BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

frivolous lawsuits Archive

Saturday

11

August 2007

0

COMMENTS

McDonald's Hit With Another Frivolous Lawsuit

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

McDonald’s is once again the target of a multi-million dollar lawsuit, this time for including cheese after a customer expressly asked for none. The customer is allergic to cheese and had to receive emergency care at the hospital.

A Morgantown man, his mother and his friend are suing McDonald’s for $10 million.

The man says he bit into a hamburger and had a severe allergic reaction to the cheese melted on it.

Jeromy Jackson, who is in his early 20s, says he clearly ordered two Quarter Pounders without cheese at the McDonald’s restaurant in Star City before heading to Clarksburg.

His mother Trela Jackson and friend Andrew Ellifritz are parties to the lawsuit because they say they risked their lives rushing Jeromy to United Hospital Center in Clarksburg.

The lawsuit alleges Jeromy “was only moments from death” or serious injury by the time he reached the hospital.

. . .Jeromy did his part to make it known he didn’t want cheese on the hamburgers because he is allergic, Houston said.

He told a worker through the ordering speaker and then two workers face-to-face at the pay and pick-up windows that he couldn’t eat cheese, Houston said.

“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.”

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.

Of course Jeromy is not to blame. He did his part, right? What more could he possibly have done to ensure he didn’t eat any cheese? How about inspecting the food before you eat it, Jeromy.

If I knew I could have a life-threatening allergic reaction to a certain food (and that particular food just happened to be something which is regularly included in the item I am planning to eat), you can bet I would make sure to check that there wasn’t anything on my food that I was allergic to, regardless of how many times I specified my needs before ordering. McDonald’s made a mistake, but the ultimate responsibility for what goes into Jeromy’s mouth rests solely with Jeromy. This lawsuit should be dismissed immediately.

Thursday

26

October 2006

0

COMMENTS

Lawsuit Over Danish Cartoons Thrown Out

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy

From Townhall:

A Danish court rejected a lawsuit Thursday against the newspaper that first printed the controversial Prophet Muhammad cartoons. Arab politicians and intellectuals warned the verdict would widen the gap between Westerners and Muslims, but said mass protests were unlikely.

The City Court in Aarhus rejected claims by seven Danish Muslim groups that the 12 drawings printed in the Jyllands-Posten daily were meant to insult the prophet and make a mockery of Islam. Islamic law forbids any depiction of Prophet Muhammad, even positive ones, to prevent idolatry.

The court conceded that some Muslims saw the drawings as offensive, but found there was no basis to assume that “the purpose of the drawings was to present opinions that can belittle Muslims.”

…Jyllands-Posten’s editor in chief hailed the court’s decision as a victory for freedom of speech.

It’s good that the lawsuit was thrown out, but I’m not encouraged and don’t really consider this “a victory for freedom of speech”. It’s a harbringer of things to come, and the fact that it was even filed does not bode well for the future of intellectual freedom in Europe. After all, what if the cartoons had been intended “to present opinions that can belittle Muslims”? Is that really a sound cause of legal action? Everyone else can be belittled, but not Muslims? If you’re only allowed to express an opinion that doesn’t offend anyone then that’s not freedom of speech.