Sarah Katz, 21, had a heart condition and was not aware of the drink’s caffeine content, which exceeded that of cans of Red Bull and Monster energy drinks combined, according to a legal filing
Sarah Katz, 21, had a heart condition and was not aware of the drink’s caffeine content, which exceeded that of cans of Red Bull and Monster energy drinks combined, according to a legal filing
However, it’s about preponderance of evidence, not “your favorite team”. Even if we have valid reasons not to like Panera, whether THIS lawsuit has merit should only have to do with the facts of the situation.
And the article was a lying sack of turd in response to that question. The article being sleazy doesn’t mean Panera is innocent, but it doesn’t mean they ain’t.
To that, I largely agree. But, given the state of income inequality and the general treatment of humans as mere consumers, to be manipulated and harvested… I think it’d be a disservice to us to view any corporate behavior with anything less than extreme skepticism.
Maybe even go as far as to work off the notion that corporations are guilty until proven innocent. Not individuals, but just the corporate entity.
Least based take
Absolutely. But sometimes “the bad guy” is innocent. Not every murder victim falls at Charlie Manson’s feet. Not person now dead that Charlie Manson once met was murdered by him. The problem is that we are so emotionally wired for revenge. Just look at a prosecutor whenever someone is DNA exonerated, screaming “we’re letting a monster free today!”
We need to fix the relationship between people and businesses, as the latter most certainly does exploit us. Socializing and forced ownership-sharing would be a great start. But I would never go so far as “guilty until proven innocent”. I think the preponderance standard should be enough. But that’s just me.