McDonald's sued over drive-through policy

[Jack Manolis]

Aaaahhh USA, beautiful one day, can't stand it the next day.

[Unknown27]

Thomas Bailey wrote:

I don't like hot drinks mainly for this reason. If a deaf driver can't hear the siren, she could see the flashing lights in her rear-view mirror. Most cellphones have text messaging capability, invented to accommodate deafness. Most TV shows have closed-captioning. I think the problem these days is greed. Arby's had touch screen ordering for a few years, then discontinued. If we factor in that the drive-through intercom is not "high-fidelity" and some cashiers have thick foreign accents, a touch-screen drive-through would make sense.

Touch screens for customers would be a terrible idea. They can't even SAY their order clearly so that another crew member can punch it in; how could they possibly PUNCH IT IN themselves?!

[me mari]

dumb

[Mr Voter]

why's the old hag driving....how is she going to hear a horn or someone yelling for her to stop....da old geezer take the bus!

[cant hear]

Damn now my big mac will go up in price..

[crew member]

i can imagine touch screen ordering. kids would come by press many buttons run away. people would enter wrong things get mad at employees. people would drive in not be able to use the machine because they can't read and dont know what the real name for the "chicken sandwhich" ,"fish sandwhich" or "double cheese burger off the dollar menu" is. lets face 95 percent of drive thru customers and like fat beyond belief to the point that they can drive with their bulge and eat their food with their hands.( i have seen it done) They are far to lazy to reach their arms out and order.

How i love my front counter

[liner]

deaf people can drive wrote:

<quoted text>
ever notice those big flashing lights on top of emergency vehicles? one's hearing is COMPLETELY irrelevant to one's driving abilities. Most deaf people are highly visually alert as it is, therefore they do not need to be able to hear an emergency vehicle to know one is around.
also, in the case of the drive-thru, it is virtually impossible for a deaf person to use even if they use their voice - what if the worker says, "can you repeat that?" or "we're all out of cheseburgers, order something else." the deaf person would be unaware that these things are being said. in order for mcdonald's to properly serve her, the woman needs to SEE the employee she is interacting with so she can read his/her lips or write down her order and hand it to him. pulling up to the window is not not a big deal!! She should not have to go to inside if she wants to use the drive-through.
Stop calling her a fatass - you don't know her or understand her circumstances!! Stop hiding behind the anonymity of the internet - would you say these things to this woman's face?
this woman WILL win her case.

You make some good points, but I have to disagree with the emergency vehicle thing. I see and hear normally and many times I've been at a busy intersection and hear a siren but have no idea where it's coming from until it's almost upon me. I think that would be a problem, no?

[Tweeter]

Maybe Mickey-D's should just get a big-asss speaker at the drive-thru and turn in up to 11.

[mandy]

Today,at lunch time hour i found a bone in my chicken nugget?! and chipped my tooth and almost chocked on it. Can I sew them ??

[Jack]

Will you 'sew' them with a lawyer or a needle?

mandy wrote:

Today,at lunch time hour i found a bone in my chicken nugget?! and chipped my tooth and almost chocked on it. Can I sew them ??

[Love My Job]

Stella wrote:

<quoted text>
Bradley -
Please investigate the facts surrounding the Stella Liebeck case against McDonald's. It was a valid claim wherein she suffered third degree burns over 20% of her body, spent 19 days in the burn unit and required debridement.
There were over 60 small claims suits against McDonald's in the previous year regarding people, young and old, being burned by their drinks served too hot. Ms. Liebeck even tried to settle with McDonald's for just her medical bills, yet they refused. Ms. Liebeck and her attorney did not sue for such an exorbitant amount, a jury awarded it to her.
Before you spout your hate, get the facts.

I totally agree that one should get the facts before they spout hate, however; anyone that would put a cup of HOT coffee in their lap must have some type of disability anyway - mental that is. I would not order coffee, expecting it to be cold would you? Another fact that is always misconstrued is that the coffee did not come with a "warning", however; after the courts looked into that they found that indeed the cup is marked but the lady "could not see the print". I don't work for McD's and I think that the lawsuit is/was frivolous. I believe that as relatively intelligent beings, we need to take SOME responsibility for our own actions. Putting a cup of HOT liquid between one's legs is not what I consider an intelligent decision in any situation.

[LMS]

Enough Already wrote:

I agree with W Shakespear "first we kill off all the lawyers". This would solve the problem with our overburdend court system, and would eliminate alot of the useless politicians running our governments into the ground.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!

[Burger King]

I'll have one law suit, please...hold the pickle.

Make that to go.

[PEllen]

Stella wrote:

<quoted text>
Bradley -
Please investigate the facts surrounding the Stella Liebeck case against McDonald's. It was a valid claim wherein she suffered third degree burns over 20% of her body, spent 19 days in the burn unit and required debridement.
There were over 60 small claims suits against McDonald's in the previous year regarding people, young and old, being burned by their drinks served too hot. Ms. Liebeck even tried to settle with McDonald's for just her medical bills, yet they refused. Ms. Liebeck and her attorney did not sue for such an exorbitant amount, a jury awarded it to her.
Before you spout your hate, get the facts.

Most of what you say sounds plausible ( and consistent with reliable stories at the time)except getting burned over 20% of your body from a single cup of coffee.

As to the current case, the ADA only requires reasonable accommodations.There is a reason they call them "dis"-abilities: you can't do everything .

[Ronald McLawyer]

This lawsuit, if successful, will raise the price of your cheeseburger

[Dick fitswell]

I love deaf people they are so much fun to hear talk when they can't controll the pitch of their voice.
And you can make fun of them for being different while they are sitting right next to you and they don't even know it

[Ronald McLawyer]

Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, tomatoes, onion on a seasame lawsuit

[So Silly]

How ridiculous

[TRSA]

Stella wrote:

<quoted text>
Be For Real, I order coffee and know it comes HOT!! DUH!! order hot get it hot. i dont care if it burnt her. be for real you must be an attorney or married to one. you order stuff you know is hot common sense be careful. DUH its hot
Bradley -
Please investigate the facts surrounding the Stella Liebeck case against McDonald's. It was a valid claim wherein she suffered third degree burns over 20% of her body, spent 19 days in the burn unit and required debridement.
There were over 60 small claims suits against McDonald's in the previous year regarding people, young and old, being burned by their drinks served too hot. Ms. Liebeck even tried to settle with McDonald's for just her medical bills, yet they refused. Ms. Liebeck and her attorney did not sue for such an exorbitant amount, a jury awarded it to her.
Before you spout your hate, get the facts.

Be For Real, I order coffee and know it comes HOT!! DUH!! order hot get it hot. i dont care if it burnt her. be for real you must be an attorney or married to one. you order stuff you know is hot common sense be careful. DUH its hot