated as being medically related. Any punitive damages that are awarded would be based on the egregiousness of the error. Here, failure to disclose a common allergy should net punitive damages. Additionally, McD failing to disclose allergenic substances places the public at risk, and should be disclosed. McD should be enjoined to disclose all allergenic content in their food.
Is eating McD food bad? Yes. Should it put you in the hospital b/c you didn't know about the allergy? No. Did you eat fries after you found out about the milk? That may have an effect on your case.
Remember - would a reasonable person eat a food that contained an allergenic substance if they knew about the substance? Probably not. Would a reasonable person expect milk in their fries? Probably not...
)Duty - McD owes each customer a duty to disclose the ingredients in its products, but only as far as directed by law. A reasonable person would not have a case if McD failed to disclose that there are potatoes in the fries. Milk on the other hand is something that a reasonable person would not expect to be ingesting when consuming fries.
Breach - McD failed to disclose milk was used in the process of producing its fries. Not only was this a breach of FDA regulations (I assume that they are regulations), but it placed the reasonable person in a situation in which he was unaware of a potentially lethal substance. You take your tort vics as you find them
Causation - McD did not disclose that there was milk in the fries. Was there enough milk in the fries to cause S to go to the hospital? Was anything else that might have contributed or caused it to happen consumed? There must be a showing that McD's failure to disclose milk led S to believe that there was no allergenic harm in consuming the fries and that the consumption of the fries led to his going to the hospital
Harm - McD, if they were the cause of the trip(s) to the hospital did cause harm and S should be compensated for that harm. However, his insurance provider will stand as the assignee to receive compensation that is designated as being medically related. Any punitive damages that are awarded would be based on the egregiousness of the error. Here, failure to disclose a common allergy should net punitive damages. Additionally, McD failing to disclose allergenic substances places the public at risk, and should be disclosed. McD should be enjoined to disclose all allergenic content in their food.
Is eating McD food bad? Yes. Should it put you in the hospital b/c you didn't know about the allergy? No. Did you eat fries after you found out about the milk? That may have an effect on your case.
Remember - would a reasonable person eat a food that contained an allergenic substance if they knew about the substance? Probably not. Would a reasonable person expect milk in their fries? Probably not...
Lau said:
I think they should disclose it only if you request it. Other than that it's "eat at your own risk."
And RAM, I see where you're coming from, but come on. We've known for YEARS how unhealthy smoking is. We've also known for YEARS that McDonald's is kibbles n bits for people.
I don't know every ingrediant in a cigarette, nor do I care. I still won't sue them if I get cancer. Why? Because I chose to smoke. Whether I'm addicted not is not the question. If I truly wanted to, I could quit.
People can also NOT eat McDonalds. Sorry, but I used to eat the sh*t almost every day when I was doing high end audio/video because it was cheap and fast. But after seeing how crappy my health was, and feeling tired all of the time, I narrowed it down to McD's, and I ahven't ate it since. 3 years now.
Edit: I don't drink certain things from Starbucks cos it gives me the *****, even though they are quite good. Could I sue for drinking these things even after I knew they made me sick? No chance in hell!
Lau said:
Sure, why not.
If I buy a bottle of orange juice and drink it and there was accidentally arsenic in it, I would sue, but if I buy a bottle of Liquid Drano and drink it and there's accidentally some arsenic in it, I would feel pretty hypocritical, petty and stupid for suing them.
Onizuka said:
True but that's not the issue at hand. The problem is with the milk aspect of McDonalds' fries which (to most people) isn't harmful. You're talking about the other unhealthy aspects of McDonalds.
Onizuka said:
Cow milk is only good when chocolate, in chocolate or in ice cream (especially chocolate).
L
Lau
Guest
Onizuka said:
Hey, I agree - I wouldn't sue just to get the cash, especially if they've fixed the problem (which they seem to have done).
My point is that Shard seems to think that if you choose to eat McDonalds you should put up with the consequences of them failing to disclose potentially fatal ingredients (to some people) because it's fast food, and if you eat it you deserve what you get.
I agree that anyone should be able to tell that McDonalds will make you fat and unhealthy, but whether or not they use certain ingredients should be clear across the board from McDonalds to a £100 a head restaurant. Being snobbish about what restaurant it is is just, well, snobbish. This could have happened in any restaurant, it's milk for god's sake.
edit: And it's milk in fries FFS! If it was milk in a cheeseburger that would be ridiculous, but fries are supposed to be potato, oil and salt. If someone with a milk allergy goes to McDonalds and there's no nutritional information to say the fries contain milk, I wouldn't blame them to assume they're probably ok.
OH MY GOSH!!! Well maybe this is good news for me...Pizza Hut was one of my favs for basically my whole life but they recently served me a hair with my pizza
---I HAVE ZERO tolerance for a hair in my food so they were off my list anyway!
macartistkel said:
Well maybe this is good news for me...Pizza Hut was one of my favs for basically my whole life but they recently served me a hair with my pizza
I'm guessing you haven't worked in a restaurant of any kind? (fast or otherwise)
The stuff you don't see would make that hair look like a chocolate covered strawberry.
But that's the crux of the matter. The fries don't contain milk or cheese, the oil contains some small amounts of flavoring or seasoning that was derived from wheat and dairy ingredients.Lau said:
From: http://www.kfdx.com/news/default.asp?mode=shownews&id=11072
That doesn't make what McD did right in any way form or manner, but if they run the tests and they don't register, they've done their due dilligence.
I don't know how it is in the UK, but here you find plenty of whey, casein, etc... in lots of foods you would not suspect. Even "Soy cheese" unless clearly marked vegan usually has plenty of casein in it which can cause a reaction (we found that out the hard way).
B
Emphasis mine.nbs2 said:
Funny you should mention that. My sisters has celiac sprue (she's allergic to gluten) and it's milk & gluten that McD's is in trouble over. So I did some looking around and found this press release by the Celiac Sprue Associaiton interesting. According to the press release "The calculated level of any residual gluten in the final French fries and hash browns is below the limits of detection (BLD) of the most sensitive commercial gluten test."
I have no idea how this reflects on the milk content, but if the amount of gluten is so minute that it's beyond detection by current standards is McDonald's in violation?
skoker, again, not trying to be a dick, but your OP (at least to me) made you sound like a money grubbing, sue-happy American that thinks he's entitled to get hand outs from corporate America. I think this is why you aren't exactly getting unheralded support in this thread. And unless you just about died and racked up some nice out-of-pocket medical expenses I don't see you getting much from McD's unless you are part of a class action suit.
Lethal
Peanuts are also good sources of protein and oils.Onizuka said:
Last week, a 15 year old girl in Quebec kissed her boyfriend 9 hours after he had eaten a peanut butter sandwich, she collapsed and died from anaphylactic shock.
The debate is not about whether a right thinking person would set foot in a McDonalds or consume their food... the food, whether or not 'healthy', is represented a safe and conforming to federal and local standards. When the seller breaks those standards and maintains deceptive labelling, that is a problem.
It's also not a debate about whether a bit of milk or a bit of nuts is good food for most people --- it is about whether parents approximately 11 million children in the USA alone can believe what the restaurant says and whether their child could go to the hospital or die from eating presumed safe food.
http://www.foodallergy.org/
Airforce said:I'm guessing you haven't worked in a restaurant of any kind? (fast or otherwise)
The stuff you don't see would make that hair look like a chocolate covered strawberry.
Do not need to know that...thats why i stay away from the fast food/corner joints.
McD's will send you a 2 big mac ticket with a very special message from the man himself...Ronald McDonald.
Bless
Dude, I knew a girl with this in college....it sucked. Anybody that can live with this and not be bitter - those are some of the most amazing people, especially in the US.LethalWolfe said:
As for the question - if a professor was to ask me this in class, I would say "if they are in compliance with all applicable standards (i.e. fed, state) there is no liability. Their duty extends as far as is reasonable. Because of the danger that allergies pose, I would expect courts to use a best scientific method rule and require McD to use the best methods available to ensure that gluten is either below a reasonably safe level or label the food as potentially (or actually) having gluten." But, I could always be wrong.
Lau said:
Yeah, I was being a bastard, wasn't I? Sorry, it just comes so naturally...
Seriously, yes, severe allergies are no laughing matter, regardless of the situation.
That being said, in general, I don't have much sympathy for people who eat at those types of places, smoke, or do anything along those lines which show that they have little to no respect for their own health, well-being, etc. Especially when they can choose whether they do something like that. It's tough for me to respect someone who doesn't respect themselves (i.e. their own health).
And if that makes me a bad person, so be it.
The thing that gets me is that people think suing makes a "difference", from all the class action suits i have seen the only real difference it made was to the attorneys checkbook. Sure you get a $20 gift certificate to the place that you were suing, but the lawyers walk off with millions in cash...
Ed
Ed
i think you'd have a better chance of successfully suing by throwing a pepsi on their floor and purposely tripping in it. time to move along man.
skoker said:(First of all, I'd like to acknowledge the fact that I'm only 16, but a 5 year old is suing, so why can't I?)
I don't know how many of you follow the news, but recently it was revealed by McDonalds, the fast-food empire, that they have been using milk as flavoring in their french fries without indicating this on the ingredients list. For most people this doesn't seem to be a problem, but for me it is, as I'm VERY allergic to milk and milk products, and have become very ill after eating McDonalds food, once even requiring hospitalization for dehydration caused by vomiting and diarrhea.
Anyways, to make a long story short my parents (shock!) told me I should see if I can get something out of them, seeing as they've caused me a lot of physical pain and suffering over the last 13 or so years due to their negligence. I'd like to send them a letter requesting that they settle with me somehow outside of court and so that the media doesn't get involved, but I'm also ready to involve a lawyer if need be.
So I guess my question is this:
What should I ask for, how should I ask for it, and what else do I need to know?
Your help is greatly appreciated with this
-skoker
This sounds like the fat guy suing McD because their food made him fat.
Listen, if you know something is going to make you sick, why do you insist on eating it? If I **** myself and puked everywhere after eating fries for the first time at McD then I would probably give up the fries and move onto something else. The very idea of suing McD because you GET sick everytime you eat their fries is silly. Yes, they did not disclose the use of lactose in their fries. But you also knew that you ate, got sick, and then ate again. I know that I can't eat certain things on a totally empty stomach or it makes me sick so I do the logical thing and I stop eating those items!
The answer to your problem is not should you sue, how much for, and how? It's STOP EATING THE FREAKING FRIES AND YOU'LL STOP GETTING SICK!
~Shard~ said:Why do I have a hard time believing that someone who is as health-conscious as a vegan would actually ever step foot in a McDonald's? I'm guessing it's close to the number of vegetarians who go to steak houses.
Sometimes it is a little more complicated than that - my sister is a vegan and often McDonalds fries are the only option (but not any more it seems
)Particularly in England and in smaller towns, there are so few places that cater for vegans that fries supposedly cooked in olive oil is the only choice when you are out and unable to cook for yourself. Being vegan isn't necessarily a health choice.