Muslim man sues Little Caesars, claiming 'halal' was a lie in Dearborn

[OldWiseGuy]

The point MacDonald's lost the case on was that there were internal memos from their consumer division and a couple of other divisions warning that the coffee was too hot and would needlessly injure customers.

A similar thing happened with Ford over the possible fire danger of their Pinto compact: There had been internal memos warning of the problem and even an internal report that it would be cheaper to pay the predicted number of death claims than to recall and retrofit the vehicles. The jury nailed them.

I don't think malicious intent by the parent company, Little Caesar's, can be proven in this case, or even proven against that particular franchisee. Only the employee was responsible, unless ordered by his or her superior to falsely label the product.

It would be interesting to know how non-Muslims understand the seriousness of accidently ingesting ritually unclean foods by Muslims (I never knew until now). Ignorance of this isn't the same as 'ignorance of the law', especially considering the rather cavalier attitude most Americans have regarding diet and health. If my eternal destiny depended on my diet I would certainly only eat food prepared by others that hold the same beliefs. It seems to me that this man was just careless, and it came back to bite him.

 

[Desk trauma]

I don't think malicious intent by the parent company, Little Caesar's, can be proven in this case, or even proven against that particular franchisee. Only the employee was responsible, unless ordered by his or her superior to falsely label the product.

Unless you have a line on internal Llittle Cesars documents that's pure speculation.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

I expect this person will either get no more than $5,000,000, or they will settle and he will get well under $3.5M.

And that would mean the closer of the pizza joint.

I hope that our Country has not fallen that far !

M-Bob

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Unless you have a line on internal Llittle Cesars documents that's pure speculation.

I speculate a lot.

 

[Desk trauma]

And that would mean the closer of the pizza joint.

I hope that our Country has not fallen that far !

M-Bob

It's a bit of a stretch to pin our overly litigious ways one this case.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And that would mean the closer of the pizza joint.

I hope that our Country has not fallen that far !

M-Bob

The suit is being brought against the parent company, not the franchisee. That's why it should fail.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

And that would mean the closer of the pizza joint.

I hope that our Country has not fallen that far !

M-Bob

That is the genius behind this entire thing.

This is the exact time to use demagoguery to influence a legal case in a legal way that actually matters in the decision.

It could really go either way. I doubt it will close LC, though. It could close the franchise as a penalty for the mistake; franchise owners must put up a certain amount of liquid just for this type of thing.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Dp

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Just hearing of this suit has lowered my opinion of Islam a little bit more. Islam has enough credibility problems in the west without outrageous suits like this one.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Reminds me of a story I heard when I was staying in Thailand. A Muslim man was travelling on a train from Malaysia up to Bangkok. On board, he was served a dish with pieces of meat on it. Not being sure what it was, he pointed to it and asked the waiter if it was pork, telling him he was a Muslim and couldn't eat it. The waiter replied - "not pork - moo".

The Muslim man figures that this means it's beef so he can eat it. And it turns out to be delicious, so for the rest of the journey he orders the same dish.

Sometime later while in Bangkok, he is mortified to learn that the Thai work for pig - หมู - is in fact pronounced "moo"

 

[RDKirk]

They don't even need to do all of that (in most other cases, absolutely,) because the company allegedly falsely advertised their product. And, if that is sufficiently proven, the issues of intent, negligence, breach, fraud, etc. would consequentially come up as an addition to the base.

"False advertising" would necessitate proving an intent to deceive.

That isn't impossible. If the stores normal processes aren't reasonably careful, that charge might fly...and the fact this accident happened suggests their processes aren't reasonably careful enough.

If I were advertising "halal" I'd make sure nothing non-halal was even in that store. Pork products simply wouldn't even get through the door.

 

[RDKirk]

...or alternatively he's just another slub looking to win the liability lottery.

It is a specific kind of action encouraged by Salafi doctrine in the US and the West.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

100 Million for eating a bit of Pork is absurd. Get a refund, maybe some free pizzas and an apology. Seems like they're just trying to get as much money as possible.

 

[keith99]

The point MacDonald's lost the case on was that there were internal memos from their consumer division and a couple of other divisions warning that the coffee was too hot and would needlessly injure customers.

A similar thing happened with Ford over the possible fire danger of their Pinto compact: There had been internal memos warning of the problem and even an internal report that it would be cheaper to pay the predicted number of death claims than to recall and retrofit the vehicles. The jury nailed them.

Which all but insured winning on punitive damages, which is what made the award so high.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

"False advertising" would necessitate proving an intent to deceive.

That isn't impossible. If the stores normal processes aren't reasonably careful, that charge might fly...and the fact this accident happened suggests their processes aren't reasonably careful enough.

If I were advertising "halal" I'd make sure nothing non-halal was even in that store. Pork products simply wouldn't even get through the door.

I could argue intent, especially with the proximity of the advertisement so close to a major Islamic holy day. Given any deals, or promotions coupled with this advertisement would be enough to prove intent - considering the pizzas were allegedly labelled Halal.

In general, yes. This ridiculous issue really falls on the unfathomable marketing, or management error of including an ingredient that was advertised otherwise. It is as ridiculous of a mistake as using gluten bread for a gluten free customer, or adding meat bouillon to vegeterian items.

So, while I am trying extremely hard to be sympathetic for LC, I cannot. And, unfortunately (depending on who represents who, and how counsel directs arguments,) the customer might actually have a case...



...for no more than 5% of what the customer is asking. And, that is the 100% ideal situation. I think if LC settles for more than $3M, or the customer wins a lawsuit (not counting class action,) of more than $5M, it will do the entire justice system a disservice, and begin a distraction are witch hunt for fast food chains and grocers.

Fast Food, INC should be the last place you go for religiously holy meals. And, there are much more important issues in the "Codex Alimentarius" of the State than what fast food companies accidently put in the food. That's the risk you take eating fast food; now, what is in the water, produce with certain PLU numbers, and meat we eat? Those are the active lawsuits of merit actually going on that should be asking for $100M + class action suit on behalf of the population.

 

[Hank77]

By the way what is Moughni's evidence/proof of his claim?

 

[Hank77]

It would be quite the ingenious marketing ploy especially during this time in history. $3,000,000 isn't that much for an advertisement that will go on every major channel, perpetually (i.e. it will be news repeated daily if it gets to that point.)

Ah...The Art of the Deal

 

[381465]

LC won't feel the hit.

A "good" complaint would name everyone.
LC, the franchisee, personal owner, store manager, guy making the pie, printer of written ad for halal, etc.
Insurance carriers are obligated to answer and represent under product liability, advertising injury, umbrella policy, etc.
Settle quick, every carrier pitches in for release and go back to making pizza.

 

[Andrew4jesus]

In my mind it's another symptom of our decaying society. People have lost interest in the truth or doing a good job, the staff at these places don't care what that man eats, why should they? Their advertising people are just trying to make sales, they don't care what that man eats. I don't care what the man eats!
But that Muslim man believed what the store told him and he cares what he eats.
I lie has been told. Jesus taught us to seek the truth, this Muslim man has defiled his body in his mind and he blames the store as he expected that what he had read was not a lie.
This company should be closed or this man needs to stop believing that everything that is written will lead to the truth. Personally I'd shut the store down.
Forget the money it's not important. The real lesson is about truth and how important it is in all of our lives. Without the truth we have no light to shine.
Does this company call itself Christian ? Who owns this company? Are their values consistent with our values or the Muslim mans?
We have become so lazy we don't care who prepares and serves our food as long as our bellies are filled. We don't care who owns this company and if they are giving back to our way of life.
Does anyone here know who owns the company and what their values are? Have you eaten their food? We have all become so complacent about our lives.