Conquer Club

READ THIS ARTICLE TO FIND OUT.

yeah, I heard about that...

I think OMGWTFBBQ pretty much covers that.

the fact that they are going to sue McDonalds is complete bullshit...it had nothing to do with what happened...the employee was fired, arrested, all that jazz...MD can't control what their employees do...they did the right thing, with firing and all that, and cooperating with the police...and they are going to get punished for it...complete BULLSHIT...

s.xkitten wrote:the fact that they are going to sue McDonalds is complete bullshit...it had nothing to do with what happened...the employee was fired, arrested, all that jazz...MD can't control what their employees do...they did the right thing, with firing and all that, and cooperating with the police...and they are going to get punished for it...complete BULLSHIT...

I agree 100%

I may have to eat at the arches in the US, it sounds lucrative.

Well I only know Australian law, but our systems are both based on the British model so they are fairly similar. Employees are usually not worth suing, a teenager working at McDonalds for example, is not likely to be able to cough up millions. The law demands that employers train their employees and take responsibility for their actions while at work. This is an incentive on employers to take care in who they hire and the level of training they provide. If the staff of a McDonalds are handing out pot that is clearly negligence on behalf of the staff at McDonalds and therefore the company itself. Hope that helps.

funny story

stupid move, must've had bad luck - how many ppl would have kept the weed? damn, need to start eating happy meals...

and the lawsuit is all about money plain and simple

chewyman wrote:Well I only know Australian law, but our systems are both based on the British model so they are fairly similar. Employees are usually not worth suing, a teenager working at McDonalds for example, is not likely to be able to cough up millions. The law demands that employers train their employees and take responsibility for their actions while at work. This is an incentive on employers to take care in who they hire and the level of training they provide. If the staff of a McDonalds are handing out pot that is clearly negligence on behalf of the staff at McDonalds and therefore the company itself. Hope that helps.

That's insane. Not saying its not true, just insane. So if a worker at McDonald's clubs a customer to death....McDonald's can wind up with a civil suit for negligence in training the employee NOT to club people to death? This is what is wrong with the justice system (and lawyers in general)... greed makes the world go round.

I think that if the court decides in the family's favor, the employee should be sent to rehab and all that jazz. The family should get like compensatory damages, but nothing punitive.

jay_a2j wrote:

chewyman wrote:Well I only know Australian law, but our systems are both based on the British model so they are fairly similar. Employees are usually not worth suing, a teenager working at McDonalds for example, is not likely to be able to cough up millions. The law demands that employers train their employees and take responsibility for their actions while at work. This is an incentive on employers to take care in who they hire and the level of training they provide. If the staff of a McDonalds are handing out pot that is clearly negligence on behalf of the staff at McDonalds and therefore the company itself. Hope that helps.

That's insane. Not saying its not true, just insane. So if a worker at McDonald's clubs a customer to death....McDonald's can wind up with a civil suit for negligence in training the employee NOT to club people to death? This is what is wrong with the justice system (and lawyers in general)... greed makes the world go round.

It's not just training. McDonalds should be providing adequate supervision for their employees. McDonalds is not liable in your example of battery, that is a criminal offence as opposed to a civil offence. As far as I am aware, this law only applies for negligence. Of course it's about money, all civil suits are meant to be.

don't argue over whether or not the family wants to sue. they simply want to get rich. US pussies.

safariguy5 wrote:I think that if the court decides in the family's favor, the employee should be sent to rehab and all that jazz. The family should get like compensatory damages, but nothing punitive.

Damages? No harm no foul! Now if the kid ate the weed, maybe then you could sue. But a free Happy Meal or two should suffice.

safariguy5 wrote:I think that if the court decides in the family's favor, the employee should be sent to rehab and all that jazz. The family should get like compensatory damages, but nothing punitive.

compensation? for what damages? "psychological damages"? those arguments usually don't hold up in court because no one can put a value on your feelings..

chewyman wrote: McDonalds should be providing adequate supervision for their employees.

Crazy talk.

Where do you draw the line on this? Next thing you'll want them to make sure the employees wash their hands and dispose of rotted food.

Lucky kid. Shame about his moneygrabbing killjoy parents. What are the odds their first reaction wasn't 'oh lord! drugs! our poor child!' but 'honey look, $$$$$$$!!!'

Re: emotional damages...
Some family over here tried to sue mcdonalds a couple of years back when they found a deep fried chicken head in their mcnuggets, but they kind of shot themselves in the foot by being photographed holding it up for the press cameras. Judge said they couldn't have suffered that much emotional damage if they were smiling and posing with the source of their trauma.

These guys are going to sue the judge who throws them out of court for loss of earnings.

wtf was he thinking

If there was a whole bag in there they got a hella good deal on that "happy" meal. That thing should have cost at least $30 depending on how big the bag was perhaps way more.

Now they want MORE money?

I read an article in the paper about a condom being found in a happy meal

Anarchy Ninja wrote:I read an article in the paper about a condom being found in a happy meal

Now that is just wrong.

jay_a2j wrote:

chewyman wrote:Well I only know Australian law, but our systems are both based on the British model so they are fairly similar. Employees are usually not worth suing, a teenager working at McDonalds for example, is not likely to be able to cough up millions. The law demands that employers train their employees and take responsibility for their actions while at work. This is an incentive on employers to take care in who they hire and the level of training they provide. If the staff of a McDonalds are handing out pot that is clearly negligence on behalf of the staff at McDonalds and therefore the company itself. Hope that helps.

That's insane. Not saying its not true, just insane. So if a worker at McDonald's clubs a customer to death....McDonald's can wind up with a civil suit for negligence in training the employee NOT to club people to death? This is what is wrong with the justice system (and lawyers in general)... greed makes the world go round.

Nope, probably not.
Vicarious liability for the acts of employees is one of the more complex aspects of tort law, which, so I don't think we're going to get much out of discussing it here. But in short the position is this (in the UK, and it's pretty similar in the US, though it varies slightly in each common law jurisdiction): Companies are liable for the acts of their employees that can be considered to have been conducted in their course of work. They're also liable if they fail to employ people who are competent to undertake the tasks assigned to them. Hence if I employ a negligent surgeon, I'll be liable for it when he sews a patients leg to their neck. It's a good doctrine, because as SixKitten points out, employees frequently don't have the money to pay in compensation to their victims; and the firms do share the blame with them.
There is of course a logical cut off point for these liability chains. Drug dealing from MacDonalds is probably right on the fringe of 'in the line of work', and killing somebody is quite clearly outside of it. It all boils down to whether the company was or was not negligent in selecting the candidate (conducting thorough enough interviews/screening) when they appointed them to work, or whether they were negligent in supervising him during the work he undertook.

You're quite right; every now and then ridiculous settlements do get made in the courts (and the US courts have some spectacular ones), but the principle of vicarious liability is a fine one; and one that's 100% necessary in our respective complex and commercialised societies.

Hope that answers some of your questions about how the suing MacDonald's thing works; it's off the top of my head, so it might not be totally coherent. Although I'm happy to answer any questions you've got about it...

I'd be very happy about a meal like that ;)

It's the level's of compensation that get me. I mean - how distraught could you be? I can see that they would be a bit pissed off at McD's but how much compensation should they get? $500 maybe, not something ridiculous like it usually is.

No you're right. There are an unfortunate minority of cases that result in inane compensation payments; which is a shame, because it reduces people's confidence in the tort system as a whole. ($20 million because a sky dish was wrongly installed, and then fell off of the house and into a hedge in the garded is my favourite).
The problem really is that it's impossible to quantify intangible things like anguish, shock and inconvenience; and every now and then judges (and juries in some systems) go a little bit crazy.

But you're right, I think $1000 would be generous in a case like this.
So your kid saw some drugs, and had to share a Happy Meal with her sibling. Big whoop. She probably won't even remember it; and she certainly wasn't shocked and corrupted.

Why do we always have to read articles whenever jay makes a new topic?


funny though.