Posted on 07/28/2002 8:54:24 AM PDT by msuMD
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:12:34 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Since the act of eating a fast-food cheeseburger involves a series of voluntary behaviors -- you must decide you want McDonald's, you must go there, you must take money from your pocket and you must lift the burger to your lips -- it's hard to see how anything that comes from eating that cheeseburger could be someone else's fault.
(Excerpt) Read more at freep.com ...
The fast food suit is not like the tobacco suite. In the tobacco suit, the argument was tobacco was addictive, therefore the user was not liable. Because fast food is not addictive, nor has it been formulated to increase any addictive qualities, the argument against fast food will cannot use tobacco as a precident.
Therefore, this whole case has no precidence, merit, and should be thrown out before it starts.
However, if the fast food suit succeeds, I predict the next target will be the auto industry.
Hey, no problem! Isn't that what the Florida Supreme Court wanted to do? What's the big deal? < sarcasm off >
The new American way!
Most of what people believe today about eating low-fat high-carb diets is based on junk science. Coke and Pepsi sell sugar delivery systems that are 100% unnatural and unhealthy. And fruit producers have bred trees to produce in effect candy bars. Just because a tree makes it does not make it natural. If the lawyers liability lawsuit has merit why wouldn't they go after the sugar sellers?
Humans ate a high fat diet for 2 million years, it's the unnatural high carb diet introduced within the last 100 years that our bodies are not engineered for.
| vendredi 26 juillet 2002, 20h46 Un New-Yorkais obèse a intenté un procès à quatre différentes chaînes de fast-food, y compris McDonalds, les accusant d'être responsables de ses problèmes de santé liés au poids, imitant ainsi les fumeurs qui poursuivent les compagnies de tabac. |
Then why are we taller, stronger, healther and living longer and living better than any time in history? The folks in Lesotho, Africa eat a very pc diet (little meat or refined or gm fruits and veg., lots of beans, grains, etc.)and their average life span is 48.7 and falling. The Siberian aborigines with their very high fat diet are not exactly famous for their quality (and lenght) of life.
Not going to happen. Jurors aren't going to find in favor of fat people, because fat people don't provoke sympathy the way smokers do. Perversely, this is because most jurors don't smoke but do eat: Since the juror can manage to eat a Big Mac without becoming a 500-pound lump or dying of heart disease, the problem must be with the plaintiff rather than the Big Mac. On the other hand, when a non-smoking juror hears a lung-cancer case, he says "there but for the grace of God go I" and votes against Big Tobacco. Back when casual smoking was more common, the typical juror knew that it was perfectly possible to smoke a few cigarettes a day without becoming a two-pack addict, and so he had very little sympathy to spare for the plaintiff who died from overindulgence.
What about people (especially women) who can't control (addiction?)thier urge to eat chocolate ? The "better" types have more fat, more sugar and I'll wager they have more caffine too. Could the same logic apply to colas? For that matter how about coffee. (The caffine buzz is much more intense with Starbucks coffee than it is with 7-11 coffee)
I think you may be missing the point. The argument about addicative properties is very much a subjective one. The real issue is that, thanks to the precident set by the tobacco shakedowns, now a company can produce and distribute a perfectly legal product and still be liable because some people are not strong enough to control themselves.
I agree this should be thrown out of court- then again so too should the tobacco cases. Heck, we live in a country where you can sue and win if your coffee is too hot. I agree with your other prediction that teh auto industry will be in line next. Also in line will be beer and wine. Pretty soon we'll be forced to drink 3.2 beer-yuck.
Because of fast food, hehe. Actually mostly from better medical care and less manual work lifestyles, but also from better nutrition. A Chinese boy that grows up on an Iowa farm grows up huge in comparison to Chinese natives. Long life though is not the product of a low-fat high-carb diet, it is in spite of it. The body has amazing powers to process whatever we feed it into what it really needs. However there are limits to what our tiny pancreas and single stomach can do with a high carb diet. We took a different evolutionary path than the cows.
I'm surprised this fat motherf**ker even knows the word "responsible". He obviously doesn't know what it means.
Is it okay for me to say I hope he dies? Can I say I hope he dies badly? Like "both legs and arms shattered irreparably then left lying in the Amazon rain forest hooked to an IV of antibiotics and water so the bugs have a long, long time to eat him" badly?
This lawsuit is going to be a spectacular failure. John and Jane Public could care less when you tell a smoker he has to pay more. But you tell them they have to pay extra for their fattening treats, well, we can't have that!
Only if this actually gets a hearing. Lets make some predictions.
Law suits for those that did not realize investing in the stock market has risks. This must already be already in the works.
Then there will be suits brought against the sun because the government never told anyone that prolonged exposure will cause sunburn or even possibly cancer
Then right after that the lawyers will be cooking up ways for mothers to sue their children because raising children can induce stress and you have to feed them which costs money.
I'm presently working on a class action law suit because my neighbor doesn't put down weed control at the right time and I know some of the clover in my yard is due to his negligence.
Anyone want to get in on the action?
If you mean the lawyer, sure, I'm ok with it. The fat plaintiff is just a conduit for the greedy lawyers.
Which is contrary to the *Crintons who perfected "I'm Stupid, Therefore I Get Away With It."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.