• 5 Posts
  • 4.34K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle

  • Patent vs latent defect. Any issue with the product that the customer could reasonably identify before suffering harm is the customer’s responsibility to avoid. The vendor’s liability here is the cost of the burger. The vendor is not liable for the harm arising from the customer’s failure to look at the food they are about to eat.

    The vendor is responsible only for harm caused by defects the customer could not reasonably avoid. Hiddent, latent defects.

    If this is a case of subrogation, as I suspect, the customer acquired insurance coverage for the purpose (in part) of mitigating harm due to their own negligence. If this is the case, it is that insurance policy that is liable for the harm caused by the customer’s failure to verify the burger met their requirements.


  • Yeah but isn’t it a criminal act to poison

    “Poison” implies someone deliberately intended to cause harm. Nothing has been presented to argue that someone deliberately intended harm.

    I mean, if I was allergic, I wouldn’t trust the restaurant either,

    Exactly. This is what a reasonable, prudent person would do. If the customer had checked their order, they would have discovered the problem before any harm arose.

    Which is why this guy’s health insurance should simply cover this: simple negligence by the insured is not a valid justification for denying coverage.

    It would be different if we were talking about something that the customer couldn’t have verified. But the presence or absence of onions topping a burger is easily verified before consumption; the customer was not reliant on the restaurant to ensure their own safety. They had the ability to prevent this particular harm through a simple, reasonable action that they failed to perform.

    IMO, that means their liability here is the cost of the burger. They would have been expected to replace the burger if the customer had checked.

    But the real takeaway here is Fuck Health Insurance. If this is, indeed, subrogation as I suspect, we should be picketing an insurance executive.







  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todaytomemes@lemmy.world1/4>1/3 but 151>113
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    22 hours ago

    In taste tests, customers actually preferred A&W’s burger to McDonald’s,

    If those taste tests are accurate, I’m guessing that individual stores could select their own suppliers, and didn’t choose the suppliers used for the taste tests. Because every A&W burger I’ve had has been terrible. Completely inedible.

    I would rather buy a quarter pounder from anywhere else than accept a free 1/3, 1/2, or 1lb A&W burger.



  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todaytomemes@lemmy.world1/4>1/3 but 151>113
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    This, exactly.

    Anyone repeating this 1/4 vs 1/3 bullshit never had one of their 1/3lb burgers. They were fucking terrible. Sysco prison-grade burger patties, drowned in store-brand ketchup with a thin slice of “American”-flavored yellow #5.

    Absolute worst burger I’ve ever had.

    Growing up, A&W was for chili dogs and a big glass mug of rootbeer. Never order anything else; its always a fat sack of disappointment.