Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< What gives them the right to money is that their child was endangered. >>> But that's only half the equation. From whom do they have a right to collect is the other half. I think that for McD's to be held responsible, someone needs to show what they did or failed to do that a prudent business in a similar situation would have done differently.
Originally Posted By jonvn They have a right to collect from the person who did it, for one thing. Do they have a right to collect from McDonald's? Well, since he was acting as an agent in their employ, possibly. A jury will decide that. They do have a responsibility to make sure their employees are properly trained, fit to do their jobs, and are observed such that they are not engaging in illegal activity. I would think that McD's doesn't have a LOT of liability in this, but perhaps some.
Originally Posted By Mr X One question. Just because it ended up in a child's hands is your argument for a civil suit? So if it had been in a chicken nuggets box instead of a happy meal and an adult received it, would there still be grounds for that adult to sue? What about if the adult bought it, and later brought it home to his child? Since pretty much any McDonalds food COULD end up in the hands of a child, would any such action be grounds for a suit because of "potential for child endangerment"? I'll say one thing, I don't buy that pot IS any sort of dangerous substance (I realize the state disagrees), in the case of a small amount. Noone has ever died from a pot overdose...and the only REAL danger (besides operating a vehicle I suppose) is long term in the form of cancer. Although, I suppose if the kid tries it and gets hooked, then you could throw in "contributing to the delinquency of a minor". Would the drug addict minor in question be eligible for rehab costs and incidentals (munchies, hookas, etc...) in a civil suit, or just the parents? What if the minor sued after becoming a major? Could they get money cause that McD's guy caused them to become a burned out high school drop out?
Originally Posted By jonvn "Just because it ended up in a child's hands is your argument for a civil suit?" If it was in a Happy Meal, then it was intended for a child, and was easily forseeable that a child would receive it. That makes it child endangerment. If an adult receives it, it would not be child endangerment but probably more along the lines of distributing a controlled substance, and reckless endangerment. "Since pretty much any McDonalds food COULD end up in the hands of a child" Many people consider that child endangerment, also. But putting drugs in the hands of children is not potential child endangerment, it is. "I don't buy that pot IS any sort of dangerous substance" Me neither, on the other hand, I don't think it is appropriate to be placed in the hands of a child. If the child did get the drugs, and tried them, then yes, I suppose contributing to the delinquency of a minor could be thrown in. It would not matter if they got hooked. If a child, or any other person, was made ill by any sort of foreign matter found in food, then yes, McD's, and the person who did it would be responsible for and health care costs, which I imagine could include rehab. There is a statute of limitations regarding most lawsuits. Depending on when the incident happened, a person who was a minor at the time when reaching the age of majority may or may not be able to sue, depending on the particular laws at the time. Or something like that.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>I don't think it is appropriate to be placed in the hands of a child<< I agree, of course. Like I said much earlier in this thread, what that guy did was moronic (and sure, since the endangerment potential WAS there and he should have thought about that...criminal too).
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< There is a statute of limitations regarding most lawsuits. Depending on when the incident happened, a person who was a minor at the time when reaching the age of majority may or may not be able to sue, depending on the particular laws at the time. >>> Generally speaking, statutes of limitations for civil actions are deferred during the time that the plaintiff is a minor, since they lack the ability to act on their own behalf until the age of majority. So, if something happens to a small child, a lawsuit could well be filed a decade or more after it happened. Of course, a parent or guardian can sue on the minor's behalf immediately, but if this doesn't happen, the victim can sue themselves once they reach majority.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Generally speaking" I know this is true of child molestation issues. But I am not sure it's true of everything in general. It might be. And it also goes state by state. Where is our resident lawyer?
Originally Posted By Mrs Nurmi In Canada (and probably the US, but I'm not sure) there are several degrees of 'duty of care'. We owe our greatest duty of care to children, to keep them safe from negligent harm, so in this respect they would likely have a case. However, in discovery it would be argued that McDonalds did exercise the greatest duty of care, but their employee did not. The employee would get the greatest portion of the 'blame' but McDonalds' insurance would still have to cover the claim as an employee is automatically an insured in a Commercial General Liability policy in Canada. It will be interesting to see how it plays out... I figure McDonalds will write a fat cheque to get them to keep quiet about it.
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle And prices keep going up... I don't really see how McDonalds is liable here - the employee yes, but not McDonalds. As an aside, I told my boss about this story yesterday and he didn't believe me! I had to google it and show him the article.
Originally Posted By jonvn Prices keep going up? You can get a double cheeseburger from McD's for a buck. It's pretty cheap.
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle I didn't mean specifically at McDonald's. I just mean in general - food, tickets to events, etc. There's so many lawsuits where people think they can get quick money out of big companies like McDonalds, Disney etc and then complain when prices go up. Funny that!
Originally Posted By peeaanuut <<Prices keep going up? You can get a double cheeseburger from McD's for a buck. It's pretty cheap.>> Yes, but now they are using a lower quality horse.
Originally Posted By jonvn Do you remember when Jack In The Box had the scandal where they were getting meat from Australia, and it turned out a lot of it was kangaroo meat?
Originally Posted By jmoore1966 Yeah, I thought Gag-in-the-Bag had a funny aftertaste to it. Funny, I don't notice it so much anymore -- maybe it was the kangaroo.
