Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:09:21 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:03:02 -0400, Bill Baxter <wbax...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Steven Schveighoffer >> <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:00:02 -0400, Yigal Chripun <yigal...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> people in the US sued MacDonald's because their coffee was hot (and >>>> they >>>> even won the case!). other people sued a company since their peanuts >>>> contains nuts. >>> [...] >>> Other examples of lawsuits are definitely frivolous. If that peanut >>> case is >>> true, I'd use that one instead (it sounds too ridiculous to be true, I'd >>> appreciate a citation). >> >> Peanuts aren't actually nuts, you know. They're legumes. So there >> might well be a case where the lable said "100% peanuts" and someone >> allergic to nuts ate up, knowing that peanuts aren't in fact nuts. > > If someone was allergic to nuts, and they are going around eating peanuts > because technically they aren't nuts, I'd say they were in fact nuts :) > > I'd be hugely hugely surprised if any jury awarded a judgement based on > that.
I'd expect an allergic person to be very well aware of what's dangerous to them, and therefore to know exactly the difference between nuts and peanuts. People tend to know a lot of things in the areas of their interest, for whatever reasons the interest is.
