McDonald's being sued because "Late Night: Drive Thru Only" is Discriminatory...towards the Blind

Are you ever not angry about something.?

Political Correctness SUCKS.

It's not safety per se--it's about liability: establishing an unsafe environment for a customer to be in, even if the customer assents to it.

M.C. Confusing wrote:

This isn't an ADA issue, because it isn't about being blind, because this policy affects everyone equally. ANYONE without a car can not get food via the drive through. And it isn't just McDonalds. Pretty much every single fast food drive-thru has a no walk up policy. The corporate reasoning I have heard is safety. And it is a totally legitimate concern as well. Last thing you need is some guy walking up to the window get hit by some idiot not looking driving his car. Because you as a restaurant will be legally liable.

Several years back a few friends and I tried to walk up to a drive-thru and were turned away. None of us were blind or handicapped. We just happened to be in town without a car so we were on foot.

Stick with eharmony wrote:

Welcome to Obamas America

Where he apparently exiled the apostrophe.

Prolly via Executive Order.

Welcome to McDonald's. Can I take your executive order?

DaFoosball wrote:

Am I the only one who has actually gotten served walking through a drive through at McDonald's? We had four guys and pretended we were in a car. The workers just laughed when they saw what we were doing and served us anyway.

You didn't pretend anything. You identified as a driver and passengers. And that guy had better serve you lest he wanted to get sued.

I'm suing the county. My last name starts with a letter from near the end of the alphabet and I have to walk further than other people do to get my books on hold.

Wtf is with Lawyers attaching "Esquire" to themselves as a title? Am I missing something here or do they just not realize its a hollow title that makes them look like a pompous moron?

Class action or non-compliance lawsuits occur in lieu of regulatory enforcement. This is policy in Canada as well. The alternative is regulations which are ignored. I don't think anyone would want asbestos used in construction materials.This idea of, "tort reform" is a smoke screen by companies to relieve themselves if the cost of compliance w regulations.

Canadian blind friend wrote:

You Americans "solve" every problem by suing, which unfortunately gets everyone defensive rather than fixing things.

My roommate is visually impaired. He can get around fine on foot or public transit, but he sure as hell can't drive. Why shouldn't he be able to pick up takeout from a takeout establishment during its hours of operation?

Another vote in favor of the coffee lady.

At the time, McDonalds was offering free refills on coffee in the dining room as a promotion to bring in customers. However, they intentionally super heated the coffee to slow down the rate of consumption and effectively negate the refill policy. McDonalds knew the coffee was hot enough to cause severe burns but did not lower the temperature.

Additionally, you may remember that back then fast food cups tended to be very thin and flimsy (obviously made to be as cheap as possible).

These cups could easily implode unless they were handled very carefully. Coffee lady was served through the drive through and placed the cup between her thighs to hold it while she completed the transaction. The cup easily buckled under the pressure and the lid popped off. The poor lady received 3rd degree burns (yes, 3rd degree) all over her thighs and groin area, and required reconstructive surgery to her private areas.

Essentially the court found that it was grossly negligent of McDonalds to pass dangerously hot liquid through the drive thru window in an extremely flimsy container. You can thank this case for the nice styrofoam and stiff cardboard cups with sturdy lids that are now standard at all coffee to-go establishments.

Blind guy's case is bogus because there is an obvious safety and liability concern with mixing vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the same lane. There is no right to eat McDonalds after midnight and McDonalds is in no way obligated to offer a walk up window at all locations.

centro does it better wrote:

What a joke. 100% siding with McDs. They have ZERO obligation to serve this weirdo who tried to order food on foot through a drive through. Another example of ridiculous lawsuits driving up prices for everyone else so that a tiny minority gets their 2 am Big Mac fix.

Your need to call someone a "weirdo" in order to avoid the issue at hand says a great deal about you and nothing at all about the individual who wishes to order while on foot.

Not Cool Bro wrote:

The lawsuit is dumb of course, but why won't McDonald's just serve people on foot at the drive through? Who cares? What difference does it make to them?

Because it's dangerous to have people walking/running through a driveway that's usually reserved for vehicle traffic - especially at night.

What they should do is install a walk-up window like they have at Checkers/Rallys.

Disregard...I didn't read through the whole thread.