Lawsuit 'Discriminatory' Gluten-Free Menu
Replies
-
tincanonastring wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »The McDonald's case was fair. No, it isn't smart to drive with coffee between your legs, but it isn't appropriate to use superheated water, which takes the coffee to an unsafe temperature.
That's what McDonald's got pinged for, not an isolated incident of someone being a dumbass, but for a failure of duty of care.
Exactly. If she had been burned by water of an appropriate temperature she would not have had a case. It was because the water did so much more damage to her body due to its unusually high temperature.
stupidity shouldn't be rewarded with money.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse about this particular incident. Several people have now pointed out that there were circumstances surrounding the case of which the general public is mostly unaware, but you're refusing to acknowledge those points. I love my coffee hot and, to my chagrin, have dumped entire cups of it in my lap by accident (yes, cups...plural. I am a clumsy oaf), but I've never burned 22% of my body, needed skin grafts, an 8-day hospital stay, or 2 years worth of medical care because coffee shouldn't be brewed or stored at 180-190 degrees F. Those temperatures can cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds.
I agree with your overall stance on frivolous lawsuits, but the McDonald's Coffee incident was far from frivolous if you spend a minute or two looking at the actual facts.
No- I've read them- I'm not ignoring them- and I have addressed it.
Fine the company for the infraction.
Don't reward stupid.
1) She wasn't driving, she was a passenger and the car was parked. You keep calling her an idiot for spilling the coffee while driving, but that's just not what happened.
2) She wasn't rewarded for being stupid. The courts found her 20% responsible for her own injuries and adjusted the payout accordingly.
3) The lawsuit payout is the fine the company pays for their infraction. Otherwise, to whom would the company pay a fine?
4) You haven't addressed squat. You've dismissed each person's input with some variation of "Don't reward stupid" without acknowledging the facts of the case. If I missed you addressing those points, please show me where.
I understand the urge to be right, but it sounds like you're just disagreeing for the sake of the argument. Again, I agree with your overall stance, but this case just doesn't fit the mold of a frivolous lawsuit.0 -
yeah i would rather the "fine" go the people harmed then the government.0
-
PF Chang's lost my business when they stopped offering their Duck meal. It was amazing! That was the only reason I went there.
*just had to say it*0 -
I used to work at Chick-fil-a and so many people would send there coffee back because it was "cold". I would take the lid off and put my finger in it just to see and I would burn myself everytime. People want their coffee scolding hot.0
-
Bad things happen to people all the time. sucks for them- but you shouldn't get money for it just because crappy things happen.
If that was the case- we'd all be rich- and that's just no the way this works.
All she asked for was money to help pay her medical expenses ($20k - she was in the hospital getting skin grafts for 8 days). I don't think she was looking to get rich
Her reward ended up being much bigger, but that's not her doing.0 -
I have spilled coffee on myself. More than once. Never have I received 3rd degree burns requiring hospitalization. If I spilled coffee from a restaurant and that happened, I would assume either their equipment or their procedure was faulty.
Here's the kicker for me: A jury of her peers saw all the evidence, heard arguments from both sides, and decided mostly in her favor. I'm going to trust that reasonable adults made a reasonable decision.
The point of the big monetary damages was not to "reward" the lady, but to make a big enough impact on McDonald's to change their behavior re: their coffee. You see, there were hundreds of cases of serious burns beforehand, so the company had knowledge that their coffee was excessively hot. The damages ended up being something like the revenue from an entire day of coffee sales at all McD's, everywhere.0 -
Anyway, in answer to the OP - I find this to be ridiculous. To be gluten free, the products are more expensive *and* there has to be a separate prep/cooking area. Seems like an investment to me - $1.00 per dish in an entirely reasonable charge.0
-
TheVirgoddess wrote: »Bad things happen to people all the time. sucks for them- but you shouldn't get money for it just because crappy things happen.
If that was the case- we'd all be rich- and that's just no the way this works.
All she asked for was money to help pay her medical expenses ($20k - she was in the hospital getting skin grafts for 8 days). I don't think she was looking to get rich
Her reward ended up being much bigger, but that's not her doing.
I think asking to cover medical bills is fine- but from what I understand they gave her significantly more.
Which- I don't agree with.1) She wasn't driving, she was a passenger and the car was parked. You keep calling her an idiot for spilling the coffee while driving, but that's just not what happened.
I already readdressed this as well. You keep saying I didn't- but you don't read what I wrote. If you put a cup between your legs- and take the lid off- yeah- odds are- you're going to collapse the sides- I've done it many times when I picked up my cup at WaWa and the lid wasn't secure- the side folded in... its' a common problem- so if you put it between your legs- guess what- no lid- no structure- cup collapses. She still did something stupid.
shrug- you don't have to agree with me. that's okay- my feelings aren't hurt about it.
and it's not about being "right" I mean- I just think rewarding people for stupid is wrong. That's not a right or wrong situation- it's an opinion. which is the nice thing about opinions... it's not a fact- it's an opinion.0 -
Stop eating there, problem solved.0
-
richardositosanchez wrote: »Stop eating there, problem solved.
for a minute I thought you were going to say stop drinking coffee!!!!!0 -
Many food items have gluten added, to stretch its use. Buying the items prior to gluten being added would make sense. If I don't like a business, they don't get my money. I agree with OP, this is frivolous. Cook at home.0
-
I think asking to cover medical bills is fine- but from what I understand they gave her significantly more.
Which- I don't agree with.
McD's refused to pay the medical bills, that's when the case actually went to court. A jury determined the award, which was then reduced substantially by the judge. The amount was big because McD's is a big company and any fine has to be big to make an impression.
0 -
richardositosanchez wrote: »Stop eating there, problem solved.
for a minute I thought you were going to say stop drinking coffee!!!!!
I don't care what your opinion is on the lawsuit issue...not drinking coffee is just crazy talk!!0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »Bad things happen to people all the time. sucks for them- but you shouldn't get money for it just because crappy things happen.
If that was the case- we'd all be rich- and that's just no the way this works.
All she asked for was money to help pay her medical expenses ($20k - she was in the hospital getting skin grafts for 8 days). I don't think she was looking to get rich
Her reward ended up being much bigger, but that's not her doing.
Yep, this is what's significant to me. McD's was essentially punished for being stupid and not settling the case in a reasonable way.
However, I see no justification for this idiotic gluten case. Does anyone want to disagree and argue?
0 -
There's actually a documentary about the case called "Hot Coffee." Here burns were pretty horrifying. The movie actually changed my opinion on the matter 180 degrees -- mostly by presenting the facts (and images) rather than the misconceptions. Turns out the whole "frivolous lawsuit" narrative has been driven by corporations who desperately want tort reform to further shield themselves from responsibility for their actions. Like someone else said, truly frivolous lawsuits are incredibly rare and almost always thrown out, but gosh they make a good news story don't they!
Meanwhile, a lot of cases that should go through the system are thrown out, too. Because corporations are already extremely well protected when they cause harm. Monsanto for one essentially bought itself into immunity from lawsuits. Thanks, US gov, you filthy scum!0 -
P.F Changs sounds delicious. Am I wrong? Poor Canadian mind here, I just want some more delicious options
0 -
She got more because they jerked her around and made it go to court, increasing her costs and suffering, and to discourage them from continuing the practice. So think of it as her bills to her and a fine to help out society. That is basically what punative damages are, making the cost so high that it is cheaper to not do it again. The final was reduced to $640K and then was likely further reduced but it went to settlement with a non disclosure agreement in place, so no one knows.0
-
There's actually a documentary about the case called "Hot Coffee." Here burns were pretty horrifying. The movie actually changed my opinion on the matter 180 degrees -- mostly by presenting the facts (and images) rather than the misconceptions. Turns out the whole "frivolous lawsuit" narrative has been driven by corporations who desperately want tort reform to further shield themselves from responsibility for their actions. Like someone else said, truly frivolous lawsuits are incredibly rare and almost always thrown out, but gosh they make a good news story don't they!
Meanwhile, a lot of cases that should go through the system are thrown out, too.
I disagree. The US justice system makes it really easy to plead a case and judges are usually loath to throw them out even when they should.
(I am a bit biased here, admittedly, but I'm still absolutely convinced this is so from what I've seen and what I know about the system.)0 -
I think we all agree the PF chang case is silly 0
-
kungabungadin wrote: »O.k. Acg67 I am not sure but are you laughing at the fact she is suing or do you for some reason agree? I am shocked by this and I have a sensitivity to glutenl, but what this women should realize is gluten free usually does cost more anywhere and it is not a matter of discrimation. So if your lol refers to how rediculous her lawsuit is then I am right there with you on that. Some people just don't think or they are greedy and are trying to abuse laws to get something for nothing. I don't like paying extra for gluten free either but too bad it is more exspensive. I just cook my own food and try to get as clean as possible. Thanks for sharing the laugh.
You think P.F. Chang's should be forced to change how they do business b/c Celiac folks chose to eat there? Agreeing with the weep for humanity comment. Dear God.0 -
Go to France, ask for someone to change an ingredient in a restaurant meal. Prepare to get laughed at or mocked.
Seriously, I think many Americans have no idea how things work in the rest of the world.
0 -
Back to the original topic, my fear is that this lawsuit could cause restaurants to stop offering gluten free menus, that would be very very bad for all celiacs.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »There's actually a documentary about the case called "Hot Coffee." Here burns were pretty horrifying. The movie actually changed my opinion on the matter 180 degrees -- mostly by presenting the facts (and images) rather than the misconceptions. Turns out the whole "frivolous lawsuit" narrative has been driven by corporations who desperately want tort reform to further shield themselves from responsibility for their actions. Like someone else said, truly frivolous lawsuits are incredibly rare and almost always thrown out, but gosh they make a good news story don't they!
Meanwhile, a lot of cases that should go through the system are thrown out, too.
I disagree. The US justice system makes it really easy to plead a case and judges are usually loath to throw them out even when they should.
(I am a bit biased here, admittedly, but I'm still absolutely convinced this is so from what I've seen and what I know about the system.)
And I disagree with your disagreement. If everyone who is outraged over the coffee incident (most of whom know nothing about it except Rush Limbaugh's ravings) were at least willing to be just as outraged over Monsanto immunity, we'd at least be in a better position to protect ourselves.0 -
I missed this yesterday, but holy hand grenade... a suit for this?
HOW DO YOU SPELL SPURIOUS? Anyone? Anyone?0 -
She was an idiot and deserved nothing.tincanonastring wrote: »1) She wasn't driving, she was a passenger and the car was parked. You keep calling her an idiot for spilling the coffee while driving, but that's just not what happened.
2) She wasn't rewarded for being stupid. The courts found her 20% responsible for her own injuries and adjusted the payout accordingly.
Instead got a handout, for being stupid.
0 -
I hope this happens from large chains, in an attempt to not offend people with gluten intolerances.blankiefinder wrote: »Back to the original topic, my fear is that this lawsuit could cause restaurants to stop offering gluten free menus, that would be very very bad for all celiacs.
0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »Back to the original topic, my fear is that this lawsuit could cause restaurants to stop offering gluten free menus, that would be very very bad for all celiacs.
I would almost put money down that someone would sue over non gluten free options if restaurants pulled the gluten free option.0 -
You hope the large chains pull their gluten free menus??? It's already almost impossible for me to eat out
I hope this happens from large chains, in an attempt to not offend people with gluten intolerances.blankiefinder wrote: »Back to the original topic, my fear is that this lawsuit could cause restaurants to stop offering gluten free menus, that would be very very bad for all celiacs.
and we have no choice but to eat out at times, as we do a lot of travelling for our kids compete.
0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »Back to the original topic, my fear is that this lawsuit could cause restaurants to stop offering gluten free menus, that would be very very bad for all celiacs.
I would almost put money down that someone would sue over non gluten free options if restaurants pulled the gluten free option.
Most restaurants already don't offer safe food options for celiacs. Most offer 'Gluten Friendly' or 'Gluten Wise' or some other option that means: This *shouldn't* have gluten but we make no promises.0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »Back to the original topic, my fear is that this lawsuit could cause restaurants to stop offering gluten free menus, that would be very very bad for all celiacs.
Would it be so bad for celiacs to learn to cook for themselves or eat non-bready things? Is it so bad eating grains that don't involve wheat, eating more vegetables and proteins?
Seriously, even though I'm not celiac, I learned how to cook because most restaurants really make you a crap meal for the price you pay. Like, almost anywhere you go. I can cook a steak better than 90% of the restaurants I eat at, barring legit steakhouses. Ditto for the salmon my wife loves. LEARN TO COOK! LEARN TO LIVE WITHOUT HAMBURGER BUNS! For Pete's sake, you can still eat french fries and buffalo wings, we're just talking about gluten. The biggest injustice you face is not being able to consume beer and I rarely hear celiacs complaining about that.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions