Damaged By The King

We’ve all heard about those amazing lawsuits involving fast food chains. They usually involve some wild-ass claim. There’s a guy suing BK for screwing up his order in Virginia. Seems kind of silly, eh? But when you read the actual lawsuit, it would appear that the plaintiff genuinely feels like he has been damaged by BK’s mistake. I get it and am actually gratified to see that somebody actually considered how they were damaged as a basis for the lawsuit. I guess the questions are…  Assuming one knew about a severe allergic reaction to a particular substance (presumably, that’s why he specifically ordered his meal without the ingrdient), wouldn’t a reasonable person actually check the item to be consumed before consuming it to avoid such reactions? Or does the sole responsibility for one’s health and welfare, or injury to that health, reside with the provider of substances that affect it? I gotta think that making BK responsible for insuring that you do not have allergic reactions is kind of silly.


%d bloggers like this: