Originally Posted By peeaanuut With the pay they get at McDonalds it really couldnt have been high quality stuff. Probably some local schwag.
Originally Posted By Mrs Nurmi If it was BC, they'd be lucky to get local... Not that I know *personally*, but apparently we do a pretty good job here. I'm just sayin'. I don't think we'll be revisiting our drug laws any time soon, X. The way this will be looked at will be, "if it was legal, this never would have happened." Legalize it and tax the crap out of it, just like booze or cigarettes.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well I lived a whole summer in Vancouver, and let's just say it was back in my hippie days, and so anyway I never heard a single person mention the BC stuff! I think you export it all! ;p
Originally Posted By jmoore1966 <<The store apologized, but the Irelan family said they still may sue>> Yep, its California everywhere.
Originally Posted By jmoore1966 Isn't California where all the sue happy nonsense started? At least, I've always been told it was our fault.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Here's an interesting article, albeit nine years old, on frivolous lawsuis. <a href="http://starbulletin.com/98/02/23/editorial/special2.html" target="_blank">http://starbulletin.com/98/02/ 23/editorial/special2.html</a>
Originally Posted By peeaanuut being mcdonalds, would they have to be sued because the weed didnt get them high enough? or that it was too strong?
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By jonvn "everyone is jealous of California," I think a lot of people are. There is a great deal of animosity towards the state. Grounds....um...suppose you gave some child drugs. That would be child endangerment. If the parents had not looked in the bag, and just given the stuff to the kids, it could have caused harm. It's also a reckless disregard of the public's safety. So, there are grounds. Are there damages? I don't think there are. But there very well may be.
Originally Posted By Mr X Sure, CRIMINAL charges for child endangerment are fine. What I'm saying is what gives them the right to money? And how is it McDonalds' fault anyway? The employee is facing charges right?
Originally Posted By Mrs Nurmi <<It's also a reckless disregard of the public's safety.>> Actually no. Reckless implies that they blatantly ignored the employee slipping the weed into the happy meal and allowed it to happen. There is a huge difference between actual negligence and just a stupid employee. If it had happened before and they hadn't fired him - definitely reckless disregard. They do have a duty of care, but in Canada you can only take that so far. A court is going to look at this case and say 'yes, the kid at McDonalds was an idiot, but the company has adequate hiring and managerial procedures for the type of establishment that they run, so you're outta luck. Next!'
Originally Posted By Mrs Nurmi Agreed X, criminal charges, yes. Negligence against the company - not likely. But they will probably settle to avoid discovery, adjusting & defense costs.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<"everyone is jealous of California,">> I can only speak for myself, but I am certainly not jealous of California. I love Southern California weather, and could easily be jealous of that. But when you look at the outrageous cost of living, the under-funded schools and the crime; I'm happy to live here in the frozen tundra of the north.
Originally Posted By jonvn "CRIMINAL charges for child endangerment are fine." You can be held both criminally and civilly liable for something you have done. What gives them the right to money is that their child was endangered.
