Frivolous McDonals lawsuit

Posted on August 11th, 2007 in Economics, Law by Victor

Via Drudge. In short, there’s a guy who ordered a couple of Quarter Pounders at McDonald’s and asked them to hold the cheese. They didn’t, and he had a “severe allergic reaction.” Hence MickeyD’s should fork over $10 million. Not just for his personally benefit, of course, he’s doing it for anyone who will ever eat at McDonald’s again.

“We’re interested in seeing McDonald’s take responsibility and change a systemic quality control problem that endangers the lives of up to 12 million Americans with allergies,” said Timothy Houston, the Morgantown lawyer representing the plaintiffs.

Having worked at MickeyD’s I’m pretty sure the only way to solve this ’systemic quality control problem’ would be to stop taking special orders. McDonald’s employees are human; most are teenages; mistakes will be made.
My favorite part of the story is this though,

“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 the step where after he gets the burger he lifts the top bun and looks to see if there is cheese on it. But you couldn’t get $10 million if you did that.

Share This

Law Headlines of the Day - August 3, 2007

Posted on August 3rd, 2007 in Law by Derek

Marilyn Manson, Nazi memorabilia, the skeleton of a young Chinese girl. Ripe for a lawsuit. (Page Six)

Clever lawyering in an attempt to protect a 14-year-old’s image from the pornography industry. (Above the Law)

Also, a couple of books to consider this Friday.

Discover Your Inner Economist: Use Incentives to Fall in Love, Survive Your Next Meeting, and Motivate Your Dentist by Tyler Cowen (Amazon, discussion at Volokh)

Compassion, Justice and the Christian Life: Rethinking Ministry to the Poor by Robert D. Lupton (Amazon, discussion at WORLD [$])

Share This

Law Headlines of the Day - August 2, 2007

Posted on August 2nd, 2007 in Law by Derek

You mean, it wasn’t an exorcism? (WRTV)

“I recall, President [Clinton/Obama] when you filibustered our last president’s judicial nominees. Why treat your nominees any differently?” (Volokh)

Harry Potter never got his Due Process. (Concurring Opinions)

Sen. Leahy doesn’t seem to understand how the Supreme Court works. (Politico)

Share This

Law Headlines of the Day - August 1, 2007

Posted on August 1st, 2007 in Law by Derek

I am shocked, SHOCKED, to find the Bush administration engaging in domestic surveillance programs. (Washington Post)

Ah, Hayek. “We’ll take the road to Serfdom… Serfdom, USA.” (Volokh)

The 10 Most Significant Tax Events in Baseball History. (WSJ Law Blog)

Norma Gabler had the strength of a hundred PTAs and a thousand school boards. (N.Y. Times Obituary)

Share This

Law Headlines of the Day - July 31, 2007

Posted on July 31st, 2007 in Law by Derek

New at Wal-Mart: jury service! (N.Y. Times)

The frightening possibilities of hate crimes. (Volokh)

Maybe this is what Michael Jackson could do in prison. (Above the Law)

Finally, consistency: ladies’ nights are sexist. (New Yorker)

The Turtle Zombie Boy and Internet Privacy. (Concurring Opinions)

Share This

FAMILY GOUGES STORE! The FTC acts quickly to restore fairness!

Posted on July 30th, 2007 in Economics, Law by Wayne

The last time you got a great deal at the store, or low balled someone on EBay and came away with HUGE amounts of consumer surplus, did you stop to think about how “fair” the exchange was? Typically, people reason that if the seller is willing to let it go at a certain price, that is a “fair price”. Sadly, that reasoning breaks down when applied in the reverse direction.

Mark Steckbeck wrote up a very entertaining opening paragraph introducing a piece on consumer protection laws.  Please read it.

The piece itself was written by Skip Oliva and is an excellent read. Here’s the first part of the post:

It’s difficult to reconcile the American concept of “equal justice under law” with the Federal Trade Commission’s motto, “Protecting America’s Consumers.” The implication is that there is one set of laws for consumers and another set—affording lesser protection—for producers and sellers. This conflict presents itself in all “consumer protection” laws, and it stems from an awkward premise: That in any given economic exchange, the party trading cash holds the legal and moral high ground over the party trading a good or service.

Share This

Law Headlines of the Day - July 30, 2007

Posted on July 30th, 2007 in Law by Derek

It could be a campaign slogan. “Originalism: Not Just for Liberals Anymore.” (TNR)

There can be only one Second Amendment. (Law.com, opinion at L.A. Times)

Fifteen judicial positions, but five openings–anyone interested? (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

“Asylum” isn’t a dirty word in Chinese (unlike, apparently, in Spanish). (N.Y. Sun)

Share This

Law Headlines of the Day - July 27, 2007

Posted on July 27th, 2007 in Law by Derek

Justice Breyer “inspires” Senator Specter to examine Chief Justice Roberts’s and Justice Alito’s nomination hearing testimony for inconsistencies. (Politico)

Shark eats lawyer. (Above the Law)

Medical costs cause bankruptcy… if you cook the numbers correctly. (Washington Times)

Formula for success: let the FBI falsely imprison you for about 30 years, collect $100 million. (CNN)

When “best interests of the child” means martial arts classes. (Volokh)

Share This

« Previous Page