Los Angeles, CA (PressExposure) August 03, 2007 -- The State Supreme Court for Missouri ruled last Tuesday that the families that filed charges against McDonald's for their children's E. coli infections after eating hamburgers from said restaurant should sue only in the counties where the incidents happened. According to the judge, the families must not file their charges in the bigger city where there are also existing franchises of McDonald's. This court decision favors McDonald's Corporation whose attorneys sought that the lawsuits be transferred.
Los Angeles, California, June 28, 2007 - The lawsuits were filed by the families in Jackson County. These were sought to be transferred by McDonald's in Branson and Marsh, the rural counties in Southern Missouri, the location of the McDonald is where the two children who allegedly suffered infections ate hamburgers.
The two lawsuits were filed separately but both contend that the victims fell sick last July 2001 and had spent three weeks of confined treatment and care at the Children's Mercy in Kansas City They also underwent several days of kidney dialysis. According to the lawsuits, McDonald's and its franchise joints have been negligent in training their employees how to prepare the foods to be served to the patrons, properly.
One of the victim is Meagan Bell, was turning three years old during the time she was infected by the allegedly infected hamburger at a McDonald's franchise branch in Marshfield. The other one is Samantha Ryan who was then eight years old when she ate the hamburger at the McDonald's Branson franchise branch.
According to their attorney, Kathleen Hagen from Kansas City, both the children suffered permanent kidney damage because of the tainted hamburgers.
The Court decision was according to a state law in Missouri effective last August 2005 requiring lawsuits seeking for damages for alleged wrongdoings be filed on the located where the victims have been injured.
The attorney representing the children's case filed the lawsuits at a looser location law that was in place during the time of the filing, which was before August 2005.