Kia Franklin

One Sandwich, Hold the Used Bandaid

So this guy doesn’t think this new McDonald’s lawsuit has merit. He calls it “the old soiled bandage in the breakfast biscuit story.” Um…. I’ve never heard that old story, and the details of the case make me wonder whether the blogger even read the story before citing it as an example of a frivolous lawsuit. You decide:

—A man orders his food at McDonalds
—He bites into his sandwich and finds that he is chewing on a blood-soiled latex bandage that has been cooked into the biscuit
—He is severely allergic to latex and suffers from anaphylactic shock, while his tongue and mouth go numb
—The McD staff did not call an ambulance or seek to get him medical assistance; instead, his wife had to take him to the hospital
—Instead of helping him, one McD employee tries to get him to sign some papers while he was in the middle of his allergic reaction
—As a result of the incident he is now more sensitive to allergens and has a weakened immune system
—He now has visible red bumps on his face that he never had before the reaction, which he treats weekly at a cost of $1500 per visit

The blog’s recounting of this McD lawsuit as a loony lawsuit is the same wacked-out revisionist fluff that had us all (including me) duped about the merits of the famous coffee case. It’s easy for some to say, “Look at this loony litigant, such a cry baby, why didn’t he just spit out the bandaid?” But if the tables were turned, wouldn’t you at least want to know that you’re protected against, or at least able to be copmensated for, an injury like this—even if you forget to say, “Hold the bloody bandaid”? To me, it’s a comfort that a company doesn’t get off scot free for failing to take even the most minimal steps of care or for failing at least to mitigate the damage done by their negligence.

The point is not whether the plaintiff will definitely win the lawsuit; the point is whether or not he has enough of a legal basis to believe he should win. If the facts alleged are true, then there is a serious legal question about whether McD breached a duty of reasonable care to its customers by failing to ensure a hygienic environment and safe food. Even more troubling is the allegation that McD staff wanted to force him to sign paperwork while he was experiencing a serious health incident, and that the staff refused to help him get medical attention. Rather than being concerned with his welfare, it sure looks like they were concerned with their liability.

That the author of the blog—which is posted on the National Association of Manufacturers’ website, by the way—would cite to this case as evidence for the need for tort “reform,” is a side of bologna.

Posted at 10:43 AM, Aug 22, 2007 in Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)