Posted on 07/30/2002 12:06:07 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Is any claim too ridiculous to be entertained by American courts? The latest outrage – a class action suit by fast-food foragers against the beguiling burger behemoths – should make Jerry Springer proud, if not jealous.
Caesar Barber is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit brought in a New York state court against McDonald's Corp., Burger King Corp., Wendy's International and KFC Corp. The claimants allege these chains injured them by enticing them (through deceptive advertising) to eat their "unhealthy" products.
Mr. Barber, who frequented fast food restaurants four to five times a week before his first heart attack, says he was taken in by the fraudulent marketing. "They said, '100 percent beef.' I thought that meant it was good for you," said Barber, presumably not trying to be funny. "Those people in the advertisements don't really tell you what's in the food. It's all fat, fat and more fat. Now, I'm obese." (Maybe he should consider suing his parents instead for withholding the smart gene.)
Barber's lawyer, Samuel Hirsch, also, I assume, in complete seriousness, reportedly said the burgers create a de facto addiction, or a "craving," especially in kids (ah, yes, we must always mention the children) and the poor.
"There is direct deception when someone omits telling people food digested is detrimental to their health," said Hirsch. Yes, and there's direct stupidity when someone has to be told that burgers and fries are a high-fat option.
We can't just dismiss these claims out of hand – at least not until the judge dismisses them out of court. They are an inevitable consequence of our society's increasing trend toward victimhood and the erosion of individual responsibility.
With capitalism itself presently under attack because of the several high profile corporate scandals, we must take seriously further efforts to assault our free market system. So, we should listen when Mr. Hirsch says, "he hopes the lawsuit will force the fast-food industry to offer a greater variety to consumers, including vegetarian meals, smaller sizes and meals with fewer grams of fat."
I guess it would be too much trouble for these victims to go to other restaurants that offer "healthier" alternatives or to eat at home. Nah, why do that when you can file suit and save yourself the trouble of doing all those dishes?
Do you understand what the barrister is advocating here? In effect, he's hoping that the specter of onerous litigation will bully these restaurants into offering products that his clients want (or more accurately, that their doctors recommend), even if they aren't profitable.
I mean, we consumers, after all, do get what we (collectively) want in a free market system, do we not? For example, McDonald's, on its own, offered a lower fat burger for a while called the "McLean." But they had to remove it from the menu because their customers, on the whole, wouldn't support it. It was their choice. They spoke with their (absence of) dollars. I suppose Mr. Hirsch and his litigants, in the mold of a Russian Commissar, would tell McDonald's that they have no business listening to their customers and must offer these products even if no one buys them. Perhaps the next step will be legislation forcing us to eat them.
And, according to Neal D. Barnard, M.D., president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, this could just be the first in a series of lawsuits. The PCRM says that some doctors – those who prescribe high-protein diets – could be next. "Given the many health risks associated with meat-heavy, high-protein diets, doctors who prescribe them could be assuming serious legal risk," said Mindy Kursban, PCRM's chief legal counsel.
Not too long ago, I would have been confident that such preposterous lawsuits would be summarily dismissed, but not any longer – not in the current climate of million dollar verdicts against McDonalds for selling hot coffee and people feeling sorry for young adults orphaned after murdering their parents.
We must understand that the problem is not just trial lawyers preying on society – though more than a few of them are. They can't file suit without willing plaintiffs, and they can't sustain their cases without receptive judges and sympathetic juries.
Sadly, these plaintiffs, judges and juries are simply a reflection of a society that has lost its fundamental appreciation for liberty and is following an inexorable path toward forfeiting all of it.
About as "funny" as suing gun manufacturers?
About as "funny" as suing local taverns?
Shakespeare said a mouthful when he said, "First, kill all the lawyers".
The juries in these cases that make me despair for our nation’s future. If the nation as a whole as bought in to this philosophy of victimhood, or if the people believe that corporations should protect us from ourselves then freedom is truly dead.
And herein lies the problem - juries. We haven't paid enough attention to the jury system and how its run. Jurors are paid so little the majority of juries are composed of the poor, who generally see corporations an appropriate "mark" since they have so much money.
For openers, lets get jury compensation into the reality zone, with a mix of middle-class & up people on them and verdicts in these "victimhood" cases will change IMO.
It might when liability insurance causes the price of a hamburger to rise to $35.99 and all diners must sign a waiver before the meat hits the griddle.
I was on a jury last month that awarded a plaintiff over $5.5 million in punitive damages. This was no jury of poor people. These were all folks who appeared to be employed and with good jobs except for one housewife (and you assume she's got money since she's not employed). Education was also not an issue since the lawyers intentionally looked for people who could follow a rather convoluted scenario to understand the case.
Now, granted, this was not a product liability case (it was a case about a man who'd been owed $550,000 for fraud committed 16 years ago). But all (except me) saw nothing wrong with drawing a figure out of thin air and deciding this was "sending a message" to the defendants.
And, speaking of jurors not getting paid much, I haven't been paid anything. The check's been "in the mail" for over a month. I'm ready to start making a stink about it (media pressure, county commissioners, etc.) not because of the money but because it's not right to be forced to serve on a jury and then get stiffed by your government.
After you get out of your English As A Second Language class? Sure, it won't be me. I'm neither fat, sloppy nor a McDonald's customer. Just don't try that stunt at the drive-thru.
I'm just curious - this being of importance to you, have you asked J&M why the sugar content is so high? Wouldn't most mothers look at the contents and wonder about this?
You're kidding, right?
Not at all. Most mothers are very concerned about their children and do ask questions like this. Even grandparents have these concerns (I'm one) and I believe many probe enough to be satisfied with answers on nutrition, medications, etc.
Now, granted, this was not a product liability case . . . But all (except me) saw nothing wrong with drawing a figure out of thin air and deciding this was "sending a message" to the defendants.
And, speaking of jurors not getting paid much, I haven't been paid anything. The check's been "in the mail" for over a month. . . .
I can't really comment on the merits of the case, accept you believe the judgement was out of line. However, I'm encouraged by your asessment of the jurors' qualifications. Perhaps your locale is different than mine in terms of people and their view of civic responsibility. Professional people here seem to try anything to get out of jury duty, to a great extent based on the "cost" of serving (time and income lost.) This concerns me greatly.
Thanks for the informative articles. Both my children were breast-fed. One is now a Mom and breast-fed my granddaughter, who is a very strong and advanced child, will be two in November. My daughters' friends have breast-fed their children.
Perhaps my experience is atypical.
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.