Peter A wrote:
>
> In article >,
> says...
> > I'm not absolving McD's of anything, simply saying gee, didn't someone look?
> > I mean if this guy's allergy to cheese is *that* bad you'd think someone
> > (including himself) would have checked his order. It's not like cheese is
> > invisible.
> >
>
> I agree in part - the guy "should" have looked. I would have. But, the
> fact that he did not look doesn't absolve McD's of its responsibility.
> They made a mistake, they are responsible for that mistake.
So they made a mistake. They gave him something more than he asked for.
What is the big deal?
If he is so extremely allergic to cheese that he had a serious reaction the
onus is really on him to check. He is the one who is going to suffer.
> Situations such as this are rarely clear cut. No one party is totally at
> fault while the other is totally blameless. You and others seem to think
> that because the victim did not behave perfectly that the responsibility
> is all his. Why not reverse that? The business did not behave perfectly
> so the responsibility is all their's.
He is the one with the problem that is so extremely serious, so he should
be checking things himself before putting them in his mouth. I don't think
that anyone here expects the guy to be perfect in his action, but he
expects perfection from a fast food joint. I think it is only fair to judge
MacDonalds by the same standards he accepts for himself.