Sounds a little Fillet -O- Fishy to me.

More bulls**t from a generation that was taught that only they matter and that they don't have responsibilities.

If you have an allergy, particularly if it is that severe, guarding against a reaction MUST be more than just telling other people that you are allergic. The case is based on the theory that "I am more important than you, so you should take care of me".

If this was a gun, I sure would look to see if it was loaded, not just tell folks that they should unload it for me. If I told someone else I didn't want it loaded and then they messed up and didn't unload it, then I shot myself, who would you blame? In this kids case, he would blame the other person.

Saying that "the room was dark because they were going to watch a movie" isn't a very good excuse. If dairy will KILL you, check the dang thing before you leave the drive-through (in case they got it wrong). Or turn up the lights and check it before the movie. Crap, if that is too much, get a flashlight!

He will probably win, anyway. No wonder people hate us.

True, he will probably win a couple of million from our Civil Court Instant Jackpot Machine(tm).

If you know you have severe allergies to a particular food, a good idea would be to avoid going to a restaurant where that food is served routinely. If nothing else, avoid buying food that normally contains that ingredient. In his case, he could have bought four regular hamburgers if he was hungry enough to eat two quarter pounders and he would not have had to worry about the cheese at all.

One ray of sunshine here:
Maybe, if they lose, McDonald's will be a bit more careful with making sure drive-thru orders are correct. They only seem to get it right if you order one of the pre-packaged meals and don't make any substitutions.

No, they won't be able to make sure the order gets done correctly. It isn't just McD's, every place you go to will from time to time get your order incorrectly. I have had dozens and dozens of places get my order wrong.

He shouldn't get a dime as there were no damages done.

If he is really allergic to cheese a quick glance would tell you that cheese was there.

These cases should be thrown out and the people filing them should have to pay court costs, atty fees, and a penalty fine

We once ordered a Big-n-Tasty for my wife and when I got home the box had a Crispy Chicken Sandwich in it. It is only a mile to the McD's and I drove it back to the store. The manager saw me with a box, asked what the problem was, and I just gave him the box without saying a word. He excused himself and curtly called ALL the employees to the back. He chewed them out and returned with a sincere apology. Did I sue? No. Would my wife have an allergic reaction? No. Did I recognize it before my wife bit into it? Sure did. It is easily noticeable when there is cheese on a burger. Were all three blind?
Throw it out, frivolous.

Only $10,000,000? What about gasoline and wear and tear on the car during transport? Stupid lawyer.

Wait, so if there were three of them that went to McDonald's, how did he know he didn't have somebody else's order.

I mean, did his mom end up with the burger with no cheese? If you get multiple orders, especially with one or all of them being different, don't you usually check them all, to make sure you get yours?

I bet he doesn't just stick something in his mouth, in the dark, without looking at it, again.

As stupid as the "case" is, I for one would enjoy seeing McDonalds have to pay up. I mean, leading antions down into the dregs of...wait, no, not the dregs of society, they have gone so far as to define society in the attitudes they espouse and the practices they follow, and the lies they preach.

Actually I'm not nearly that passionate about this cause or in such virulent opposition to immorality or cheap advertising tricks and I'm not as much of a conspiracy theorist-ish person as I may seem. Basically I just enjoy seeing large, icky corporations lose money even if it is to some dude taking advantage of the system. I might even do the same if I felt confident of winning. My bad, underhanded, naughty naughty cheapskate.

This is basically the attitude that keeps these things alive. A jury sees the "large, icky corporation" against a human being that "suffered". Since the "large, icky corporation" has deep pockets, it is OK to find against them.

Sorry, with the freedom our citizens have by right of birth, there needs to be a balancing amount of personal responsibility. Who (or what) the defendant is, or what they may do that you do not agree with, this is not their fault. But attitudes like this will make them pay anyway.

It is not ok to find a man guilty of murder just because you don't like him.

Agreed. But I think you grabbed the wrong thread. This one was about an idiot suing McDonalds. Unless you are suggesting that he killed somebody to get the cheese-ladened-quarter-pounder-of-doom?