The Independent reported that a lawsuit has been filed a a man against fastfood giant McDonalds over a chain dispute regarding meal napkins. TMZ first reported the claim, who said that Webster Lucas is seeking damages against the fastfood company for emotional stress he purportedly received following a confrontation at one of its stores on January 29.
According to the lawsuit, Lucas ordered a quarter pounder deluxe at a Pacoima, California outlet. When he requested for more napkins after a service crew only gave him one napkin for the meal, the manager of the restaurant allegedly refused to accommodate his request. Moreover, Lucas claimed that the manager was racist towards his dealing with him and mumbled words that sounded like "you people." The Independent said Lucas is African-American.
The UK newspaper said McDonalds was sympathetic towards Lucas after emailing the fastfood chain about his complaint, and offered free burgers to compensate for the inconvenience. However, Lucas is now seeking financial remuneration for the incident, the Independent said.
A Harvard Law study by David Rosenberg and Steven Shavell published on the International Review of Law and Economics had said that nuisance suits, or legal challenges filed with weak claims, occur when they take advantage of the possibility of winning by default against a defendant unless the latter decides to spend on the case. Rosenberg and Shavell noted that in most cases, defendants opt to settle out of court, which in turn, will still be favorable to plaintiffs. The authors suggested that defendants could opt to request the court to bar settlement for plaintiffs to withdraw the case.
"If the defendant knows he is facing a plaintiff who would not be willing to go to trial, the defendant would want to exercise his option to have settlements rendered unenforceable. For if the defendant does this, the plaintiff would
not be able to settle for a positive amount, and since the plaintiff would not be willing to go to trial, he would drop his case. Indeed, anticipating that the defendant would elect to prevent settlement, the plaintiff would not bring his nuisance suit in the first place," Rosenberg and Shavell wrote.
