Also, I understood perfectly. In my previous job, I was the one who certified the safety of new vehicle designs, so I had a significant amount of dealings with lawyers. The company I worked for gone out of their way to ensure that their products exceeded industry standards for safety. Yet, they still got sued simply because they had deep pockets. I should point out that settling out of court does not imply guilt. Sometimes it's simply cheaper to pay the guy off than to spend years in court. The risk was that it will encourage frivolous law suits.
It is perfectly legal and desirable to sell potentially dangerous products as long as the danger is known. Obvious example are saws, motorbikes and guns. But the law requires the manufacturer to provide warnings when the danger is readily apparent.If your way was true, then products could literally cause you health problems or kill you outright. If profits from not fixing the problem were greater than the revenue lost by loosing you as customer (due to death), then they would not give a flying fuck if you died. Lawsuits balance out this complete lack of concern for your well being.
The point was that not all dangers are labelled. People need to take responsibility for themselves sometimes.Eating detergent is not likely, unless someone is insane.
No. They lost on appeal. The final result was an out of court settlement.Anyway, concerning McDonald's, it doesn't really matter what you believe about the woman or if you think you could win the case for McDonald's. Given the same circumstances, it would be won every time.
The bottom line is that the case was not ethically or legally clear cut.