Dogs: Man’s Best Friend Or Unreasonably Dangerous Product?

According to a report from the Clinton Herald, a lawsuit has been filed against the Clinton (Iowa) Humane Society after a dog adopted from the agency bit a 15-month old child. The dog, which was possibly a pitbull-mix, was received by the Iowa Humane Society after it was saved from being euthanized at a Louisiana shelter.  The suit asserts product liability, negligence and breach of warranty claims against the Humane Society as well as a strict liability claims against the adopted dog parents, Kris and Ashley Greene.  The theory against the Humane Society is premised on the notion that the agency failed to warn the Greene’s of the risks of transitioning a dog from a shelter to a home and of a dog’s potential dangerous propensities. The plaintiff claims that the lack of instructions or warnings renders the dog not reasonably safe.

We here at Abnormal Use find this suit interesting to say the least. While dogs are technically property in the eyes of the law (in most jurisdictions), treating them as products for product liability purposes creates some significant problems. Most notably, unlike traditional products, dogs are living, breathing creatures capable of independent thinking and actions. When a product leaves the manufacturer, we know how it is supposed to “act.” When it does not act as it was intended, it is typically because of some defect (either in its manufacturing or its design). That’s product liability. On the other hand, dogs are all different.  No two dogs are the same either due to nature, nurture, or some combination of the two. We can never know for sure just how a dog is going to act in any situation. So how do we regulate whether a dog acted as intended?

To be fair, the case here is premised on a failure to warn, not that the dog was “defective” per se. We can certainly appreciate the need to disclose if a dog is known to have a checkered past or is otherwise prone to violence. But wouldn’t a simple negligence theory do the trick to protect against these types of harms?

No need to bring product liability principles into it.

Costco v. Titleist: The Golf Ball War You Wouldn’t Expect

Last year, Costco began selling golf balls. As the largest American membership-only warehouse club, Costco’s introduction of a new product such as a piece of sporting equipment would not ordinarily be noteworthy or otherwise unusual. Except that the balls became a bit of a cult phenomenon and flew off the shelves and the company completely sold out of the product by January. The golf balls are now selling for insane amount on Ebay. So what gives? The Costco balls are actually manufactured by South Korea’s Nassau Golf – the same company that manufactures TaylorMade golf balls. Nassau apparently unloaded some of its balls to Costco. Costco then branded the balls with a Kirkland Signature logo and sold them for $29.99 per TWO dozen. After golfers realized the balls’ performance was on par with some higher end balls, word began to spread and the rest is history.

While golfers may have been delighted with Costco’s venture into the golf ball industry, some golf ball manufacturers were not. According to a report from seattlepi.com, Acushnet, maker of Titleist golf balls, sent a cease and desist letter Costco earlier this year, alleging that the Costco balls infringed upon eleven of the company’s patents. In addition, Acushnet alleged that Costco had engaged in false advertising on account of the Kirkland Signature guarantee that all Kirkland products “will meet or exceed the quality standards of leading national brands.”

In response, Costco has filed a declaratory judgment action against Acushnet in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. As a preemptive strike, Costco seeks a judicial declaration that Costco was not violating Acushnet’s patents and has not engaged in false advertising. According to Costco, while others (including reviewers and golf professionals) have compared the Costco balls to the higher-end Titleist balls, Costco has never done so (at least not publicly).

In a written statement published by Golf World, Costco stated:

We have asked the Court to protect our right to continue to sell our Kirkland Signature golf ball against challenges made by Acushnet under patent and advertising laws. . . .The success of the ball with our members and the favorable comments it has received from reputable reviewers apparently have caused Acushnet to believe that our ball directly competes with the Titleist Pro V1 and Pro V1x balls. … Our golf ball will go back on sale in early April, but supplies are limited.

We here at Abnormal Use have never played with the Costco golf balls and, to be honest, with our golf games there would be no discernible differences found with an equipment change. Assuming that the balls actually live up to the hype, we understand why Acushnet may be upset with the competition. If Acushnet is really concerned about patents, however, we would think its real beef would be with Nassau who made the balls in the first place. But our best guess is that this matter is not really about patents at all. The real issue is that Acushnet does not want someone to undercut its premium price point. It is for this reason Acushnet has filed suit against a number of smaller companies who produce economy balls in the past. At least on the surface, it does not appear that Acushnet is concerned with companies like Nassau (a/k/a Taylor Made) who sell golf balls which compete at the same premium price point. Acushnet knows it has that marketplace cornered. But let someone sell a competing product for a percentage of the price, now Acushnet has a problem.

We are curious to see how this one plays out. We are hoping for quick resolution by April, so we can pick up a dozen of those Costco balls for the summer golf season.

Misled By A Beer’s Label: A New Lawsuit Over “Hawaiian” Beer

As reported by West Hawaii Today, a new class-action lawsuit has been filed against Craft Brew Alliance, Inc. and Kona Brewing Company over some allegedly deceptive advertising. Specifically, the lead plaintiff alleges that he purchased a 12-pack of Kona’s Longboard Island Lager under the belief that the product was brewed in Hawaii, a suspicion based, at least in part, on the beach and surfer depicted on the bottle’s label. The lager, however, is apparently brewed stateside – a fact, that if known by the plaintiff, would have apparently dissuaded him from his purchase.  The suit, filed in a federal court in California, asserts a violation of California business laws, common law fraud and misrepresentation, as well as several other causes of action.

According to its website, Kona began brewing beer back in 1995 at a brewery in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. That facility still produces beer. However, its bottled beer and mainland draft is produced at several breweries located within the mainland of the United States. The list of brewing locations is included on the labels of Kona beers.

We here at Abnormal Use find this lawsuit intriguing on several levels.

First, there is nothing on the Longboard Island Lager packaging (as shown below) that specifically says that it is brewed in Hawaii.

kona_longboard_lager1

Admittedly, the name “Kona” coupled with the depicted surfers catching waves in front of a mountain certainly offers a Hawaii-vibe. That said, Olive Garden also attempts to resemble an authentic Italian bistro, but no one is accusing it of leading its patrons to believe that its food is authentic Italian. Kona does not represent that its beer is brewed in Hawaii. Rather, in our opinion, Kona merely represents that its product is a beer best-consumed on a beach vacation a la Corona or Landshark.

Secondly, even if the plaintiffs can prove that Kona implicitly represented that the beer was brewed in Hawaii, how have the plaintiffs actually been damaged? We consider ourselves beer snobs. As such, we have never viewed the quality of beer to hinge upon the location of the brewing facility. (This is not wine, after all).  While we do enjoy certain beers from certain regions of the country, our preference  has more to do with the breweries themselves than the region in which they are located.  A good beer may be brewed in California, but it is not a good beer because it was brewed in California.

We are guessing that the plaintiffs actually purchased the Longboard Lager because they like the way it tastes.  And, they like the way it tastes regardless of whether it was brewed in Hawaii, Oregon, or Tennessee. To claim otherwise is either completely disingenuous or a display a beer snobbiness than even we can’t comprehend.

New McDonald’s Hot Coffee Lawsuit: Still Trying To Relive the Liebeck Litigation

According to reports, a Michigan man has filed suit against McDonald’s, alleging that he was burned by hot coffee at drive-through. The allegations in the case go a little something like this:

On December 5, 2016, Carl Honeycutt, while a front seat passenger in a vehicle operated by his friend, made his way to a McDonald’s drive-through in Ypsilanti, Michigan. Honeycutt ordered a cup of coffee. The McDonald’s employee handed the cup of coffee to the driver of the car who, in turn, handed the cup to Honeycutt. When Honeycutt took hold of the cup, the cup’s lid popped off and coffee  spilled onto Honeycutt’s chest. As a result, Honeycutt allegedly sustained second-degree burns.

In an interview with M Live, Honeycutt’s attorney, Joshua Cecil, stated that he is was well aware of the infamous Stella Liebeck lawsuit. But does this case really have anything in common with its infamous predecessor? Cecil seems to hope so. Cecil argued that the Liebeck lawsuit prompted McDonald’s to take steps to maintain its coffee at a reasonable temperature, but independent franchisees may not always follow through. Keep in mind, however, that there is no information as to the actual temperature of Honeycutt’s coffee or whether its temperature was outside the bounds of McDonald’s corporate policies. (Also, there is thing we have heard about a time or two that coffee, by its nature, is meant to be served hot).

The lawsuit raises two theories of negligence: (1) failing to secure the lid to the cup and (2) the coffee was served at an “excessive and unreasonable temperature.” The latter clearly paves a way down the Liebeck path. However, Liebeck verdict aside, the former may be the better path to any recovery rather than fight through the 20+ years of rhetoric over whether a company can be held liable for serving a hot product at a hot temperature within industry standards.

Let It Be! Lawsuit Between Beatle Son and Parents of My Cousin Vinny Actress Comes to an End

According to a report from the New York Post, a lawsuit over a rotting tree in Greenwich Village has settled after two years of litigation. You might not think such a case is a big deal. It is true that tree litigation does not normally grace the pages of Abnormal Use. This case, however, is different. Really different. Why, you say? Well,  the litigants just so happen to be the son of a Beatle and the parents of My Cousin Vinny’s Mona Lisa Vito (aka Marissa Tomei).

Back in 2015, Gary and Addie Tomei filed suit against Sean Lennon, the son of John Lennon and Yoko Ono, claiming that a rotting ailanthus tree on Lennon’s property had encroached upon their property, causing damage to their 4000 square foot townhouse (purchased for $9.5 million back in 2008). Specifically, they alleged that the roots of the 60-foot-tall tree cracked their front stoop, broke the iron railings, and encroached upon their basement. The Tomeis sought the removal of the tree plus a hefty $10 million in damages. In a total boss move, Lennon demanded that the Tomeis alter the entrance of their multi-million dollar townhouse to accommodate his encroaching tree.

Now, the lawsuit which pitted litigants associated with two of our favorite things against each other has come to an end. The exact details of the settlement are confidential. However, it is known that the tree at the center of the dispute was cut down last month. To us, it sure sounds like the son of a Beattle lost out to the parent’s of the out-of-work hairdresser.

Wal-Mart’s Venture Into Craft Beer Under Fire

According to a report from the Chicago Tribune, a new class action lawsuit has been filed in Ohio against Wal-Mart, accusing the retail giant of shady beer sales. Specifically, the suit takes issue with Wal-Mart’s sale of its own line of “craft” beer in collaboration with Trouble Brewing. The problem, according to the complaint, is that Trouble Brewing does not really exist. In reality, the Wal-Mart brew is brewed on a contract basis by Genessee Brewing, which is owned by North American Breweries and produces more beer than would warrant the “craft” moniker. Plaintiffs allege that Wal-Mart has created a “wholesale fiction,” placing its beer on the shelves around other legitimate craft beers, to deceive consumers into purchasing craft beer at a higher, inflated price.

So what really is a “craft” beer? The Brewers Association defines a craft brewer as “small, independent, and traditional.” To qualify, a craft brewery must produce less than 6 million barrels of beer annually, be less than 25 percent owned or controlled by a non-craft brewery, and make beer using only traditional or innovative brewing ingredients. While Genessee isn’t Anheuser Busch InBev or MillerCoors, the “Trouble Brewing” brand, assuming the allegations in the complaint are true, certainly doesn’t sound like a “small, independent, and traditional” beer – especially when considering the fact that it is backed by one of the world’s largest companies in Wal-Mart. And, we are guessing Genessee doesn’t offer Trouble Brewing tours and flights of the entire Trouble Brewing line over a game of cornhole.

It should be noted that the Trouble Brewing beers do not specifically identify themselves as “craft” on their packaging. However, as a senior buyer for Wal-Mart told the Chicago Tribune in an interview, “We were intentional about designing a package that conveyed a look and feel you’d expect of craft beer.” If only catchy packaging were all it took to make a craft beer.

As avid beer drinkers, we are certainly sensitive to craft beer deception. As such, we can empathize with the plaintiffs on this ground. As defense lawyers, though, we must assert assumption of risk as an affirmative defense. Something about Wal-Mart and the purchase of craft beer just doesn’t sound right in the first place. With so many craft breweries, growler stations, and local bottle shoppes popping up on every street corner, it has never been easier to pick up a craft brew. Wal-Mart certainly isn’t the place we would think of when it comes to trying out a new beer.

Virtual Reality Headsets: Fun New Toy Or Liability Nightmare?

Being a kid at heart, I always hopeful that my Christmas gifts will include a toy. Knowing that to be the case, my parents delivered this year by gifting me a virtual reality headset. Admittedly, I was perplexed when I opened the present. I was aware of the concept – a stereoscopic display and head motion tracking sensors, immersing users in a virtual reality experience – but I did not comprehend the appeal. I assumed the VR experience would have about as much flare as 3D, the first five minutes of fun is outweighed by the doldrums of wearing a pair of ridiculous glasses. But, hey, I got my toy. Why not give it a shot?

Well, I did. Now, I totally understand the VR appeal. Without getting into all of the technical (which I admittedly don’t understand anyways), VR delivers in all of the ways that 3D does not. While 3D movie watching gives added depth of picture and certain effects that “jump out” at the audience, VR puts the user directly into the scene. The problem with 3D alone is that regardless of the effect, the audience is always watching the film on a flat, two-dimensional screen (even if it is a really, really big IMAX screen). VR takes away that limitation, giving the user a full 360 degrees of 3D viewing pleasure.

Technology aside, the biggest draw of VR is the vast array of content. On my first day of use, I cage-dived with great white sharks off the coast of South Africa, walked through the streets of Paris, participated in a fight with the Suicide Squad, and stood in a dinosaur habitat in Jurassic Park – from my living room. Chances are that if there is something you want to see or do, there is probably a virtual experience waiting for you with a VR headset.

As great as the experience has been (and still is), the lawyer in me just had to come out after a few days of use. What are the risks/liabilities of using a VR headset? How are these VR headset manufacturers going to be sued? I am not talking about a slip and fall on the virtual Champ Elysees. But, what are the potential health effects of using VR? The product comes with a long list of warnings both in the box and on-screen upon every startup about dizziness, nausea, not to be used by children under 13, etc. But, something tells me that will not be enough. At this time, the long-term effects of using VR are unknown and could be an issue down the road. Only time will tell.

For now, I am going to continue to enjoy the experience. As with anything in life, we assume moderation if the best course of action. How many adventures do we really need each day anyways?

South Carolina Supreme Court Provides Guidance On Reserving Rights

Today, we here at Abnormal Use take a brief hiatus from the realm of product liability todiscuss a recent decision from the South Carolina Supreme Court which will significantly impact insurers doing business in the state. The case, Harleysville Group Ins. v. Heritage Communities, Inc., et al., No. 2013-001281 (S.C. Jan. 11, 2017), is  a lengthy decision addressesing, for the first time in South Carolina, the content of reservation of rights letters. While the opinion also discusses the time on risk allocation for damages awarded under a general verdict and coverage for punitive damages, it is the discourse on reservation of rights letters that needs closer scrutiny.

As with most significant South Carolina insurance coverage matters in recent times, Harleysville arises out of two construction defect lawsuits. A little background is necessary. The underlying lawsuits involved the construction of two condominium developments constructed between 1997 and 2000. After construction was complete and the units were sold, the purchasers became aware of certain construction deficiencies and filed suit against Heritage Communities (and several subsidiary companies), the entities who developed and constructed the developments.

During the period of construction, the Heritage entities were insured under CGL and excess liability policies issued by Harleysville. Heritage was uninsured after its last policy lapsed in 2001. After receiving notice of the lawsuits, Harleysville agreed to defend the Heritage entities under a reservation of rights. According to the Court, Harleysville’s reservation of rights consisted of “generic states of potential non-coverage” coupled with a cut-and-paste of most of the Harleysville policy language. Nonetheless, Harleysville continued to provide a defense to the Heritage entities through trial. In each case, the jury returned a general verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding both actual and punitive damages. Thereafter, Harleysville filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it had no duty to indemnify Heritage for the verdicts. In the alternative, Harleysville sought an allocation of which portion of the juries’ verdicts constituted covered damages and whether those portions were subject to a time on risk allocation.

The declaratory judgment action was referred to a Special Referee. After staying the matter pending the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in Crossmann, 717 S.E.2d 589 (2011), the Special Referee determined that Harleysville failed to properly reserve its rights to contest coverage. As such, he found that coverage was triggered under the Harleysville policies because the general verdicts included some covered damages. While the Special Referee presumed that the verdict included certain non-covered damages (e.g. the repair/replacement of faulty workmanship), he determined it would be improper and speculative to allocate the general verdicts. As such, he ordered that the entirety of the actual damages was covered under the Harleysville policies, subject to Harleysville’s time-on-risk. In addition, the Special Referee held that the punitive damages were also covered under the policies. The parties subsequently filed cross-appeals.

The Court began its analysis with a review of Harleysville’s reservation of rights letters. The letters, sent in 2003 and 2004, explained that Harleysville would provide a defense, identified the insured entities and the lawsuit, summarized the allegations, and identified the policy periods for the policies. In addition, the letters contained 9-10 pages of policy provisions, including the insuring agreement, exclusions, and definitions. However, the letters contained no discussion of the various provisions or explanation of why Harleysville was relying on them. Except for the claim for punitive damages, the letters did not specify the particular grounds upon which Harleysville disputed coverage. Finally, the letters advised the insureds of potential uninsured exposure and recommended that the insureds consider retaining personal counsel. Also of note to the Court, the letters did not advise the insureds of the need for an allocation of damages between covered and non-covered losses, nor did they reference any potential conflicts of interest or notify the insureds of Harleysville’s intent to pursue a declaratory judgment action.

The Court affirmed the Special Referee’s finding that Harleysville properly reserved its rights as to punitive damages but failed to properly reserve rights to contest coverage for the general verdict. In doing so, the Court noted that a reservation of rights must provide the insured with sufficient information to understand the reasons the insurer believes the policy may not provide coverage. A generic denial of coverage with a verbatim recitation of all or most of the policy provisions is not sufficient. Instead, the insurer must alert the insured to the potential that coverage may be inapplicable; that conflicts may exist between the insurer and the insured; and that the insured should take steps necessary to protect its potentially uninsured interests.

Having found that Harleysville’s reservation was not sufficient, the Court, relying primarily on case law from other jurisdictions, engaged in a lengthy discourse of the requirements of a proper reservation. Significantly, the Court stated that:

  • A reservation must be unambiguous. (citing World Harvest Church, Inc. v. GuideOne Mut. Ins. Co., 695 S.E.2d 6 (Ga. 2010)).
  • Prior to undertaking the defense, the insurer must specify in detail any and all bases upon which it might contest coverage. (citing Desert Ridge Resort LLC v. Occidental Fire & Cas. Co. of N.C., 141 F.Supp.3d 962 (D.Ariz. 2015)).
  • A reservation of rights letter must give fair notice to the insured that the insurer intends to assert defenses to coverage or to pursue a declaratory judgment at a later date. (citing United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Waterfront N.Y. Realty Corp., 948 F.Supp. 263 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)).
  • Because an insurer has the right to control the litigation, an insurer has a duty to inform the insured of the need for an allocated verdict as to covered and non-covered damages. (citing Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mut. Ins. Co., 819 N.W.2d 602 (Minn. 2012); Magnum Foods, Inc. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 36 F.3d 1491 (10th 1994)).

The Court placed significant emphasis on the fact that an insurer has the right to control the defense and, thus, must keep the insured informed of all potential coverage issues to avoid prejudice. In the Court’s view, one of the primary deficits in the Harleysville reservation of rights letters was the lack of notice to the insured of the need for an allocated verdict as between covered and uncovered claims. Unfortunately, the Court does not expressly state who has the burden of actually seeking the allocation. Some of the language in the opinion seems to place the burden on the insured: “…in no way did the letters inform . . . [the insureds] that they should protect their interests by requesting an appropriate verdict.”  Other language, however, seems to place the burden on the insurer: “. . . an insurer typically has the right to control the litigation and is in the best position to see to it that the damages are allocated . . .” If the burden does, in fact, rest with the insurer, this decision should provide strong ammunition in support of an insurer’s  motion to intervene — which, in the past, South Carolina courts have generally disfavored. 

 Based on Harleysville, insurers must exercise special care when issuing reservation of rights letters.  At a minimum, reservation of rights letters should provide unambiguous notice to the insured of the following:

  • the specific issues raised in the underlying litigation or claim giving rise to the coverage dispute, including the particular grounds upon which coverage;
  • any potential conflicts of interest between the insurer and insured;
  • the intent to pursue a declaratory judgment, if applicable, in the event of an adverse jury verdict; and
  • the need to obtain a written explanation of the jury award that identifies the claims or theories of recovery actually proved and the portions of the award attributable to

Failing to provide a sufficiently specific reservation of rights may result in the insurer being precluded from disputing coverage.  With regard to covered and non-covered claims, because the Court has not expressly stated who has the burden of seeking an allocation/clarification from the jury, it is probably more prudent for insurers to take affirmative steps to protect their coverage position absent further guidance from the Court.

(Hat Tip: Jennifer Johnsen).

New Suit Alleges Popeyes Served Up Flesh Eating Screwworms

According to a report from the NY Daily News, Texas woman Karen Goode has filed suit against Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, alleging that the fast food chain served her a helping of flesh-eating worms. Specifically, Goode alleges that some rice and beans she ordered from a San Antonio location were invaded by Cochcliomyia hominivorax, otherwise known as “New World screwworms.” Of course, Goode unknowingly ingested the worms, and then:

The flesh eating screwworms entered the Plaintiff’s digestive track, laid eggs which embedded in the interior lining of Plaintiff’s small intestines, and when hatched, infested Plaintiff’s body and began to eat Plaintiff alive from inside-out.

In addition to being consumed by flesh-eating worms, Goode also alleges that she injured her neck, shoulders, and arms. She seeks damages in excess of $1 million.

We here at Abnormal Use often write of fast food-related lawsuits. This is the first involving flesh eating screwworms. Nonetheless, the questions are the same. First, assuming the allegations have merit, how did New World screwworms get into the rice? The United States was thought to be free from New World screwworms by the early 1980’s. However, recently, there have been reports of a screwworm outbreak affecting deer in South Florida. However, to our knowledge, human exposure has been rare in recent years.

Second, how did Goode not realize her rice was infested with screwworms? New World screwworms are approximately 8-10 mm in length. While admittedly a bowl of rice can be deceptive when it comes to spotting larvae, the thought of mistaking a grain of Popeyes rice for a screwwworm is troubling. Probably not something Popeyes wants to put in its next advertisement.

But the biggest question facing any food contamination case of this type is how does Goode know that she encountered the screwworm at Popeyes and not something else she ate/came in contact with? Goode’s complaint does not state exactly when she discovered the screwworms, so it is unknown at this point whether Goode actually observed the worms in the rice at any point. If not, Goode may face an uphill battle. Presumably, if Popeyes had an issue, the screwworms would not have been confined to Goode’s meal and this would not be an isolated event. For the love of San Antonio, let’s hope that is the case.

McDonald’s Hit With Value Meal Pricing Suit

We here at Abnormal Use have discussed many McDonald’s lawsuits over the years. Most of those suits involved hot coffee spills and often led to heated discussions over a producer’s liability for serving products in the manner nature intended. While those discussions were certainly interesting for us legal nerds, none were necessarily as critical to the fabric of our society as the most recent suit filed against the fast food giant. As reported by the Chicago Tribune, a new suit, which seeks class action status, has been filed against McDonald’s alleging that the company has committed fraud and deceptive trade practices through the pricing of its Extra Value Meals. Specifically, Plaintiff Kelly Killeen alleges that she purchased a Sausage Burrito Extra Value Meal at a downtown Chicago McDonald’s. Killeen paid $5.08 for her meal. However, a review of the menu revealed that had Kielleen purchased the meal (comprised of two burritos, hash browns and a medium coffee) a la carte, the meal would have cost $4.97. And, Killeen is none too pleased with being deprived of 11 cents, apparently.

Killeen’s suit follows a similar lawsuit filed in December alleging that 10 Illinois McDonald’s overprice the Two Cheeseburger Extra Value Meal by about 50 cents. That suit also seeks class action status.

While it may not have been discussed on the campaign trail, value meal pricing is a real issue for those of us that actually pay attention. From fast food restaurants to concessions at movie theaters and sporting events, the “value” of a pre-grouped meal is often minimal, if not non-existent. Whether it is fraud or just good sales psychology, we will leave that question for the jury. Regardless, it remains an issue we should all be conscious of as consumers. With that said, don’t count on us to join the class. Even though we loathe value meal pricing, we routinely order value meals. The reason – it is easy and convenient regardless of whether it makes economic sense. Ever try to order from a drive-thru for a bunch of kids in the backseat? The goal is just to make it through. In that situation, ordering by number will always outweigh the economic benefit of a la carte. So, McDonald’s, yes, you can keep our 11 cents.