Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal Judge Throws Out Lawsuit Against McDonald's
Associated Press | January 22, 2003 | unsigned

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."


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: pufflist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

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.


1 posted on 01/22/2003 1:18:17 PM PST by Nick Danger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

"Please contribute to FreeRepublic and make these posts go away"


Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!
Thanks Registered


2 posted on 01/22/2003 1:19:42 PM PST by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
"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.

Stupidity is not an excess.

3 posted on 01/22/2003 1:24:55 PM PST by Fraulein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
This Judge seems to be a stand up guy. I hope he sanctions Hirsch for filing frivilous lawsuits when he refiles.

So9

4 posted on 01/22/2003 1:41:18 PM PST by Servant of the Nine (We are the Hegemon. We can do anything we damned well please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
Can't you just see tomorrow's press conference by Tommie ("the Commie") Dashole, Leahy, and the other anti-America dems in the Congress. "We are deeply troubled that this is the kind of opinionated judge that Mr. Bush wishes to nominated," said Mr. Dashole, looking very troubled.

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.

5 posted on 01/22/2003 1:42:20 PM PST by Tacis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
We need some kind of "loser pays" reform that would allow McDonald's to at least collect its own attorneys fees from Hirsch

Yup, big time where the legal definition of loser also includes the plaintiff's attorneys.
6 posted on 01/22/2003 1:54:54 PM PST by pt17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
Just for everyone's information, Greta Van Susteren's husband was one of the lawyers involved in the lawsuit against McDondalds.
7 posted on 01/22/2003 1:59:11 PM PST by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
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

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.

8 posted on 01/22/2003 2:02:01 PM PST by Sender (The value of strategery in war can never be misunderestimated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *puff_list; SheLion; Gabz; Max McGarrity
Wouldn't the same thinking go for the tobacco companies?
9 posted on 01/22/2003 2:14:30 PM PST by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
It should have.
10 posted on 01/22/2003 2:24:35 PM PST by FroedrickVonFreepenstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tacis
Judge Sweet was nominated by Jimmy Carter, not by Bush. He is an excellent judge, however.
11 posted on 01/22/2003 2:28:03 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Support Free Republic
The worst of it is that he made it to 150, 175, 200+ and his idiot parents didn't start doing something about it. I wonder how many times he ate at McDonalds after the lawsuit was filed, and how many pounds he gained.
12 posted on 01/22/2003 2:38:23 PM PST by jiggyboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
"They have targeted children," Hirsch contended.

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.

13 posted on 01/22/2003 2:46:51 PM PST by Flashman_at_the_charge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Wouldn't the same thinking go for the tobacco companies?

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).

14 posted on 01/22/2003 3:01:22 PM PST by DonQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
- Saying the law is not intended to protect people from their own excesses,

Why didn't the judges see it the same way, when it came to smoking, "I am responsible for my smoking habit."

15 posted on 01/22/2003 3:43:21 PM PST by Great Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
Guess tort-reform is at a snails pace.

Loser pay should be the norm.

16 posted on 01/22/2003 3:45:34 PM PST by Great Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: Nick Danger
We need some kind of "loser pays" reform...

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.

18 posted on 01/22/2003 5:32:13 PM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
"Loser pays" law is right. They have it in England, and it works.
19 posted on 01/22/2003 5:44:52 PM PST by MonroeDNA (What's the frequency, Kenneth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
They have "Loser pays" laws in England. Are they unfair there?
20 posted on 01/22/2003 5:47:13 PM PST by MonroeDNA (What's the frequency, Kenneth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson