Quote:
Originally posted by Roscoe
washingtonpost.com
Couple Sues McDonald's Over Tough Bagel
The Associated Press
Tuesday, February 4, 2003; 10:20 AM
PANAMA CITY BEACH, Fla. –– A couple is suing the franchisee of a McDonald's restaurant, claiming an improperly prepared bagel damaged the husband's teeth and their marriage.
John and Cecelia O'Hare sued Friday for unspecified damages more than $15,000. They alleged the McDonald's, owned by Johnstone Foods Inc., was negligent and violated an "implied warranty that the food sold was reasonably fit for human consumption."
They contend in the suit that John O'Hare broke teeth and bridgework on Feb. 1, 2002 when he bit into the bagel. The suit did not say what exactly was wrong with the bagel.
The suit alleges the wife "lost the care, comfort, consortium and society of her husband." The couple's attorney, Tim Warner, did not return telephone messages left at his office.
Tracey Johnstone, owner of Johnstone Foods, said she never before had a bagel complaint and had no idea how it could have been prepared in a way that would damage teeth.
"It's a bagel," she said.
© 2003 The Associated Press
|
If they lose that suit they can always turn to the other deep pockets, the dentist's malpractice carrier, when after subpoenaing the records, it is determined that the dentist did not give informed consent against bagel eating. Never mind the fact that for 50 years the plaintiff smoked, never brushed his teeth, and had end stage gum disease.
I'm sorry, but while my earlier post sighted insurance companies, lawyers, and the failure of Congress to enact 'loser pays' legislation as ALL being part of the problem, an attorney blaming the insurance companies is like the "pot calling the kettle black".
I have no problem with attorneys doing all they can, arguing with all their might to win their clients cases (and keep 40% for themselves), as the other side will do the same, if you don't; but, this results in endless cases which run up huge bills, as I said. With regard to 'loser pays' laws limiting poor peoples access to the court system, it would not be long before enterprising trial lawyers (the one's with ads on the front/back/inside covers of the phone book) would be marketing their services with a promise to cover the costs in they do not settle, therefore, it would not limit peoples access to the court system.
With regard, to insurance companies drumming up a crisis between lawyers and doctors, GIVE ME A BREAK! Is it the insurance companies that are forcing the attorneys to flood the soap opera commercials, (to the stay at home ne'er do wells who are looking for a big lottery payoff), with enticements to sue their doctors, or their grandmother's nursing homes? I don't think so!
We have got a huge problem here, that is just now reaching the Cobra market. But, just ask the doctor's, companies sued over asbestos that never made asbestos, or any number of legitimate businesses being decimated by A COMBINATION of the above three problems, and they will concur.
And Evan, if I ever need a trial lawyer, I'm calling you. Your energy seems boundless, and wearing the opposition down is half the battle.
And, thanks for the info Klayfish.
Hybrid Mode
