Join The Debate!

Responsibility

According to the liberals it is always someone elses fault for the failure of people. It is never their decisions that caused themselves harm. When are we going to say enough? Let the losers pay and then the companies can defend themselves. Right now even if the defendant wins he still loses in high legal cost. Make the loser pay and it may help end these types of suits.

"Victimhood lives on"

McDonalds did not shove the food down these girls throats. Also, where are the parents in this scenario? Probably drooling at the idea of a million dollar plus award (which they can in turn use to buy more fast food, even at McDonalds or what the heck, BUY their own fast food franchise!) Given most advertising today one could just about sue any business for any reason. Oh the victim and entitlement mentality just seem to never stop. Mr. Stossel, another one of your terrific writings.

I worked in fast food.

I've worked for Micky D's, Wendys etc fr a long time.
I'm not overweight now-nor was I when I worked in fast food.
It's amazing what exercise'll do for a person.
To the plaintifs: Um "ladies", a little responsibility for ones actions goes a long way.
You should try it.

Major Rufus Cobb

BrianR reminded me of this character -- actually a role as a crusty old newspaper editor played by Henry Hull in the oldie movies, "Jesse James" (1939) and "The Return of Frank James" (1940). "The Major's" sentiments regarding lawyers -- "If there is ever to be any law and order in this territory, we gotta take out all the lawyers and shoot 'em down like dogs".

Brian brings us to the Space Age.

health Nazi lies

Once Americans agreed to the health Nazis'junk science based hate laws against smokers, they lost the moral right to complain about health Nazis controlling the American diet.

McDonald's DIdn't Make Them Fat

How about putting the girls' pictures on a poster to be displayed at their local eateries...."DO NOT SERVE; WILL SUE". They would lose weight and the law suit. KC

Another frivilous lawsuit

That will probably pay off. Whether it's eating fast food everyday, smoking coffin nails (which they were called long before I started smoking), or any other destructive behavior, it comes down to the choices you make.

Girls, you made the choice to eat the burgers and fries. Move to yogurt and salad and lose the weight.

One more thing

I would LOVE to sit on that jury. (But they would never select me) :-(

DavidMac writes:

"Lawyers do NOT initiate litigation. It's greedy citizens and social engineering judges who caused this mess."

And I suppose it's the greedy citizens and judges who place all the ad spots on TV trolling for more customers to file law suits?

It's Your Fault, NOT McDonald's

Why is it that I figured out the summer of my 12th birthday that if I sat in front of the TV all summer and ate sugar cookies and drank Kool-Aid, I would gain weight. But, these two teenagers haven't figured that out? Sounds more like inate stupidity and poor parenting to me. I have not noticed that McDonald's is force-feeding anyone. . . .

KILLING ALL LAWYERS WON'T WORK

While I agree that getting rid of a few thousand lawyers would be fun, it isn't the answer to these stupid "lawsuits", I use the term loosely.

Killing the lawyers is kind of like cutting the tail off of a snake. You can't kill a snake that way, you have to cut it's head off! We need to rid ourselves of all the liberal "judges", again I use the term loosely, that allow this nonsense to go on.

If I were a judge in a case like this I would take one look at the two little piggies, listen for about 30 seconds to their pitiful squeals, then render judgement:

1. I order that McDonalds pay the sum of $100 to the nearest medical professional for the sole purpose of sewing your mouths 2/3rds shut so you can't eat so d*mn much!

2. I order the parents of these fine young heifers to pay a $10,000 fine to this court for allowing your children to eat like little pigs. It's called "child abuse" and you are reaping what you have sown. Cough it up.

3. I order you, Mr. Lawyer, to pay $10,000 to McDonalds for bringing this stupid crap into my courtroom, thereby wasting their time and money. I also order you to pay a fine of $100,000 to this court for the same reasons as stated above. This isn't a lawsuit, its a Greek tragedy that is a waste of the taxpayers money and my time. I have more important things to do. I will also file a suit against you with the sole purpose of seeing you disbarred. You have just brought shame to your profession and everyone that practices law.

This case is closed!

Nanarae . . .

no, but I did study law a long time ago and wanted to be a lawyer. I ran out of time and money.

Bulwark, just because lawyers advertise doesn't mean they ADVOCATE.

Do automobile mechanics advertise? Yes. Does that mean they advocate cars breaking down? No. They know cars will break down. They provide a service. They make money doing that.

Doctors provide services, too. Does that mean doctors want people to be sick? No. They realize that people WILL be sick and need other people to help them.

Lawyers are essentially paper-filers. Some actually do love to litigate, but they would rather use letters and phone calls. It's easier and cheaper than going in front of a jury.

Greedy clients and activist judges cause the vast majority of problems. Clients will lie their butts off when they see the possibility of big bucks. Some judges want to legislate from the bench. They are not objective and persue an agenda using the legal system.

Look at the system with a logical and rational (not jaundiced) eye.

Thoughts

The Bard may have suggested killing the lawyers but I think we should revisit some of the judges. Afterall, they are the ones who let the rediculous suits go through.

How about someone open a fast food restaurant that gives slow service and sells bad tasting food? I'll bet people will be in long lines to purchase stock in that company.

How about teaching counter help at fast food resaturants to say "NO, you can't have that, you're too fat!". I'll bet that would go over big.

Why aren't there chains of restaurants that sell only healthy foods and why didn't veggie burgers or tofu burgers ever catch on?

How about closing ALL fast food restaurants because they are unhealthy and make parents responsible for feeding their own brats? While we're at it, how about having the healthy food police stop in, unanounced, at meal time to make sure the meals are healthy.

How about making the plaitif attorneys responsible for all costs if they lose?

How about making the trial judge pay for all costs if an appeals court reverses the decision or reduces the award amount?

Just a few thoughts.

People need to grow up!

If anyone 25 years ago heard about the frivolous lawsuits today, they wouldn't even count them as a good joke. Today however they are no joke. Trial lawyers, who have changed the name of their organization are partly to blame knowing that jurors can be swayed to just about any direction. This is rediculous. I am overweight and it is my fault. Who else can I blame? No one forced food down my throat. I must exercise more and eat less to lose weight. If I have the will power to do it, I lose weight if not I remain over weight. My Bad. These girls need to get off the fast food and lawsuit scams and get on the treadmill!

tsk, tsk

"First thing we'll do, let's kill all the lawyers" is from Shakespeare. And even he meant it jestingly. Honestly, someone should have already pointed that out.

mg

But the TV ads ARE deceptive. I have young children who see these and other commercials (specifically aimed at children) telling them that these things will make them happy. A parent's words of wisdom don't go very far when their peers and siblings agree something "sure seems like a good thing." And even though the Happy Meals never make them happy (with those crappy toys) the anticipation leading up to the meal, and the notion that it MIGHT make them happy is enough to keep children going back. Fortunately for me, after several years (and dozens of disappointing Happy Meals) they are coming around to agree that not only to do the toys suck, but the food does too. Even so, I know that all it will take is for the "cool kid" at school to say "Happy meals are awesome" and they will ask to go back one more time. I wish as a parent I had the same influence that the cool kids do, but I am seen as less cool every year... even when they tell me I was right all along about chicken mcnuggets.

personal responsibility, my big butt...

So, these girls had 3 years after their first failed attempt, to go back and get even fatter?...I am sure in this time they had to keep buying larger size clothes?...wouldn't you think their parents would step up to the plate and put a stop to their increasing size...I am sure their parents are in on this thing too...probably in it for the money...Judge Sweet should be voted out of office as soon as possible...During WWII when prisoners were liberated from the various POW camps around the world...there were no fat people...to blame ones obesity as someone elses fault is ludicrous...

true story

a couple of weeks ago I had a recces(sp?) peanut butter cup, on the inside of the wrapper was this statement "candy is a treat. please eat responsibly". No joke. tell me that isn't to stop a lawsuit. it make me freighten for this country. This one is for BrainR.

What do you call 100,000 lawyers at the bootom of the ocean?...

a good start! ;~)

Missing Forest Through The Trees

We are a nation historically beset by con artists and fast talkers. P.T. Barnum only institutionalized the craft. Are we all responsible for being "suckers"? To a certain degree, of course. We should all learn from our own mistakes. However, there are at least two exceptions to that rule: (1) some cons are purposefully deceptive, and laws exist to ferret such con-artists out, make them stop, and possibly punish them for their actions, and (2) some cons are "slow-acting" ... we don't know the effect for a long time, and being "fooled" is not something we become aware of until it is too late.

The problem with MacDonald's is not just with the nature of the ingredients in the food it sells. If that were the case, there would be no case ... the danger inherent in trans-fat and greasy food is now well-known, and requires no warning label or other imposed means of informing would be consumers. To NOT know of the danger to health posed by fast foods is a general sign of ignorance, for which there is no remedy (except self-education). No ... the problem is in the advertising, which is precisely where the con exists. The questions that must be asked are these: Is the advertisement deceptive? ... If so, is the deception purposeful? ... What can be done to guarantee truth in advertising? ... Would the price for fast food increase (as John Stossel suggests) if fast food chains spent less on advertising? ... How does this apply to advertising, in general (including, it must be pointed out, political advertising or advertising for prescription drugs)? ... What can we do to reign in what used to be called "Madison Avenue"?

According to Stossel's report, these girls were teenagers. Most of us agree that teenagers are not adults, still require adult supervision in most social interactions, and therefore are NOT competent to make adult decisions regarding what is good for them or not! Anyone who disagrees with this point must then also be willing to allow teenagers to make decisons about consumption of other substances (drugs and alcohol), about continuation of their schooling, about having an abortion, and so on.

Lastly, this judge is not necessarily a "liberal, activist" judge simply because he (or she) said the kids (and their lawyers) needed to meet certain criteria for the case to go forward ... and they did! All judicial decisions are "activist" ... if judges did not ACT on the cases they were presented, they would not be serving as a judge. This judge, an individual, judged that enough evidence existed to allow the suit to move forward through the judicial process. The process includes all sorts of other checks and balances along the way, in order to best make sure that decisions are rightly obtained. If this particular judge had ruled that the kids did NOT present enough information, then he/she would have ACTED in a different way (and a sizable part of the population would have been upset with the decision). You use the term "activist" to mean "acting in a way with which I disagree". If enough smart people in the legal system agree with you (including this very judge, should the lawsuit get its full hearing), then this case will be examined from lots of angles and political perspectives.

That is why it is called a PROCESS! Too many people are too impatient about results, or getting their own way.

Kraut

Love your thoughts.
Unfortunately'out here on the left coast we have the 9th circus court,which overturns every decision with a moral stance behind it.
Which might cost conservative judges alot.
Though I still like what you said.

shays

If I'm understanding you correctly.
If say insert N.A.M.B.L.A and the judge says I find a lack of evidence,but you may move forward if you present such evidence,would he not be an activist.

So Lawyers Don't Initiate Lawsuits, huh?

Doesn't anyone remember back to when this lawsuit was first trumpeted in the media? I saw one of the lawyers bringing the suit on a national, very popular daytime talk show, where the host challenged the attorney on the question of personal responsibility on the part of both the girls and their parents. I was shocked to hear the attorney state that he and his partner felt so strongly about this "terrible crime" being perpetrated on the innocent public that they had planned to bring forward this as a class-action lawsuit and looked for some "victims" whom they could put forward as the "face" of the lawsuit. They purposely chose children from the lower middle-class in order to bolster support for the whole disgraceful project. Lawyers, police yourselves! This should be seen as a disgrace to the profession. Why it isn't is the real question.

Kozinator13

Man that was funny'I'm still cracking up.
I had to read what I wrote.
Great wit you have.

Well,

If one friggin big-mac made someone put on 45 lbs. they'd have a suit. But Obesity is a gradual problem, you don't wake up fat.

Why are more and more people becoming infants who think the gov't should be depended on for the succes (or lack there of) in their lives?

Just one question

shays writes: According to Stossel's report, these girls were teenagers. Most of us agree that teenagers are not adults, still require adult supervision in most social interactions, and therefore are NOT competent to make adult decisions regarding what is good for them or not!
----------------------------------------

I am confused - are you saying the girl's parents are at fault for not doing their duty or are you saying that all children should be banned from having the ability to purchase anything until age 18?

After all, all purchases are legal contacts - not binding when dealing with a minor.

What restaurant serves only healthy food

I mean really, other than some touchy feely, vegan, organic health food h*ll hole (which only serves food with no taste), what restaurant has anyone been to that didn't serve unhealthy items? Even if I went to "Sweet Tomatoes" and hogged down bread and muffins, before long I'd be sperical in shape, wouldn't I? It's as simple as something every 10 year old in America knows; the more crap you eat, the bigger you get. Maybe I should sue "Chile's" for tempting me with those boneless chicken wings. They're so tasty and irrestistable I certainly can't be blamed for being unable to keep them out of my mouth, can I?

That's right . . .

Blame the victims. Blame the lawyers, blame the judges, blame the system.

"I was born to rage against them."

Let's all stand in line and rattle our sabres for the cause of huge corporate greed. After all, it couldn't possibly be McDonald's fault. They have only sold more meals to more people than any other restaurant in the history of the world. There is no way, in the course of that time and experience, that they would have realized, "Hey, maybe this stuff isn't so good for the people who are eating it. And, even though these products are incredibly successful, and earn us billions and billions of dollars per year, maybe we should tinker with the formula to make it healthier, and just cross our fingers and hope that our customers come back." Because, obviously, that is what any calculating businessman would do, isn't it?

As for frivolous lawsuits, activist judges and the sleazy lawyers who bring these 'frivolous' suits, let's put some things in perspective. First of all, the federal system is a notice pleading system, which basically means all a plaintiff has to do is state a cause on which relief can be granted, and notify the defendant that they are being sued and the general nature of the suit. The process of discovery is used to uncover the underlying facts. So, the judge who allowed this suit to go forward was simply doing his job. Second, you take the victim as you find her, so, just because all of you know that you are not supposed to overeat, and you are all avid exercisers, doesn't mean these victims are, and in relation to their background and experience maybe they didn't know any better and are in fact victims. Also, stop blaming the parents. These girls have to be either 18 or 19 (which is still considered being a 'teenager') because a minor can't bring a lawsuit on her own behalf.

As for the lawyers, see, I thought they would make all of you happy. Because if it weren't for people like them bringing these lawsuits, you would have to find something else to get on your high horses about.

McDonalds and the Judge

So the fat gal ate at McDonalds. Sue em. Go get em lawyers. Hoo Rah.

Think of all the money the trial liarw can extort now. The tobacco heist was a mere pittance. Not everybody smoked. But we all eat so the food industry is ripe for the picking. Good job judge boy.

Nastimann

I know McDonald's wouldn't be the biggest restaurant in the world if it didn't give the people what they want, that is actually what I was saying, maybe you didn't catch it. I'm not "whining" about corporate greed, either. All I'm saying is that there is such a thing as corporate responsibility. Just ask the tobacco companies, they know it. If a corporation insists on putting an unhealthy product in the flow of commerce, sooner or later they are going to have to pay for it.

Full Disclosure

Under Free Market Theory, consumers are supposed to have Perfect Information. Consequently, shouldn't we require McDonald's to disclose on their menus the amount of calories and trans fats in their items? Doesn't this make the market more efficient?

fort pitt common

Wow'now the secret is out,we found out what is in McDonald's food.
Just like Tobacco.
And in a perfect world everyone will stop over eating,and stop smoking.
I don't buy your arguement they did'nt know better,no one is that stupid!
How many people stare at the sun until they go blind,do they get an attorney and sue the school system for not teaching them the danger.
Sometimes we just have to be responsible for our own actions.

You say you were born to rage against them
Had Henery Ford not created the assembly line we would'nt have Mc.D fast food.
Had General electric not grown we would'nt have electric motors,thanx to Tesla.
I hate to tell you were not returning to the dark ages
We just can't be compensated for our own stupidity

The definition of Tort

There was once a day in which Tort was defined as;

A party fails to act in a manner defined by law, and damage occurs.

today there is a new definition of Tort;

Damage, real or percieved, occurs. (And somebody's gotta pay!)

Corporate Responsibility

And what I'm saying, fort pitt common, is the fact that there are healthier foods out there, or that you can make yourself sick eating Mc Donalds food exclusively is not Mc Donalds problem. Should we sue Sees Candy for the same reason? You could die from *not* eating Mc Donalds, too, if it was your only food source.

What constitutes "healthy" food is subjective, and changes as new scientific and medical knowledge is uncovered. I guess that means we can sue Mc Donalds based on what we think we know today, and again based on what we learn tomorrow.

Nastimann

I agree with everything you said in your first paragraph, Nastimann. I also agree with your second paragraph now that I think about it. We could sue McDonald's once now and once later on two different theories. We could even sue them twice now on two different theories. But the thing about it is, just because there are alternatives out there, doesn't insulate an entity from liability for putting something that is harmful out there. Under your theory, I could manufacture an exploding car (think of the old Pintos), and then, when it explodes, and I get sued, I could just say, "Well, there are other non-exploding cars out there, so I don't see what the big problem is." Then the Judge would say, "You're right, Mr. Common, case dismissed. (With costs to be paid by the plaintiffs)."

ctjaeger

And, anyway, ct, unlike your other examples, I'm pretty sure McDonald's makes its products expecting that they will be eaten.

McDonald's

33. “Eating Too Much Will Make You Fat”
The above would seem to be so obvious that you may wonder why I wrote it. However, there is a class-action lawsuit being brought against four fast food chains-McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, and KFC by a man from the Bronx named Caesar Barber (70 inches tall and 270 pounds). He blames them for his being obese. Personal responsibility, like logic, justice, and common sense, is no longer in style and is not politically correct. It seems that nearly everyone considers himself or herself a victim, and always a victim of some person or some organization with deep pockets. Caesar Barber may win his suit. It’s not what is true, but what a judge and /or a jury says is true that counts in the legal system
The tobacco companies had to pay off billions for selling a legal product to people-all of whom bought it voluntarily. Some would say that the tobacco companies lied, but many politicians and others in high places lie like a rug with relative impunity. When I was a little boy back in the 1920's people called cigarettes “coffin nails” implying that each cigarette smoked was driving a nail in your coffin (some coffins were wood back then). It seems that ordinary uneducated people knew then that smoking was harmful. After 1964 the surgeon-general of the United States had a warning put on the cigarette packages and there have been many articles written in newspapers and magazines about the harmful effects of smoking. Probably the only doctor in town who is more opposed to smoking than I am is Dr. Smiddy, so I hold no brief for smoking, but I do think that the law was misused in the suit against the tobacco companies. A large chunk of the settlements went to lawyers making a whole new group of millionaires. The rest that was supposed to be used to pay for treatment of smoking-related diseases such as lung cancer, emphysema, and heart attacks, and for programs to help prevent young people from starting the habit was mainly used for other purposes. Talk about greed-the lawyers who got the percentage and the attorneys-general of the states were the greedy ones.
This article really was supposed to be about obesity, not smoking, but I had to chase that rabbit while I was on its trail. Everyone knows or should know that overweight is the result of taking in more calories than are burned up. It’s just a matter of arithmetic. If you take in more calories than you burn up, you gain. If you take in fewer calories than you burn up, you lose. People say, “But my whole family is fat!” I suspect if you go to those homes, you will find that the table is groaning under the load of good things to eat, and that the people are eating a lot of it. Some say, “It’s my thyroid.” I never saw a case where treating a low thyroid condition made someone get thin. One lady came in to see me one day and said, “Doctor, do you think my overweight could be due to a glandular condition.” I was feeling humorous that day (but then I feel that way every day), and said, “I’m sure it is!” “Which gland do you think is causing the trouble?” “The salivary glands.” “Oh.” And her face fell. I felt a little guilty about saying that-but not much. Some twin studies have shown, however, that twins reared apart wind up with about the same weight. I don’t believe that those extra calories got in by osmosis though! They had to be eaten.
It takes 3,500 calories to make a pound of fat, so each pound of extra fat on the body means that the persons have taken in 3,500 calories more than they burned up. Protein has four calories per gram, carbohydrates (sugars and starch) have four, fats have nine, and alcohol has seven. I put this in to identify the enemies. It is interesting, amusing, but a little sad, to see someone use artificial sweeteners in their coffee or tea and then have apple pie a la mode for dessert. My definition for a dessert: Something that is so good that you will eat it when you are already full.
Jews, in general, tend to get heavier as they get older, but none of the Jews put in concentration camps came out fat. The reason: They got very little to eat and they were forced to work hard. I never personally viewed any of the people who were rescued from the camps, but I have seen newsreels and documentaries. Those people were literally skin and bones. They were too thin even for me! Many of my former patients would never believe that I would say that about anyone. One day one of my patients came up to me in the restaurant and said, “Oh, do you eat?”
Billions of dollars (thirty-three billion in 1990) are spent on weight-loss schemes. There are no magic or easy diets. Most of them work if the person sticks to the program, but most people will regain their weight. It requires a great deal of nervous and emotional energy to diet. It is a problem three times a day, twenty-fours hours a day, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year, and for many years. You can avoid taking the first drink or the first cigarette, but no one can avoid taking that first bite. People are always wanting a simple easy solution to difficult problems. They do not find them. The prescription is simple-diet and exercise. It is the carrying out of the prescription that is the hard part. After more than fifty years of fighting the “Battle of the Bulge”-for others- not myself-I have decided that exercise plus dieting is more likely to help someone lose weight and to keep it off than just dieting alone. A former patient that I saw at Piccadilly today told me she showed her new doctor the last prescription I wrote for her, “Pitiful Portions.” She was still fat, though, so the prescription didn’t do her any good. She did get a laugh out of it, though.
Studies show that obesity causes a high percentage of the cost of health care for the elderly and is also one of the main causes of premature death. One mechanism is that type two diabetes-the type that comes on after age forty and is associated with obesity-is on the rise-to epidemic proportions. Type two diabetics comprise eighty percent of all diabetics. Type two is more hereditary than type one-the type that occurs in children and young people. Diabetes does not cause obesity. It is the other way around. Obesity promotes the development of type two diabetes. Type one diabetics are almost always thin. They will die without insulin whereas type two patients can often get by on diet, exercise, and/or oral tablets. Many of them have the disease for quite a while and don’t even know it. Many obese diabetics could restore their glucose tolerance to normal. At least their fasting and the two-hours-after-a-meal glucose levels and their hemoglobin a1c level could also be restored to normal. (Hemoglobin 1ac is a test that looks back six weeks and tells the doctor whether the blood sugar has been normal during that time.)
What is bad about diabetes besides having to test your blood sugar, diet, take pills, or insulin? (I didn’t mention exercise because it is very hard to get anyone to exercise). The complications can be divided into the big artery problems-arteriosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) of the coronary arteries-heart attacks and angina; of the arteries of the brain-strokes; and of the arteries of the legs-gangrene and amputation; and the little artery problems-of the eye causing blindness (one of the mains causes of blindness in the U.S.); of the kidney causing kidney failure (diabetes is the commonest cause of kidney failure)-requiring dialysis or a kidney transplant; and of the nerves of the lower extremities causing pain and numbness and sometimes leading to painless fractures of the foot bones and even amputation.
The sad thing about it is that if a fat person will use diet and exercise to attain and maintain a normal body weight, many of them will not even get diabetes or, if they already have it, they can get rid of it or, at worst, can make it less severe. I had a patient who had the disease. She didn’t want to take tablets or insulin so she dieted, kept her weight down, and, as far as I know, doesn’t have the disease now (I retired five years ago). I know a woman who was diabetic, but lost one hundred and seventy pounds. She was diabetic as are many members of her family. She is no longer diabetic-at least, her fasting blood glucose levels and her two-hours-after-a- meal blood glucose levels and her hemoglobin 1ac levels have all returned to normal. She used diet and exercise to lose all that weight over a two-year period. So fat people can do it. It seems a strange thing for an internist to write, but I always wanted to do as much for a patient as I could without medication. Any medication can have adverse effects, as well as good effects. But life style changes are very hard to sell so I didn’t get to treat without medications very often.
To quote Benjamin Franklin again, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
I always tried to sell preventive medicine, and tried to relieve suffering, ameliorate disability, and prevent premature death. Note the word “premature.” Sometimes death is the only relief that someone living with pain, disability, and no hope of recovery can have.
Donald W. Bales, M.D. 29 August 2002
http://home.earthlink.net/~baleslynnwood/
baleslynnwood@earthlink.net

It's all about the money

Does anyone think that if McDonalds had offered these girls a six month supply of healthy food of salads and yogurt complete with a book on how to stay fit, they would have settled?

truetolife

I don't know who told you your daughter couldn't sue the hospital, the nurse and their insurance company, truetolife, but I would get a second opinion.

McDonalds

I ate in McDonalds once in 1967 and never chose to go back. Actually it was someone else who was driving the car and despite the fact that I suggested a pretty good restaurant they drove into McDonalds so I never went back. I didn't like the food and don't care if it has improved or not since 1967. A few years ago I smelled a big Mac that someone bought and the smell turned me off. So no one is pointing a gun at anyone and telling them they have to eat at McDonalds. Such a lawsuit has no merit at all. Unless you are lviing in an institution you are free to eat what you want and you are also free to learn about proper nutrition. It is not like secondhand smoke where you can inhale a big Mac or fries. It is your choice and if the effect is you gain weight, that was your choice. If you get food poisoning then certainly have grounds for a lawsuit but not for eating food that you know what are the ingredients.

Conneticut Hunter asks

"If I ram my Ford into a group of seniors on bingo night, do I sue Ford?"

Under modern legal theory, no. However, the seniors DO sue Ford as you do not have deep enough pockets to make them all whole. And likely some jury somewhere will decide that since Ford did not put warnings on it's vehicle that someone could be hurt if you rammed them at over 5 mph AND they did not make that impossible, that they need to pay.

fort pitt common

I appreiciate the clarification.
Although would it not be wrong to put myself in there position.
I thought it was a jurors responsibility to bring their own expierences to the table.
For if you walk in an idiots shoes,you get an idiots view of the world,I for one would never get a lobotomy just to get the defendants view.
He kills someone in a rage,the fact he was caught robing someone, and I'm supposed to see his point of view.
His defence is the guy fought back,so I killed him.
This to me is indefenceable.

solar

It would be wrong to put yourself in their position as a juror, because you are right, you are supposed to decide based on your own judgment and experiences. What I was saying about seeing someone else's point of view was from the point of view of something happening to you that was important enough to you to put you in the position of a plaintiff. I was saying "Any twelve will do" for jurors, because I believe the system works, and therefore it isn't necessary to spend as much time as is done on jury selection.

fort pitt common

Great points,I enjoy your take on things, may not agree with all of them though.
forgive me if I seemed a wee bit antagonistic early on.
I hope to see you more often.
Tom

Turn the tables

What would happen if McDonalds sued the state child protective services department for failure to do thier jobs, check on the welfare of fat, spoiled girls who's parents were delinquent in thier parental responsibilities.

In not doing their job the CPS left McDonalds open to the law suit.

modern mythology

There are studies out there that show that the greatest longevity is people who are not skinny, and lowing cholesterol does not improve mortality rates. Sometimes what everybody knows ain't the whole story.
And the weight loss business and statin drug manufacturers have been doing rather well financially as well....

Taxation without representation

Lawyers in America have been engaging in a form of racketeering ever since the seventies . That's when the rules were changed so that the plaintiff doesn't have to pay the court and legal fees of the defendant in civil suits. This has enabled lawyers to become in effect an unelected branch of the government. They have the power to impose defacto taxation by increasing the prices of the products of the producers they have targeted. They have the power to institute policy changes in local and even the national government. McDonalds is only their latest target. Most of the money won in these suits goes directly into the hands of the lawyers. The plaintiffs get only a fraction of the judgement and in class action suits get little or nothing.The lawyers are amassing a great deal of wealth which translates into political power to insure that they can gain even more wealth. They have so twisted our society that smaoking is banned while our children are taught that homosexuality is good and healthy. They are actively trying to ensure that we lose the current war because they can make a profit in the process. Their greed and vanity know no bounds and will lead to our destruction. If we let this happen because we are dull enough to be fooled by their arguments of making victims whole, social justice, or the hope that we ourselves might one day get rich through suing someone then we deserve what we get. At this point I don't think the current political system will stop them. It really would take some form of revolution and I would not conssider it a joke for someone to call for their death, I would consider it patriotism. Now when the excrement does hit the fan someday your local country club would be a good place to start. Just a note, not all classes of lawyers are engaged in this shakedown and seizure of power but those that file the kind of suit that is being filed against McDonalds are.

Solar: LOL

250 pound defendant.

Weeeeeeellllllll, that's prima facie evidence of something.

Perhaps of a lack of self-control, or parental supervision.

I'd love to see what's in the home fridge: 8 million Ding-Dongs, gallons of Rocky Road, butter by the tub, etc.

But, hey, it's MickeyD's fault. "We'd never eat that stuff if MickeyD didn't get us in the habit!"

Which brings me full circle to my first post, and coincidentally to the first comment on this column:

"First, let's kill all the lawyers".

Thanx guys

But what is sad ,is the fact that they could find another O.J. jury...Hmmmm some of them were pretty large'
I guess that would be stacking the jury, or packing the jury.
Sorry...but this whole MC.D suit bugs me.

Grumpy . . .

Your analogy fails because of the apples-and-oranges fallacy.

Lawyers provide a legitimate service to the general public. Hit men provide an ILLEGAL service.

Lawyers are regulated and licensed. Hit men are outside the law.

Even when lawyers lose, they don't go to jail.
Hit men go to jail whether they win or lose.

A client retaining a lawyer is doing something legally. A hit man's client is breaking the law.

You can't compare the two. Good try, though.

What's wrong with all you people??!!?

Has no one read newspapers or gone to Michael Moore movies? This is GEORGE BUSH's fault!! Just check at moveon.org and you'll see!!! These girls are fat because BUSH doesn't want them thin! Do you think he CARES about what we eat?? What has this corrupt administration done to protect us from high calorie food? NOTHING!!!
:)

Me too

Since we live in the "me too" society, where's mine? As a teen I drank beer once until I threw up. The beer obviously made me sick. Yet the deceptive advertising at the time never mentioned it. Rather, they insinuated I would be popular and get lots of bikini clad girls. What happened?

What is the trial manly about?

I am writing a paper on this trial and i would like to know some good points and bad points please.It's due tomorrow so the sooner the better.Thanx.mouser