Posted on 01/26/2005 9:26:47 AM PST by FairfaxVA
NEW YORK -- An appeals court Tuesday revived part of a class-action lawsuit blaming McDonald's for making people fat, reinstating claims pertaining to deceptive advertising.
A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a lower court judge erred when he dismissed parts of the lawsuit brought on behalf of two New York children.
U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet dismissed the lawsuit in 2003 because he said it failed to link the children's alleged health problems directly to McDonald's products. But the appeals judges said New York's general business law requires a plaintiff to show only that deceptive advertising was misleading and that the plaintiff was injured as a result. The panel upheld other parts of the dismissal.
In a statement, Oak Brook, Ill.-based McDonald's Corp. said ``common sense tells you this particular case makes no sense,'' adding the ruling ``simply delays the inevitable conclusion that this case is without merit.''
A message left for the lawyer representing two children named in the lawsuit was not immediately returned.
The lawsuit alleges that tens of thousands of children have suffered obesity, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol and other health problems after being misled about McDonald's products.
Sweet ruled that consumers cannot blame McDonald's if they choose to eat at its fast-food restaurants.
``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.''
Where's the class action law suit demanding compensation from lawyers for making the rest of us crazy?
I think Greta VanSusteren's husband behind this.
If anyone would like to read the appellate court's decision, you can download it here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/viewcase.pl?court=0&subject=0&casenum=&party=mcdonald%27s&date1=&date3=&date2=&search=Search
To go directly to the .pdf file, you can use the following link (the decision is six pages long):
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039010p.pdf
Some trial lawyers just want to earn the big-time bucks like the tobacco lawyers did.
``it is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excesses.''
D'ya think?
I'm thinking of suing the Dillard's shoe department....... I can't control myself in there.......... it can't be my fault!
serving papers on Talbots this afternoon then, if this is a cause of action then i have grounds!
Williams Sonoma should be a good one as well.
Krispy Kreme is next
I think I can build a case against FreeRepublic. I spend countless hours of a limited lifespan on this site that I can never recover.
I could have spent that precious time writing a novel, building an ark or eating at McDonald's for profit. This is all Jim Robinson's fault and I demand compensation.
Yes it is ridiculous. The plaintiffs should pay ALL court costs and legal expenses for this joke. I am a weight-challenged American, and I take full responsibility for my excess. I don't blame McDonalds or Zaxby's or Garfield for introducing me to lasagna.
"I want everything on the menu, put it in a bucket with eggs on top."
"You gonna eat those fries?"
According to the appellate court, that claim, under New York General Business Law section 349 (the New York Consumer Protection Act), doesn't require a showing that the plaintiffs actually relied on the deceptive advertising. Under this law, a court could find that McDonald's engaged in deceptive trade practices even if nobody actually believed them.
And the trial court got that part right. The appellate court is remanding the case merely because the trial court dismissed that part of the claim for the wrong reason (on the mistaken grounds that certain facts had to be alleged in the complaint rather than brought out during discovery). There's no reason to think McDonald's will lose on remand either, and of course all the other stuff that was dismissed stays dismissed.
At any rate, nothing about this remand suggests that Talbot's, Dillard's, or Krispy Kreme can be held responsible for the self-destructive behavior of its customers -- though of course they might get into trouble under the consumer-protection laws of their respective states if they engaged in deceptive advertising.
I am going to sue my grocery store for offering all the food that is making me fat. I can go and buy whatever I want and how much I want.
This is an outrage... how can they let me buy so much food? How can they let me buy the wrong kind of food? I have a weight problem fur cryin' out loud.
And get this, I can actually leave one grocery store and go to another to buy even more food! How can that happen here in America?
I can then even go to a restaurant and order ANYTHING off the menu! I can order as much of anything that I want! Is this what our troops fought for? The freedom to eat what I want when I want? That is so perverted. I can go on a feeding frenzy and no one, mind you, no one is there to stop me. Who is responsible for this outrage?
I want a microchip inserted into my brain that will go off whenever I eat anything that is remotely fattening. I want an alarm to go off whenever I attempt to purchase a restricted food. I want lights to flash if I attempt to purchase more than my allotted share of food, no matter how healthy it appears to be.
I want my car to take me directly home if I try to shop another food store. I want someone to deny me entry into a restaurant if I've just finished shopping. And I want a controlled menu whenever I decide to order.
I am not responsible for my own self. I cannot make good food choices, only bad choices. I need the government or a bunch of lawyers to decided for me.
Kids are fat because they are playing too much PS2 and not enough 2 hand touch!!
ping!
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.