|
Posted on 01/22/2003 1:18:17 PM PST by Nick Danger
NEW YORK (AP) - Saying the law is not intended to protect people from their own excesses, a federal judge threw out a class-action lawsuit Wednesday that blamed McDonald's food for obesity, diabetes and other health problems in children.
U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet said the plaintiffs failed to show that the fast-food chain's products "involve a danger that is not within the common knowledge of consumers."
The lawsuit was filed against McDonald's last summer and sought unspecified damages.
"If a person knows or should know that eating copious orders of supersized McDonald's products is unhealthy and may result in weight gain ... it is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excesses," the judge said. "Nobody is forced to eat at McDonald's."
Plaintiffs' attorney Samuel Hirsch filed other, similar lawsuits last year. In one, a 270-pound city maintenance worker alleged that eating McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King and KFC had caused him health problems. Those suits had been dropped or put on hold while Sweet considered the lawsuit against McDonald's.
The lawsuits became a lightning rod for pundits and editorial writers who jeered that they were the latest example of a litigious society in which people abdicate personal responsibility.
"Common sense has prevailed," McDonald's spokesman Walt Riker said. "We said from the beginning that this was a frivolous lawsuit. Today's ruling confirms that fact."
On Wall Street, McDonald's stock up 7 cents at $15.41 on Wednesday afternoon.
Hirsch said the lawsuit will be amended and refiled within a month.
Hirsch had argued that the high fat, sugar and cholesterol content of McDonald's food is a "toxic kind of thing" when eaten regularly by children.
He said that consumers may generally understand that fast-food burgers and fries are not health food, but do not realize just how bad such fare can be.
He cited the case of a 13-year-old New York City boy who said he ate at McDonald's three or four times a week and is now 5-foot-4 and 278 pounds. Other affidavits filed by the parents of obese children claim they never saw posters or pamphlets inside McDonald's restaurants describing the nutritional content of the food.
"They have targeted children," Hirsch contended.
According to a McDonald's Web site, a Big Mac packs 590 calories and 34 grams of fat, while a large order of french fries has 540 calories and 26 grams of fat.
Riker said McDonald's has been providing nutrition information about its food for 30 years. He said McDonald's food "can fit into a healthy, well-balanced diet, based upon the choice and variety available on our menu."
|
|
|
|
 |
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! Thanks Registered |
|
So9
This judge is taking contingency money out of the pockets of plaintif's attorneys, democrat fundraisers, and Tommie's wife, the bag lady. It isn't the courts' responsibility to shift responsibility for one's acts onto, well, one. The dems believe that no one should be responsible for their own problems. Willie used to regularly apologize to everyone for everything. Bush hasn't and will try to appoint judges that will probably try to make folks responsible for thier own foolishness. That is why the dems will oppose EVERY judicial nominee that Bush selects.
Any 13-year-old boy that is 278 pounds on McDonald's food is either:
-Getting zero exercise and laying in front of TV all day, or
-Has a genetic physical disorder that needs treatment.
Blaming McDonald's for getting fat is just some huckster lawyer and his willing ghetto clients trying to shake down a buck.
And you sir have targeted gullible idiots with promises of large cash settlements should they allow themselves to be driven to court like so many sheep.
It should have.
====
Actually, not. The tobacco companies made deliberate and extensive efforts to conceal from the public the poisonous and addictive nature of cigarettes, including fabricating publicity that smoking was tolerated or even recommended by doctors. Internal memos mentioning the calculated addition of certain flavorings to tobacco in order to enhance the addictive nature, and so forth, were concealed, and pressure (making use of their enormous advertising budget) was used to discourage magazines and newspapers from reporting the facts about smoking's deleterious effects.
McDonald's didn't pull stunts like that, and McD's food actually served a human need (even if it might not be the best choice for a steady diet).
Why didn't the judges see it the same way, when it came to smoking, "I am responsible for my smoking habit."
Loser pay should be the norm.
While I agree with the principle, that kind of legislation can suffer from the law of unintended consequences.
If we passed it, then lawyers would not take cases from poorer people anymore due to their inability to pay "if they should lose." It could possibly lead to a society where only the "rich" and corporations could afford the luxery of legal protections.
We'd have to very carefully craft that legislation in order to prevent something like from occurring.
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.
It is not fair that McDonald's should have to continually spend money to defend itself from jerks like this Hirsch. We need some kind of "loser pays" reform that would allow McDonald's to at least collect its own attorneys fees from Hirsch. As it is, he's just running an extortion racket, and the judges are letting him do it.