Economy Supermarket destroys food, does not let people salvage them

[PolishHeadlock2]

Tell that to my friend who ended up in court.

Tell him to make an account and I'll let him know

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

The power went out there by making the food suspect. So lawyer would jump on that.

From the government link

The act also extends liability protections to donors of food and grocery products who do not meet all quality and labeling standards if the donor informs the nonprofit organization that receives the items, the nonprofit organization agrees to recondition the items to meet all quality and labeling standards, and the nonprofit organization is knowledgeable of the standards to do so properly

 

[2DUM2TAP]

They're blaming the store, instead of placing the blame where it properly lies. Lawyers, Courts and themselves. If they got sick, you know they would sue, and lawyers would seek ridiculous settlements, and courts would allow it instead of throwing that shit out.

Here's a couple examples.

1.) Trespassers sue property owners

• Year: 2002

• Result: Plaintiff won

A federal jury awarded two men a total of $24.2 million for getting severely burned by electrical wires when they were teenagers trespassing on railroad property in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in 2002. Attorneys for Amtrak and Norfolk Southern Corp. claimed the two men, aged 17 at the time of the accident, were old enough to know that they were putting themselves in danger. The plaintiffs' lawyer, while conceding his clients were trespassers, said the property owners were still responsible.

2.) Footlong sandwich is not a foot long

• Year: 2016

• Result: Case was settled

It started in 2013, when a teenager measured his Subway footlong sandwich. It turned out to be only 11 inches, an inch too short. Fast forward three years, and the company was settling a class-action lawsuit in court, promising to make its rolls 12 inches. The only people to benefit from the lawsuit were the attorneys, who were about to receive $520,000 in fees. The judge agreed with activist and legal writer Theodore Frank that this was not fair and dismissed the settlement and the entire case.

3.) Customers disappointed that Red Bull did not energize them

• Year: 2016

• Result: Settled out of court

Red Bull's famous slogan "Red Bull gives you wings" got the company in some trouble. A class-action lawsuit accused the company of having misleading ads and making false claims. Plaintiffs said the energy drink did not give people wings, even figuratively speaking, that is, they didn't feel energized. They said the company lacked evidence to claim the beverage could improve one's focus. Red Bull settled out of court and agreed to pay $640,000.

4.) Husband sues wife over 'ugly' baby

• Year: 2012

• Result: Plaintiff won

Boy meets a pretty girl, boy marries the girl; they have kids. One similar tale did not have such a happy ending, however. Jian Feng from China saw his newborn daughter, who, he said, was "incredibly ugly" and did not look like either parent. He accused his wife of cheating on him. At that point, she admitted she had several plastic surgeries before they had met. He sued on the grounds of false pretenses, claiming she misled him by hiding her cosmetic history. He won the case, and his wife was made to pay him more than $120,000.

 

[oldshadow]

What are the loopholes?

The power went out and that makes any it suspect and the store knows the power was out.

It's not worth the possible legal trouble .

Just watch TV and look at the adds for lawyers looking for any case where any company can be sued for the least thing.

 

[Jkillah]

Its for profit.

They want people lining back up at the groceries after the outage to make up for the loss of product.

If they don't make profit they don't stay open. Then no one gets groceries. Good call Freddy Meyer.

 

[grimballer]

They were throwing it away, dude. They, and you, literally think food should just be wasted if there is no profit motive.

It's gross.

no, i think its theirs and can do whatever they want with it.

you think its somehow no longer theirs and youre entitled to it for free

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

The power went out and that makes any it suspect and the store knows the power was out.

It's not worth the possible legal trouble .

Just watch TV and look at the adds for lawyers looking for any case where any company can be sued for the least thing.

All they have to do is give it to a Food Bank, let them know the background of the food and let the food bank make the determination.

If they do that they have liability protection

 

[oldshadow]

From the government link

The act also extends liability protections to donors of food and grocery products who do not meet all quality and labeling standards if the donor informs the nonprofit organization that receives the items, the nonprofit organization agrees to recondition the items to meet all quality and labeling standards, and the nonprofit organization is knowledgeable of the standards to do so properly

So thr company give them the food and says the power went out and we don't know if it's good or not. If someone gets sick do you think that's actually going to protect them in this ",it's a big company and they have the money country". Look at this summer "they have insurance whays the problem " this is why companies protect themselves first.

 

[BEER]

no, i think its theirs and can do whatever they want with it.

you think its somehow no longer theirs and youre entitled to it for free

People like you prove my point.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

So thr company give them the food and says the power went out and we don't know if it's good or not. If someone gets sick do you think that's actually going to protect them in this ",it's a big company and they have the money country". Look at this summer "they have insurance whays the problem " this is why companies protect themselves first.

They are protected by statute so yes they will be protected.

 

[oldshadow]

All they have to do is give it to a Food Bank, let them know the background of the food and let the food bank make the determination.

If they do that they have liability protection

And you think that's going to stop some lawyers from filing on them if someone gets sick. Sure it might get thrown out in court but they still end up fighting it and costing money.

 

[Staph infection]

How would Fred Meyer be liable when they are not handing the food out?

How is a homeowner liable when a burglar gets injured breaking into their home? There are many cases where people should not be liable but there are scumbag lawyers that will take any case in hopes of getting a payout.

It would be awesome if they could donate the food or even have a food line or something where it is passed out at the stores but the risk is too high for them. Instead of people getting angry with Meyers, they should be angry over the fact that we have become a society where you cannot even help others for fear of legal ramifications.

 

[HereticBD]

It's standard health and safety protocols. My God, people are dumb.

 

[oldshadow]

They are protected by statute so yes they will be protected.

Once they get to court maybe. The hope of the ambulance chasers is they settle out of court . And they do because its cheaper.

 

[Renard]

If some of the food was not expired they could have donated it. I can understand not wanting peole to get sick from spoiled food, but it seems that some of it hadn't gone bad.

Pretty sure that if they had made a call up for volunteers, people would have gotten together to sort out the good from the bad. That would have given them great PR.

Lol, that's not how any of it works. For starters the expiration date is meaningless when the food has been in the heat for hours. Secondly, you can't just look or smell an item to figure out whether bacteria or viruses have had time to replicate in it; they're minuscule pathogens. You going to bust out the microscope to look at each slice of salami? When you give out food that has been in the heat, it's inevitable that some of it will be contaminated with food borne pathogens - opening up the company to paying millions in damages.

You people are straight up retarded. I already understood more about the cold chain than you when I was a dumb teen working in a grocery store.

 

[Sketch]

Most of the food that gets thrown away in the supermarket is totally fine to eat. Complete and utter waste. Of course, profits etc.

Is this your way of letting us know you dumpster dive ?!

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

And you think that's going to stop some lawyers from filing on them if someone gets sick. Sure it might get thrown out in court but they still end up fighting it and costing money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivo...rt penalizing frivolous litigation,6673(a)(1).

Frivolous litigation is the use of legal processes with apparent disregard for the merit of one's own arguments. It includes presenting an argument with reason to know that it would certainly fail, or acting without a basic level of diligence in researching the relevant law and facts. The fact that a claim is lost does not imply that it was frivolous.

Frivolous litigation may be based on absurd legal theories, may involve a superabundance or repetition of motions or additional suits, may be uncivil or harassing to the court, or may claim extreme remedies. A claim or defense may be frivolous because it had no underlying justification in fact, or because it was not presented with an argument for a reasonable extension or reinterpretation of the law. A claim may be deemed frivolous because existing laws unequivocally prohibit such a claim, such as a so-called Good Samaritan law.

In the United States, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and similar state rules require that an attorney perform a due diligence investigation concerning the factual basis for any claim or defense. Jurisdictions differ on whether a claim or defense can be frivolous if the attorney acted in good faith. Because such a defense or claim wastes the court's and the other parties' time, resources and legal fees, sanctions may be imposed by a court upon the party or the lawyer who presents the frivolous defense or claim. The law firm may also be sanctioned, or even held in contempt.

 

[Staph infection]

Its not a donation.

Listen he/him, I did not say it was a donation. People sue for anything now, look at burglars or criminals who get hurt in the act and then sue property owners and business. This small bit of bad press some ass clowns like you is far better to deal with than legal battles and the media pushing stories of how people got sick from food that got at Meyers because you know they would conveniently leave out the section of the story on how the people dumpster dove for the food.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Once they get to court maybe. The hope of the ambulance chasers is they settle out of court . And they do because its cheaper.

If the fear of frivolous lawsuits is really the problem than maybe we need a law that criminalizes food waste at this scale like France has.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

Imagine you have tons of food that you need to throw out because you can't properly store it.

Instead of wasting it, you put out a Tweet and Facebook message saying you're giving away perishable goods. Set up a stand and give everyone who shows up a few items.

The "altruism" goes viral and your store turns higher profits when it reopens once the power is back on.

Even from a capitalist perspective, that would have been better than just wasting the food.

until someone says they got sick and sues you for all the profits.