Posts Tagged ‘ McDonald’s ’

McDonald’s Hot Coffee Lawsuit Includes AWOL Sex Charges (Really)

April 12th, 2012. By AbiK

Rare is it, indeed, that you can write such a headline. But yes, there are two new McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuits—which is somehow fitting as we’re now celebrating the 20th anniversary of THE McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit—the one that gave birth to the whole hot coffee lawsuit genre. This time, while one lawsuit involves a distracted grandmother and her 4-year-old granddaughter, the other does, in fact, include an element of sex.

Let’s talk sex first. So how does one file a hot coffee lawsuit and somehow throw sex—specifically a lack of—into it? (I should use ‘loss of consortium’ here but really, who calls it ‘consortium’?)

Well, it appears that Melissa Pettigrew had ordered coffee at a McDonald’s drive-thru back in August, 2010. And the coffee spilled onto her lap—her thighs and abdomen to be specific—leading to a burn injury. According to a quote from her attorney, Ms. Pettigrew is still receiving treatment for her burns.

If you’ve ever had exceedingly hot coffee that you’ve ordered on-the-go, you know it can be pretty painful if it spills on you. You also know, however, that there are 50-50 odds at best that the person serving you the coffee has actually put the lid on properly. So it’s easy to see how Ms. Pettigrew might have wound up filing a personal injury complaint.

It’s her co-plaintiff that gives this hot coffee lawsuit it’s twist—yes, Ms. Pettigrew is not suing solo. Ms. Pettigrew’s husband is alleging that he’s suffered loss of consortium as a result of his wife’s hot coffee burn injuries. You know Mickey D’s in-house counsel said, “now we’ve seen everything” when this lawsuit landed on their desks.

Sadly, though, you can understand this one. We know—hot coffee lawsuit jokes aside—that the 1992 McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit was not actually frivolous—there was not only injury but what most would consider negligence on McDonald’s part (note, the ’92 lawsuit went to trial and ultimately settled). And, if the allegations in the Pettigrews’ lawsuit are true—i.e., that that McDonald’s employees served coffee that was too hot or without securing the lid, or that McDonald’s did not properly train and educate workers on handing hot coffee to customers—then shame on McDonald’s for not effectively institutionalizing processes and procedures to avoid such hot coffee injuries.

The second McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit has two sides to it—it’s not as seemingly straightforward as the one above.

In this one, Mona Abdelal was with her granddaughters, Lynn Abdelal (4 yrs. old) and her 2-year-old sister, at a McDonald’s in Harwood Heights, IL. The grandmother had finished her coffee and instructed little Lynn to throw the cup out. Lynn, not understanding, went up to the McDonald’s counter and ordered a refill for her grandmother. The little girl was told that fresh coffee was brewing, so the girl came back and was given a cup of coffee—allegedly with an unsecured lid and no protective cardboard holder.

According to the complaint, Lynn “could not hold the cup steady in her small hands. A lot of coffee spilled out of the cup onto (the girl’s) chest, causing (her) to sustain severe second-degree burns”.

There is absolutely no question that it is a travesty when a little child—any child—is harmed; and in this instance, the girl’s doctors have said she will have permanent scarring from the coffee burns.

There is also absolutely no question, that if the allegations are true—that a McDonald’s worker gave a 4-year-old hot coffee (beyond irresponsible) that was improperly contained (negligence)—that McDonald’s should at least in part be liable.

However, think of the time elapsed here—a little girl who is supposed to go to a trash bin and come right back instead goes to the restaurant counter, engages in at least some dialog, has to come back for the coffee, and then gingerly walk back to the table to Grandma. Where on earth was the grandmother’s attention all that time? According to reports, it was on the 2-year-old sister. Understandably, but a lack of attention on the 4-year-old as she’s wandering through McDonald’s seems a bit, well irresponsible.

So while this hot coffee lawsuit is seeking close to $4 million in damages, there are some grey areas and we’ll have to see where it all nets out.

Tags: Burn Injury, Hot Coffee Lawsuit, Loss of Consortium, McDonald's, McDonald's Coffee
Posted in lawsuits, Personal Injury | 1 Comment »

Happy Meal Lawsuit: Where Do I Sign Up?

December 29th, 2010. By janem

Hey Kids, contrary to what those clever folks at McDonald’s (the experts in deceptive marketing) have led you to believe, Happy Meals are not Happy Toys.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a Sacramento Mom against McDonald’s, claiming the fast food giant engages in “the unfair, unlawful, deceptive and fraudulent practice of promoting and advertising McDonald’s Happy Meal products to very young California children, using the inducement of various toys.”

Of course Monet Parham (Mom and Plaintiff) knows that she can simply say “No” when her two kids demand a Happy Meal, and likely anticipated a backlash from media and parents suggesting she do just that. But like a gazillion working parents, she is sick and tired of having to say no over and over again. If not for McDonald’s “Neuromarketing” (yep, that’s what they call it, getting into your kid’s head) she probably wouldn’t mind them having a Happy Meal now and then.

But McDonald’s aggressive marketing tactics have got to be reigned in. Any corporation that has so much impact on a child’s health must also have a moral responsibility to ensure they are serving healthy food and not paving the way for toddlers to become obese before they turn into teenagers.

A lot of thought—which spells mega-profit—is behind the marketing of Happy Meal toys. According to the CSPI lawsuit, QSR (quick service restaurant) magazine quoted Roy Bergold, Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: consumer_fraud, Happy Meal, McDonald's, McDonald's Happy Meal, McDonald's Lawsuit
Posted in Consumer Fraud | 7 Comments »

Happy Meal Lawsuit: Forget Obesity, Parenting’s the Real Issue

December 16th, 2010. By AbiK

So here we go again. Someone who seemingly forgot that, by the way, she’s a parent, has decided to file a lawsuit in California—well, to be fair, she filed it with folks from over at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)—against McDonald’s. Why? Because they apparently target children when they market their Happy Meals to the public at large (ie, deceptive marketing). And, let’s face it, no one’s suggesting to throw a Happy Meal on the official Food Pyramid—it’s not the healthiest fare.

I paused as I read the news on this to reflect upon a phrase someone here (yes, my boss) tends to quote: “Where there’s loss, there’s liability.” I’ll tell you where the loss is—it’s in our collective minds. And don’t think I’m being harsh here or pro promoting a pathway to childhood obesity and potentially a whole host of related grown-up health issues. Here—this is a quote from Monet Parham—the woman who filed the lawsuit–from cnn.com today:

“We have to say no to our kids so many times and McDonald’s makes that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald’s is getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.”

Am I the only one who reads that and goes, “huh?”

Think about it. Ms. Parham is saying that McDonald’s is making it hard to say “no” to her kids. I have visions of Ronald McDonald, the Hamburglar and Fry Guys coming down upon the roof of the Parham’s abode, SWAT team style, and basically holding her and her family hostage until she says, “YES!! We’ll have the fries!” Surely there ought be local news footage of that scene somewhere on youtube—but you haven’t seen it yet, have you? That’s because it doesn’t exist.

See, in my household—I have 3 kids—I could drive down the street, passing a McDonald’s every 500 feet, and have zero problem saying “no” to my kids, no matter how much they might beg for a Happy Meal. Is it just me? (Btw, don’t miss my last post on this issue with Happy Meal Lawsuits, where I bring Larry Winget into the picture.)

And in terms of McDonald’s getting into my kids’ heads without my permission…Note to Ms. Parham—you gave permission when you allowed your kids to either turn on the tv or pick up a magazine or listen to the radio. Don’t want it to happen? Turn off the t.v.—or at the very least, engage your kids in a healthy discussion about healthy foods and “good” food choices.

This McDonald’s Happy Meal lawsuit gets better though. CNN quotes CSPI Executive Director Michael Jacobson as saying “They are going straight at little kids. The company is using unfair techniques to persuade the kids to persuade the parents to go to McDonald’s. Tobacco companies don’t go after 3 year-olds. Neither does Coca Cola or Pepsi.”

Coca-Cola or Pepsi? Ever heard of Hi-C?

As for claims that using a toy as a ploy to lure kids into the McDonald’s franchise, no kidding. But the kids have parents. Parents who should be taking responsibility—and parenting.

I wonder if Ms. Parham is eco-conscious? If so, do her kids want the new Hess Toy Truck and Jet? Would she buy Hess gas just because her kids want her to go see and get the truck? Talk about enticing marketing—have you seen that commercial? The Hess truck even has a Facebook page! My kids, who don’t even watch much t.v. know the Hess truck jingle by heart. Are they getting it? No.

How about those little plastic M&M guys—there’s a whole line of them, just for little kids to delight over. You know what happens when my kids see one in a store and want it? I say no. And we don’t buy the M&M’s either.

It’s a simple equation—marketers minus consumers equals…nothing. Those huge marketing budgets that McDonald’s can blow on Happy Meal toys only work because parents are laying out cash for them.

Believe me, I am no fan of fast food and the crap that comes in any of the kids’ meal bags or boxes. I also agree that this country has a serious problem with childhood obesity. But let’s not absolve ourselves as parents of the responsibility of parenting.

And let’s not clog our legal system with lawsuits that can be solved with a two-letter word: No.

There’s the bait. Who thinks they can argue otherwise?

Tags: Happy Meal Lawsuit, McDonald's, McDonald's Happy Meal, McDonald's Lawsuit
Posted in Emerging Issues | 10 Comments »

Sue McDonald’s? Sounds Frivolous to me

June 23rd, 2010. By AbiK

So The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is targeting McDonald’s and its ubiquitous Happy Meal toys. Seems if McDonald’s doesn’t stop dangling those toys in front of wide-eyed kids, the CSPI is set to sue the fast-food giant.

Now, I’m no fan of Happy Meals. Though, I will say, kid-sized menus across the board have slowly been responding to consumer demand for healthier options to be included in the movie-du-jour carry-out meal box. Options like low-fat milk, apple slices, carrot sticks… Still, let’s face it, a Happy Meal cannot compare to a wholesome meal.

But, as far as I’m concerned, this is another example of the “who’s responsible here?” question.

Here’s a typical example of how Happy Meal marketing plays out in my home—which includes three kid-meal aged kids:

Mom (aka me): Darn, I wanted to get that roast in the oven but now it’s too late!

Kids: Let’s go to McDonald’s!!!!!

Mom: No.

If you’ve noticed, there’s a two-letter word there that flew—effortlessly I might add—right out of my mouth. In case you missed it, it was “No.”

As in No, we’re not going to McDonald’s. No, we’re not getting any Happy Meals. No, I’m not letting any Happy Meal toys enter the house only to find themselves heading to a landfill within mere minutes of the meal’s consumption. If you haven’t yet noticed, Mommy doesn’t do Happy Meals. I do Happy. I do Meals. But the two don’t co-exist at the dinner table.

So the CSPI sent McDonald’s a letter stating that Mickey D’s is violating state consumer protection laws in four states and Washington, DC. According to cnn.com, the letter gives McDonald’s 30 days to agree to stop using toys in its Happy Meals.

The CSPI also seems to like extremes when it comes to the use of analogy—granted, it’s for effect, but still—here’s what their litigation director is quoted as having said in a prepared statement: “McDonald’s is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children…It’s a creepy and predatory practice that warrants an injunction.”

If I take that literally, Ronald McDonald ought to be on a searchable sex offender Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: CSPI, McDonald's, McDonald's Happy Meal
Posted in Consumer Fraud, Emerging Issues | No Comments »

McDonald’s: Funniest Lawsuit Quote of the Week

January 27th, 2010. By AbiK

McDonald’s counsel has the material for a reality show on its hands—I’m convinced. Case in point #1, yesterday’s Totally Tortelicious. Case in point #2 is better though…the setting is a McDonald’s located in Lemmer, The Netherlands.

Apparently, a waitress sold a hamburger to a co-worker. After the transaction was complete—and that’s a key element here—the co-worker asked for some cheese. The waitress complied—thereby turning the HAMburger into a CHEESEburger. And you and I and every fool across the globe knows that a CHEESEburger costs more than a HAMburger. Even in a Happy Meal.

So the cheese-doling waitress was fired. Hey, 10¢ is 10¢ (I’m guessing). And if 100 waitresses did that, why, that would be $10 eating into Mickey D’s bottom line. Unacceptable.

Now, I don’t know why the waitress didn’t ask for the extra cash. Maybe there wasn’t a key on the register that said “Extra Cheese” that could be hit as a single transaction; or maybe she’d have to process a refund for the hamburger, get management’s authorization, and re-process the transaction as a cheeseburger. And maybe she did some quick math and realized it would cost the company more for her to invest her time in such a transaction (not to mention the cost of the paper receipts!) that she was actually trying to save the company a dime (no pun intended). Doubt it, but you never know.

Regardless, McDonald’s stance was based on some hard and fast company staff rules that prohibit free gifts to family, friends or colleagues. (Note to self, if offered slice of cheese as gift, drop friend). Rules are rules and the waitress had to go.

And then came the wrongful termination lawsuit.

And now the judgement: McDonald’s was ordered to pay the former waitress 4,200 euros—roughly $5,900—to cover the last five months of her employment contract.

And the funniest quote? The written judgement states the “dismissal was too severe a measure” followed by:

“It is just a slice of cheese.”

Tags: Cheese, Holland, McDonald's, Netherlands
Posted in Employment | No Comments »