Fat Lawsuits

[Lord Zentei]

Linky

I beleive I mentioned this in another thread concerning lawsuits (it was the thread involving the lawsuit due to exessively hot McDonalds coffee).

I thought this particular case had been dismissed. However, the appeals court has other ideas it seems...

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

They can lose the weight, but they can't lose the stupid.

[Perinquus]

If a person knows or should know that eating copious orders of supersized McDonald's products is unhealthy and may result in weight gain," Sweet had written, "it is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excesses.

I think this says it beautifully. There was a time when the law was not expected to protect people in every conceivable way from their own stupidity, short-sightedness, or bad decision making. People were expected to have common sense. There was no need in advertising to tell people that eating lots of fast food can make you gain weight, because anyone with an ounce of sense fucking knew it already. Who the fuck ever mistook a fast food diet for a healthy diet? There was no need to make lawnmowers with a "dead man switch" to cut the mower off when you release the handle, because people were expected to have enough goddamned sense not to reach under a running lawnmower to clear clogged up grass out of the grass chute. If you were dumb enough to do these things, it was your fault.

This just points up the need for tort reform in this country. We need to discourage these frivolous lawsuits that take up court time, and result in increased cost to consumers, as the legal fees these companies have to pay gets passed on to the consumer in the form of higher costs. I more uniformly applied loser pays rule would work nicely. Unfortunately, as most of our politicians are lawyers, I doubt we will get this.

[wautd]

I hope those kids choke on a burger and die

[bohemianfey]

I hope those kids choke on a burger and die

What a fitting statement, though it would probably cause a similiarly idiotic lawsuit. Go figure.

[frigidmagi]

What a fitting statement, though it would probably cause a similiarly idiotic lawsuit. Go figure.

The wrapper didn't say I had to chew!!!

[wautd]

I hope those kids choke on a burger and die

What a fitting statement, though it would probably cause a similiarly idiotic lawsuit. Go figure.

replace burger with carrot. Problem solved

[Darth Wong]

If a person knows or should know that eating copious orders of supersized McDonald's products is unhealthy and may result in weight gain," Sweet had written, "it is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excesses.

I think this says it beautifully. There was a time when the law was not expected to protect people in every conceivable way from their own stupidity, short-sightedness, or bad decision making.

For a police officer, you apparently don't understand the law. Tort law is all about manufacturer negligence, not making the law protect people from their own stupidity. Sometimes it has the effect of protecting people from their own stupidity, so people leap to this conclusion, but it is a false conclusion.

[Stravo]

In the briefs that were filed by the plaintiffs they stated something that made me laugh out loud. The Plaintiffs asserted that if McDonalds clearly advertised the contents of the food they were eating they would have either stopped eating McDonalds or signifcantly cut back. I've seen these poeple that eat like that at McD's, the fat black/hispanic teenage girls (many of the plaintiffs are overweight underage female minorities) that order everything supersized and a Diet Coke. They know godamned well what they're eating and after they leave McDonalds they'll be munching on a bag of Doritos - some even bring in a slice of pizza to 'supplement' their lunch.

This is horseshit. Do I think McDonald's falsely advertizes? Hell yes. That's what the Court is focussing on - NOT whether the kids' health was knowingly damaged. These kids could care less. They guzzle Grape soda and Doritos on the Subway leaving their trash on the seats as they leave and proceed to wolf down a portion of McDonalds food that would choke a horse while chattering loudly and letting spittle laced food fly from their mouth as they talk louder than anyone should godamn well be talking. *Yes, Stravo has had some very shitty experiences with them when he used to frequent McDonalds.*

The kids are not the issue now, the court is focussing on what McDonald says about its food which is a much more defensible consumer protection angle than the "I'm fat *wah* someone give me money."

The fact of the matter is that poor children eat very very poorly and no one wants to discuss that. Alot easier to attack McDonalds than the entire food industry that caters to stuffing chips and grape soda into children.

[Frank Hipper]

Nutritional information for McDonald's food is free upon request. It's exhaustive, easy to read, and there for anyone who's interested.

[Darth Wong]

Nutritional information for McDonald's food is free upon request. It's exhaustive, easy to read, and there for anyone who's interested.

Actually, McDonald's has an obligation to proactively inform the public about any unusual health risks associated with its products, just like any other manufacturer. You shouldn't have to make inquiries yourself. Of course, the question then becomes: is McDonald's food unusually bad for you relative to other foods that are sold without a warning? Have they violated the industry standard in some way? This is where the plaintiffs' case is weak.

[Executor32]

Makes me glad my state passed a law that prohibits fat people from suing restaurants for making them fat.

[Darth Wong]

I should also point out, however, that if McDonald's has ever publicly promoted any falsehoods about their products, they could be in trouble. For example, if they claimed that most nutritionists think that their food is healthy, they would be guilty of misleading the public.

[Perinquus]

For a police officer, you apparently don't understand the law. Tort law is all about manufacturer negligence, not making the law protect people from their own stupidity. Sometimes it has the effect of protecting people from their own stupidity, so people leap to this conclusion, but it is a false conclusion.

I understand it very well, thank you. Reread my post. I am against frivolous and stupid lawsuits, not legitimate instances where products were defective. If, for example, a child's car seat fails during a relatively minor crash, causing the child to sustain injury, then the parents of that child have excellent grounds for a lawsuit. The product was apparently defective, and when used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, failed to perform as specified. Or if you want an example from an actual case, Mary Ann and Louis Guarino v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. In this case, an improperly serviced exercise treadmill was apparently left with its belt loose after servicing. When the plaintiff, Mary Ann Guarino then used the treadmill, it suddenly stopped after about two minutes of use, throwing her off the machine and causing her to strike the wall behind her. Here too is a case of improperly designed, built, or serviced machinery, used in a manner consistent with manufacturer's instructions (and simple common sense), that failed and caused the user to sustain injury. Again, an excellent case for a product liability suit.

These are examples of how the law is supposed to work. These are examples of legitimate product liability issues.

What I am referring to, on the other hand are suits like Mele v. Turner, of 1986. 18 year-old John Turner mowed his neighbors' lawn with their Sears push mower, and while doing so, reached down to sweep grass clippings out of the chute of the still running motor, and injured four fingers of his left hand. This is a frivolous lawsuit. What kind of an idiot needs a manufacturer's warning to tell him not to put his fucking hand near the rapidly whirling steel blades of a running lawnmower?

Or there was another case, more recent, which I heard of, but cannot find a reference for, where two neighbors tried to use a lawnmower as a hedgetrimmer. One held the handlbars so the deadman switch would stay on, and the other genius held the front of the mower, and they straddled the mower over a 5 foot high hedge. When the blades began chopping into the hedge, the mower began spitting debris, which then struck both men, causing one to drop his end of the mower, and the other sustained injuries from the blades. They sued on the grounds that the manufacturer included no warning that the mower was not to be used as a hedgetrimmer. Again, what kind of moron needs a manufacturer's warning to tell him that pulling a stunt like this is a monumentally stupid idea?

These are the kinds of frivolous lawsuits that we need tort reform to put a curb on - people doing something stupid, and then suing someone for it.

[Darth Wong]

What I am referring to, on the other hand are suits like Mele v. Turner, of 1986. 18 year-old John Turner mowed his neighbors' lawn with their Sears push mower, and while doing so, reached down to sweep grass clippings out of the chute of the still running motor, and injured four fingers of his left hand. This is a frivolous lawsuit. What kind of an idiot needs a manufacturer's warning to tell him not to put his fucking hand near the rapidly whirling steel blades of a running lawnmower?

Irrelevant how much of an idiot he is. If other manufacturers put a warning there and this manufacturer didn't, then they're negligent (which is probably what happened).

Or there was another case, more recent, which I heard of, but cannot find a reference for, where two neighbors tried to use a lawnmower as a hedgetrimmer. One held the handlbars so the deadman switch would stay on, and the other genius held the front of the mower, and they straddled the mower over a 5 foot high hedge. When the blades began chopping into the hedge, the mower began spitting debris, which then struck both men, causing one to drop his end of the mower, and the other sustained injuries from the blades. They sued on the grounds that the manufacturer included no warning that the mower was not to be used as a hedgetrimmer. Again, what kind of moron needs a manufacturer's warning to tell him that pulling a stunt like this is a monumentally stupid idea?

This goes well beyond any industry standard that I know of, unless it's actually common to warn people about not doing that. I never said all lawsuits were automatically valid, so you can hardly disprove my case by pointing at examples you feel to be unreasonable. The point remains: the question of whether the law protects people from their own stupidity is not the same as the question of whether a liability lawsuit is valid.

These are the kinds of frivolous lawsuits that we need tort reform to put a curb on - people doing something stupid, and then suing someone for it.

Wrong. If it can be shown that the manufacturer was negligent in some way, then the manufacturer should pay. However, I would argue that such lawsuits should only pay compensatory damages to the plaintiff, with all punitive damages being paid to the state. This would cut out the "lottery mentality".

[Perinquus]

If it can be shown that the manufacturer was negligent in some way, then the manufacturer should pay.

I agree. However, I cannot see how failing to warn someone of such an obvious danger can be considered negligent. A warning to keep hands away from sharp, whirling steel blades seems to me about as necessary as a warning not to step in front of an oncoming bus, or not to play "bobbing for french fries" with a boiling deep fryer.

However, I would argue that such lawsuits should only pay compensatory damages to the plaintiff, with all punitive damages being paid to the state. This would cut out the "lottery mentality".

I like that idea as well. That, plus a loser pays rule (a more uniformly employed one that is, as we have one that is rarely invoked) would end a lot of lawsuits by people who are only looking for a big payoff. Only people with a legitimate claim, and case solid enough to stand a good chance of winning would file suits in this case.

[Lord Poe]

Actually, McDonald's has an obligation to proactively inform the public about any unusual health risks associated with its products, just like any other manufacturer.

But they'll still be sued. You still have these fuckwits dying of cancer blaming the tobacco companies for their idiocy, even though the warning labels on cigarettes have been around since the early 60's.

So will we see a bunch of fat fucks producing those puke-inducing pretentious "Truth" commercials against McDonalds in 10 years?