- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Blind man sues McD's - people will sue for anything
Posted on 5/31/16 at 4:37 pm
Posted on 5/31/16 at 4:37 pm
OT lawyers please explain this one to me...
Why is it again that people who file frivolous lawsuits don't have to pay the lawyer's fees of the people they sue? Oh right, trial lawyers groups exerting pressure on their trial lawyer turned politician buddies.
quote:
Is a late-night McDonald’s run a protected right?
A blind Louisiana man says he was denied service when he walked up to a McDonald's late-night drive-thru window in Metairie in 2015, according to the Chicago Tribune.
On Thursday, Scott Magee, 35, filed a class-action lawsuit in Chicago's federal court, alleging that McDonald's has no "concern whatsoever for the accessibility of the late-night drive-thrus to the disabled," the newspaper reported. McDonald's, which has headquarters in Oak Brook, Ill., near Chicago, does not allow walk-up traffic at its late-night drive-thru.
WBBM-TV in Chicago reports that Magee tried to order on foot late at a McDonald’s drive-thru after the lobby had closed one night in August 2015 near his home in Metairie, but the employees “refused service to him, laughed, and told him to go away,” the suit says.
He suffered the same experience on other occasions and “felt ashamed of his inability to access the McDonald’s services,” the suit says.
Why is it again that people who file frivolous lawsuits don't have to pay the lawyer's fees of the people they sue? Oh right, trial lawyers groups exerting pressure on their trial lawyer turned politician buddies.
36
Posted on 5/31/16 at 4:39 pm to jbgleason
I agree with him, screw McD's
Posted on 5/31/16 at 4:39 pm to jbgleason
This case lacks vision.
Posted on 5/31/16 at 4:40 pm to jbgleason
quote:
Why is it again that people who file frivolous lawsuits don't have to pay the lawyer's fees of the people they sue?
that is theoretically possible
Rule 11
quote:
A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.
are you talking about a "loser pays" system?
Posted on 5/31/16 at 4:40 pm to mikrit54
quote:
This case lacks vision.
If only I could give 1,000 UPvotes.
Posted on 5/31/16 at 4:40 pm to jbgleason
I honestly can't see how this case ends up
Posted on 5/31/16 at 4:40 pm to jbgleason
quote:They can be made to pay attorney fees.
Why is it again that people who file frivolous lawsuits don't have to pay the lawyer's fees of the people they sue?
Posted on 5/31/16 at 4:41 pm to jbgleason
In hindsight, I think he has a case
Posted on 5/31/16 at 4:41 pm to jbgleason
quote:
Why is it again that people who file frivolous lawsuits don't have to pay the lawyer's fees of the people they sue? Oh right, trial lawyers groups exerting pressure on their trial lawyer turned politician buddies.
Don't let me stop your uninformed political rant, but this ^ is not entirely true.
Posted on 5/31/16 at 4:42 pm to jbgleason
A blind pedestrian in the drive through lane, what could possibly go wrong?
Posted on 5/31/16 at 4:43 pm to jbgleason
That excerpt doesn't tell me a damn thing. Could be frivolous, could have a point, can't tell anything from what they used.
Posted on 5/31/16 at 4:43 pm to jbgleason
quote:
Why is it again that people who file frivolous lawsuits don't have to pay the lawyer's fees of the people they sue? Oh right, trial lawyers groups exerting pressure on their trial lawyer turned politician buddies.
There are laws regarding frivolous lawsuits. If this guy's suit is indeed frivolous, then McDonald's should avail themselves of those laws. That said, I would never take this case as common sense says that McDonald's policy is for safety, not to deny blind people access to a drive through window.
Posted on 5/31/16 at 4:43 pm to Jim Rockford
i'm thinking this is based in some federal anti-discrimination law, likely the ADA
this isn't a case of blaming the lawyers. this is a case of blaming the politicians
and the President who signed the ADA into law was GHWB
this isn't a case of blaming the lawyers. this is a case of blaming the politicians
and the President who signed the ADA into law was GHWB
Posted on 5/31/16 at 4:44 pm to jbgleason
Its called a drive thru, not a walk thru
Posted on 5/31/16 at 4:44 pm to jbgleason
quote:
Why is it again that people who file frivolous lawsuits don't have to pay the lawyer's fees of the people they sue? Oh right, trial lawyers groups exerting pressure on their trial lawyer turned politician buddies.
Posted on 5/31/16 at 4:44 pm to jbgleason
Justice...
Is Blind.
Is Blind.
Posted on 5/31/16 at 4:45 pm to jbgleason
If they served the blind man who walked up to the drive thru window and he was struck and killed by a motorist, then his relatives would sue because mc Donald's served him from a drive up window.
If businesses today had to provide for everyone regardless of handicaps, religion, sexual preferences, and etc.; they would need walk up windows with braille menus, walk up windows with close caption monitors for deaf people, a handicapped drive thru for handicapped people who couldn't hear, a regular drive thru, restrooms for men, women, men who believe they are women, women who believe they are men and a special place for people to order coffee for those that do not realize hot coffee is hot.
If businesses today had to provide for everyone regardless of handicaps, religion, sexual preferences, and etc.; they would need walk up windows with braille menus, walk up windows with close caption monitors for deaf people, a handicapped drive thru for handicapped people who couldn't hear, a regular drive thru, restrooms for men, women, men who believe they are women, women who believe they are men and a special place for people to order coffee for those that do not realize hot coffee is hot.
Posted on 5/31/16 at 4:47 pm to ksayetiger
quote:
This case lacks vision.
quote:
I honestly can't see how this case ends up
quote:
In hindsight, I think he has a case
Let's not lose sight of what the case really is about with bad puns.
This post was edited on 5/31/16 at 4:48 pm
Posted on 5/31/16 at 4:48 pm to doubleb
quote:
special place for people to order coffee for those that do not realize hot coffee is hot
I was waiting for this to come up. That lawsuit is a litmus test go determine whether or not someone is informed on a topic such as this. Obviously you aren't.
Posted on 5/31/16 at 4:49 pm to jbgleason
I've been denied the exact same service and I'm not blind. Case dismissed.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News