this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2026
110 points (96.6% liked)
Not The Onion
21695 readers
1498 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm hesitant to say this is silly. It reminds me of the McDonald's hot coffee incident.
For those unaware, in that case a woman had coffee spilled on her, and she sued saying it was "too hot". Her case hit the national media, across headlines and featured in 6pm news hours. It was made fun of in comic strips and online (very early online). What is lesser known about it was:
So jumping out ahead of this one, it seems like she's an idiot, but history tells us that corporations are very cunning and quick to blame the victim.
I'd also add:
The $20,000 included about $10k in medical costs, a few thousand for loss of income and another few thousand for expected medical costs.
McDonalds offered... $800.
McDonald's just got confused and thought they were covering medical expenses in a civilized country.
To the largest fast food company in the world they couldn't spare 20k to make amends. To them that's a less than a single employee's salary, a fraction of one of their lawyer's salaries. Absolutely pathetic
It’s just like the whole thing right now with Brock’s and Minifigs. They could have just made the guy whole in the first place but refused to let a customer make demands.
Could spare? Yes.
Would spare? This is Ray Kroc’s baby we’re talking about.
Think of the shareholders!
McDonald's deals with several legal claims a day. 99.99% of the time, $800 makes people go away.
The worst part about wanting to give these stories the benefit of the doubt is there are just as many stories like these where the person is actually just that stupid.
Like the guy who sued Winnebago because he wrecked his rv while driving it on the highway with cruise control on and got up to make himself coffee. Iirc he won the lawsuit because the owners manual didn't say cruise control is not autopilot.
Hell most safety features we have today only exist because people were stupid
Well that was an effective smear campaign then ‘cause I never heard the full story! Though I guess there’s still the woman who put her dog in the microwave in order to dry its fur.
I’d only found out about it a couple of years ago. It makes one wonder what other narratives corporations were able to properly control in the past.
Although the finger-in-the-chili Wendy’s case does not help.
I agree, it's not a silly story, in spite of the headline. I do hope that people are inspired to read it.
FWIW the rules right now don't mention criteria for articles, just for the headlines. I would be on board for stricter standards in article content, if that's what the comm wants though.
I read the article and as someone who is chronically dumb, when I slip on something I don’t fall face first. It’s more of a prat fall and I wing up on my ass.
Congratulations. Not everyone is you.
I feel like at the time that was not commonly known, but today it is.
I hope so, but I still encounter people (mostly boomers) who still think it was some stupid woman
You do raise a good point. Boomers tend to be sheep who have the worst beliefs.
No, that's just most people in general.
I’m of two minds on this- a slip and fall absolutely can cause significant injuries and death- especially if your head hits, for example, the edge of a table.
Outback’s lawyers are also not denying it ever happened, and instead arguing she failed reasonable care (which is bullshit. Keep your floors clean, ya nasty assholes.)
The reason I’m somewhat skeptical is that 2 years is a long time to wait for a fairly cut and dry lawsuit. It’s possible recovery just took that long, don’t get me wrong. (Occurred in 23, lawsuit filed in 25,)
But usually if it was that bad, the corpos would be pushing for a fast settlement to limit expenses. It’s possible they were in arbitration, and that has failed, but no one really wants a drawn out process. (Except maybe her lawyer. Corpo lawyers are on retainer, so they don’t really get paid more.)
I'm afraid you have it backwards. Corporations will stall as long as possible, statistically the longer it takes to go to trial the more likely for the lawsuit to be dropped. Spending more money on lawyers is considered a better investment than paying out earlier and for a lesser amount because it sets precedent and potentially admits fault.
yeah. for the corporation, maybe. though 95% of cases all settle out of court and get dropped. Some of that is because they got dragged along. but a lot of that also is that if the corporation deems they're at fault they're going to want to settle every time... and usually try to do that before you get a lawyer telling you how much the claim is worth.
Outback is the defendant, not the plaintiff. There's not much motive for a plaintiff to delay by a year or more outside of recovering/rehab, and trying to settle out of court before filing. that said, you generally have a couple of years at most before the statute of limitations kicks in.
prior to filing a claim against them, there's not a whole lot the corpos can do to slow down a claim from being filed. It's not like you're obligated to go through arbitration, or to seek settlement before hand, or even inform them that you're doing so. (and frequently it's better to not.)
"Slip and Fall" claims are very well established already so they have plenty of information as to how the outcomes going to go, and that means they have an idea of where to put the settlement to minimize their costs. (and your lawyer will have a good idea how to maximize your gain, so, yeah. they really want you to take that lowball before you talk to one.)
Yes obviously I'm talking about how it's the corporation that wants to stall and drag it out, not the person suing them. The game plan is to delay and run up the costs and hope the person suing them runs out of time or money. Then only offer a settlement once it gets close enough to going to court and looking like they aren't going to win, which is frequently known before it gets to trial based on the evidence in play.
What? No I didn't?