McD's sued again over drinks, this time with burning chemicals allegedly.

[VirtualLarry]

A woman sued McDonald's for $13 million, accusing staff at an Alabama restaurant of serving her coffee containing chemicals and then refusing to call 911 after her throat started 'burning' (msn.com)

Seriously, they need to implement some sort of "chain of command" and "buddy system" when cleaning drink machines with potentially harmful chemicals. They should have at least TWO people, imho, sign off when the drink machine is cleaned and ready for service again.

(I didn't think that this was overly political, but if this seems like more P&N material then move it please.)

 

[lxskllr]

A lot of questions/problems there...

I'd be surprised if a restaurant used something toxic to clean machines with hard to access parts.
I think not displaying the MSDS is a pretty serious violation of rule/law.
I don't think cleaning a machine requires two people, tagging out, and other over the top rules. Just be competent. They aren't performing surgery, or decommissioning a nuclear reactor. It's unskilled labor. If they used toxic chemicals(see note 1) against protocol, I guess they're too stupid for unskilled labor. They should be jailed before their stupidity affects someone else.

 

[mindless1]

... or use less dangerous chemicals. I don't know the kind of coffee machine setup McD's has, but once upon a lifetime ago I had to clean coffee machines and just ran dilute vinegar through the machine and soap and water for the carafes, in the back, at a sink.

There was no accidental way that this could go wrong unless the next round of coffee was made with the mild vinegar solution because it wasn't run through, then you'd just have tart tasting coffee.

 

[Torn Mind]

I cannot yet find the full text of the filing, but the effects of the chemical sounds like something like sodium hydroxide or similar.

 

[Torn Mind]

This is a personal injury case, so it is a tort action.

The full complaint would have elements such as an introduction, sections addressing jurisdiction and venue.

There would be counts listing the alleged violations of law, of which negligence would certainly be one of them.

I suspect it's called a "harmful chemical" because the chemical was never personally identified by the complainant and her attorneys. They may try to use discovery to compel something to be produced...but who knows...McDonalds may never produce that bottle of cleaning solution.

I would suspect some medical records exist and submitted with the complaint as exhibits.

"As a direct result of drinking the dangerous chemical concoction served to her by McDonald's, plaintiff suffered injuries to her mouth, throat, esophagus, stomach, digestive tract, and other internal organs," the lawsuit said. "McDonald's conduct towards the plaintiff was atrocious and utterly intolerable."

This section is written as such because it is typical to "overplead" to some extent rather than leave something out. Likewise for damages, if you're not sure, plead more up to a certain limit, not less.