So UPSET~7-11 Lied WWYD

sky

Mon, Jul 21 2014, 12:03 pm

In the future you can ask to go in the back and check out the back of the machine.
We were actually told to do this every so often when buying from a place often, or when buying from a place we have never been to. (for kashurs reasons)
Officially what it says in the machine has to be in. And if it is a printed sign it has to be authentic (if a hand written sign it can be an off brand) but you can still ask to go to the back to make sure.
But not all stores are always so reliable.

debsey

Mon, Jul 21 2014, 12:10 pm

If you are planning on suing, don't do anything before you consult a lawyer. You will damage your case.
If you are not, write a strongly worded letter to their head office. See what comes of it.
Does anyone else worry about the kashrus implications of this?
debsey

33055

Mon, Jul 21 2014, 1:06 pm

amother wrote:

I'm guessing Squishy misunderstood and thought the OP was actually a diabetic. Still, it would be hard to prove in a lawsuit and I'm sure any store would know that.

I frequent the same seven eleven far too frequently. They once switched the coke zero and the diet coke. I nearly gagged. I told the owner the next time I saw him in a joking way, not a I'm gonna sue you cuz I almost died by gagging on the wrong drink, and he gave me a free one. Then again I was going for 3-4 big gulps and several coffees a day at the time. He knew there's a mistake if I said so...no way to know diet coke better than me!

Squishy didn't misunderstand. OP said she told the clerk she was pre diabetic which is not the same thing as being diabetic. It is not so hard to prove you have metabolic syndrome if indeed she actually does, however, sugar isn't the problem. Calories are.

MamaBear

Mon, Jul 21 2014, 1:10 pm

I didn't read all the replies....

I have a serious allergy but I am the only one responsible for it not a minimum wage employee....I don't eat things like that unless I can read the label for myself to be certain. It's 7-11, not Whole Foods advertising something as sugar free.

OP, you learned a lesson, I guess. Move on.

33055

Mon, Jul 21 2014, 1:10 pm

Hashem loves me wrote:

Why are you all getting so riled against FF?
OP did say she is pre-diabetic, so FF must have read that and thought she's diabetic. I don't think she is suggesting op to lie.

I can understand mixing up pre diabetic and diabetic but there was nothing saying that OP'S sugar levels were messed up.

Barbara

Mon, Jul 21 2014, 1:11 pm

Someone would sue because she got the wrong Slurpee, when she didn't notice that it tasted like cherry instead of mango, and there was no identifiable harm caused?

The clerk didn't lie, in any case. He was mistaken. He's probably a minimum wage employee who knows as much about that Slurpee machine as he does about string theory; maybe less.

That doesn't make it right. I do think that OP should contact 7-11 to let them know about the problem, so they can look into it.

moonbeam

Mon, Jul 21 2014, 2:09 pm

FranticFrummie wrote:

I had no sleep last night due to insomnia and tinnitus, so I'm a zombie today. On top of that, my hypoglycemia is acting up and I have no appetite, so I'm not sure how I'm going to force myself to get my blood sugar back up - I hope you can forgive me for misreading. Hypnotized

*Sucking on a glucose tablet right now. Thinking about food makes me nauseated, and I can't take a nap until I get something in my stomach.*

Oh my gosh, someone who understands what I'm going through! Hypoglycemia stinks. The whole "need to eat but too nauseated to eat" cycle. And then the crashes. bleh. And insomnia on top is double rough.

moonbeam

Mon, Jul 21 2014, 2:14 pm

Squishy wrote:

I can understand mixing up pre diabetic and diabetic but there was nothing saying that OP'S sugar levels were messed up.

It's a given. If you're diabetic and consume sugar, your sugar levels are messed up. If you're pre-diabetic and consume sugar, your sugar levels are messed up.

33055

Mon, Jul 21 2014, 2:22 pm

eemachana wrote:

It's a given. If you're diabetic and consume sugar, your sugar levels are messed up. If you're pre-diabetic and consume sugar, your sugar levels are messed up.

It is not a given according to my Drs. There is a difference between pre diabetic and diabetic. I was told by my Drs that the treatment is losing weight. Cutting down on sugar had no bearing on preventing diabetes except that it may help you lose weight.

I was pre diabetic .

Chana Miriam S

Mon, Jul 21 2014, 3:34 pm

amother wrote:

OP here. Actually I did tell the clerk that I am off sugar and am pre-diabetic. I would imagine that would be enough to warrant at least a bit of concern on his end to check it out as opposed to just answering brusquely that it was what it said it was! I never bought a Slurpee before so I wasn't sure, but I know from past experience with mangoes, both by eating them and drinking things that have mango in them, that a mango is orange not bright red. I didn't know if they add other drinks to it or whatever.

C'mon, the guy works in a 7-11. Get real.

amother

Mon, Jul 21 2014, 3:51 pm

Squishy wrote:

I meant hard to prove she had the wrong drink or that it screwed with her sugar or that it caused long term harm.

Annie

Mon, Jul 21 2014, 5:08 pm

Also, the newest "diet" flavor at 7-11 is a watermelon punch that is Red. It's possible it was actually sugar free.

starmarket

Mon, Jul 21 2014, 5:31 pm

I wish it was white sugar in slurpees - I doubt that it contains any, honestly. High fructose GMO corn syrup for sure.

cookiejar

Mon, Jul 21 2014, 7:07 pm

I think that the lesson to be learned is that sometimes you have to let things go, even when the other person is VERY VERY wrong. (Here I am certain it was unintentional and he barely listened to you when you asked, and just wanted to give you the "right" answer...) But really, I used to eat myself up alive wanting to correct people and let them know they were wrong and whatever else. But part of maturity is move on and free yourself!

rosenbal

Mon, Jul 21 2014, 9:16 pm

Sorry...this is a kashrus tangent. I'm personally not a big Slurpee fan but my kids and DH are. We don't buy them so often but it's a cheap treat...good bribe to go biking or hiking first lol.

Anyway, I aways thought it's wierd to just rely on this system precisely because of what happened to OP. I'm really not shocked that there was an error. But I'm not really on the level of saying "I'm stricter than 99% of my (pretty frum) community and the kashrus agency and no more slurpies for you!"

heidi

Tue, Jul 22 2014, 2:52 am

Throw up! Quick!

amother

Tue, Jul 22 2014, 3:22 am

Barbara wrote:

Ya actually people have sued for sillier things and won. Like getting burned from starbucks coffee that spilled on her lap while driving.... Sued for it being too hot

33055

Tue, Jul 22 2014, 3:49 am

amother wrote:

Ya actually people have sued for sillier things and won. Like getting burned from starbucks coffee that spilled on her lap while driving.... Sued for it being too hot

The woman in the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit was hospitalized for over a week with 3rd degree burns.

What are OP's damages?

imasinger

Tue, Jul 22 2014, 3:55 am

amother wrote:

Ya actually people have sued for sillier things and won. Like getting burned from starbucks coffee that spilled on her lap while driving.... Sued for it being too hot

You might want to read up on the facts of the famous McDonalds coffee lawsuit. It really wasn't silly -- as opposed to the idea of suing 7-11 for a clerk being mixed up about a Slurpee.

Here is a summary from a legal website.

"There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting. Such secret settlements, after public trials, should never be condoned."

Barbara

Tue, Jul 22 2014, 10:14 am

amother wrote:

Ya actually people have sued for sillier things and won. Like getting burned from starbucks coffee that spilled on her lap while driving.... Sued for it being too hot

You do know that she had to get SKIN GRAFTS because that coffee was so hot.

Quote:

Mrs. Liebeck was not driving when her coffee spilled, nor was the car she was in moving. She was the passenger in a car that was stopped in the parking lot of the McDonald’s where she bought the coffee. She had the cup between her knees while removing the lid to add cream and sugar when the cup tipped over and spilled the entire contents on her lap.

The coffee was not just “hot,” but dangerously hot. McDonald’s corporate policy was to serve it at a temperature that could cause serious burns in seconds. Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries were far from frivolous. She was wearing sweatpants that absorbed the coffee and kept it against her skin. She suffered third-degree burns (the most serious kind) and required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere.

Liebeck’s case was far from an isolated event. McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.

Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. But the jury’s punitive damages award made headlines — upset by McDonald’s unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days’ worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain. That wasn’t, however, the end of it. The original punitive damage award was ultimately reduced by more than 80 percent by the judge. And, to avoid what likely would have been years of appeals, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald’s later reached a confidential settlement.

Here is some of the evidence the jury heard during the trial:
McDonald’s operations manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.
Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns in three to seven seconds.
The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and biomechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, the leading scholarly publication in the specialty.
McDonald’s admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits.
An expert witness for the company testified that the number of burns was insignificant compared to the billions of cups of coffee the company served each year.
At least one juror later told the Wall Street Journal she thought the company wasn’t taking the injuries seriously. To the corporate restaurant giant those 700 injury cases caused by hot coffee seemed relatively rare compared to the millions of cups of coffee served. But, the juror noted, “there was a person behind every number and I don’t think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that.”
McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.
McDonald’s admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s then-required temperature.
McDonald’s admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.

There are plenty of frivolous cases filed. That wasn't one of them.