Senate Bill Blocks Weight-Related Lawsuits

[SyracuseDemocrat]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030718/ap_on_go_co/fast_food_lawsuits_3

WASHINGTON - If too many burgers and fries have left your waistline super-sized, don't expect a sweet pay-off in court, senators said Thursday. A bill would prevent people from suing restaurants and food manufacturers for making them fat.


"I think it's important not to blame poor eating habits on someone else," said Sen. Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky., and the sponsor of the bill.


The measure would block lawsuits related to obesity or weight gain, but not suits charging other kinds of injury or fraud. It is similar to one already introduced in the House.


The House held a hearing last month on the relatively new legal trend in which consumers are suing fast food chains like McDonald's and arguing that the food contributed to their obesity.

[Muddleoftheroad]

1. So

I fail to see a problem with this. The last thing we need is to have the courts clogged up with this kind of garbage.

[chiburb]

2. I disagree...

The courts will be clogged anyway. How do we know that the food mega-giants haven't caused cancer, heart disease, obesity, etc., knowingly, or perhaps intentionally? I look at them as I do the tobacco industry pre warning labels... selling a killer product to an ignorant populace. Think Joe Camel was designed to make kids feel "good" about cigs? Why is that any different than addicting kids with Ronald?

I'm not saying that the food giants SHOULD lose in court someday, just that this legislation is meant to protect them only, and take away one more right from us.

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. Rights?

All we are talking about here is the lawyer lotto. That means a few overly heavy people will get some money and a ton of lawyers will get some money and the consumer will pay for all of it. It's a huge damn waste.

It's food. You eat too much of it and you get fat. Cigarettes are inherently bad for you. Without food, you die.

I'm sorry, but I don't defend the lawyer lobby and that's who would benefit from these fast food suits.

[chiburb]

4. I still disagree (respectfully)...

All we are talking about here is the lawyer lotto. That means a few overly heavy people will get some money and a ton of lawyers will get some money and the consumer will pay for all of it. It's a huge damn waste.

(Yes, that would be true in a class action suit. That doesn't hold true for an individual.)

It's food. You eat too much of it and you get fat. Cigarettes are inherently bad for you.

(Yes and no. What you eat is more important to your health than how much you eat. Using McD as an example, how many billions have been spent marketing McNuggets, Big Macs, and Biggie fries to children? Specifically targeting people with no knowledge of the health consequences is no different than the cig companies using doctors to pitch 'less harsh' smokes (as they once did).

Without food, you die.

(With most of this food you'll die.)

I'm sorry, but I don't defend the lawyer lobby and that's who would benefit from these fast food suits.

(I guess that rules out Edwards as a Dem candidiate for you? :-) )

[SyracuseDemocrat]

5. I believe you are very wrong

Whatever happened to personal responsibility with respect to tobacco and mcdonald's food. Does anyone here actually believe that McDonald's burgers are very nutritious food? Some of the kids filing these lawsuits ate at McDonald's EVERY day for a period of years. How can you blame a company for your fatness if you brought it upon yourself? This is just another category of frivolous lawsuits that clog up our courts, effectively preventing real claims from getting through.

[SyracuseDemocrat]

6. Also, if McDonald loses these frivolous lawsuits

Then they might force their franchisees to raise prices at their restaurants. You would actually be punishing responsible eaters who only eat at McDonald's occasionally, because of the stupidity of a few people who cannot manage their weight. This is very different from the medical malpractice lawsuit ban. These people are resposible for their own heftiness, and it's not the fault of a company.

[sangha]

7. Hahaha!

Raising prices at McDonalds = punishment

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!

"a few people who cannot manage their weight"

About 25% Americans are obese. That's about 70,000,000. Yep, "a few people"

[AP]

8. If the suits are so frivolous, why is the industry running to politicians

to protect them from pesky lawsuits?

Believe me, the courts have enough mechanisims to keep frivolous suits out of the courts. What the fast food industry is worried about is that the truth will come out about these foods. They probably are dangerous, and there probably is a lot of negligence that goes into producing and marketing these foods.

In any event, it's really easy to characterize these suits as frivolous BEFORE we see any serious litigation. I bet it wouldn't be so easy after three or four cases, and after discovery.

I think it's outrageous for McDonalds to ask for this protection before there has ever been any discovery. They should put all their money that they give to politicians back in their pockets and spend it on defending one of these cases. If the case is, in fact, frivolous after everyone has a chance to look at the evidence and the legal arguments, then they can make their case to the legislature about statutory protection for themselves. To ask for statutory protection BEFORE anyone knows the facts is very suspicious. I think it shows they have something to hide.

[wildsexcrazedweasel]

40. because...

lawsuits are expensive to defend against, even if you win.

Why is it outrageous to ask for protection BEFORE Discovery? Discovery is historically THE MOST EXPENSIVE part of litigation. It positively eats up lawyer's billable hours, and is expensive to both respond to and to produce documents.

Whatever happened to the responsibility of the parents in deciding what kids eat and watch? Your average 8 year old would LOVE to live off of cola and candy, and do nothing but watch cartoons...it's the parent's job to see to it that they don't.

One possible solution to this kind of problem is the "english system", where the loser pays the winner's legal expenses. Of course, this has the effect of limiting the number of suits brought, because they're expensive. It also makes it harder to bring low-profit meritorious cases, because it adds considerable financial risk for suits that end up losing.

Most fast food restaurants offer healthier alternatives...salads, sugar-free soda, unsweetened iced tea, et cetera. Consumers DECIDE what to order...and that puts the assumption of risk upon THEM.

[sangha]

44. Be honest

The legislation being considered doesn't protect anyone BEFORE discovery. The various bills call for either protecting an entire industry from lawsuits, or placing a cap on compensatory damages.

Also, as an employee in a law firm, I know that discovery is not the most expensive part of a case, and in frivolous cases, it takes even less, since the plaintiffs have no more than a little evidence.

[SeattleDem]

17. if McDonald's loses, then perhaps their was evidence?

first you claim these lawsuits are frivolous, but then you state you are concerned that McDonald's might lose one.

sorry, if these cases are so frivolous, they will never make it to trial and if they do go to trial, McDonald's will win! Think of the money McD's has to defend itself versus some joe-schmoe out there suing.

If McDonalds were to actually lose a case like this, can't you concede that it very likely means there was evidence of corporate wrong-doing? Giant corporations don't just lose "frivolous" suits. They often win suits, even when in the wrong. If they lose a suit, you can feel pretty sure there was some wrong-doing going on.

In this country, there should be NO law prohibiting what we can file suit over. The purpose of our entire legal system is to separate the wheat from the chaff. If the case has no merits, let the courts decide, not a bunch of overly lobbied, paid-off congressmen.

[wildsexcrazedweasel]

41. Then what about...

legislation through litigation?

What happens when people start trying to bankrupt corporations that they don't like by repeatedly filing idiotic suits over and over again?

Don't think it can happen? It already has.

[SeattleDem]

18. if McDonald's loses, then perhaps there was evidence?

first you claim these lawsuits are frivolous, but then you state you are concerned that McDonald's might lose one.

sorry, if these cases are so frivolous, they will never make it to trial and if they do go to trial, McDonald's will win! Think of the money McD's has to defend itself versus some joe-schmoe out there suing.

If McDonalds were to actually lose a case like this, can't you concede that it very likely means there was evidence of corporate wrong-doing? Giant corporations don't just lose "frivolous" suits. They often win suits, even when in the wrong. If they lose a suit, you can feel pretty sure there was some wrong-doing going on.

In this country, there should be NO law prohibiting what we can file suit over. The purpose of our entire legal system is to separate the wheat from the chaff. If the case has no merits, let the courts decide, not a bunch of overly lobbied, paid-off congressmen.

[sangha]

9. What happened to personal responsibility?

What ever happened to corporate responsibility?

Does anyone here actually believe that McDonalds has fully disclosed the ingredients, and their effect on our health?

This is just another category of frivolous lawsuits that clog up our courts, effectively preventing real claims from getting through.

Can you name ONE "real" claims that was prevented from "getting through" because "frivolous lawsuits" clogged up the courts?

Or are you just repeating the Repuke propoganda you read?

[chiburb]

11. Sangha & AP...

I was typing while you were posting so didn't see your contris 'till now. Sorry to repeat some of your excellent points...

[alarimer]

32. no

THe information about MCD's products is available. I believe though that the ingredient list/fat content should be prominently posted in all fast-food restaurants or printed on the menu so people can make intelligent choices. The problem is McDonalds and other restaurants do not make the info obvious and many people are in too much of a hurry to inquire. The marketing tactics they use entice children (just as any cartoon does too) and most parents eventually give in to the whining and pleading.

[chiburb]

10. Not once, in the 50's and 60's...

Even into the 70's and 80's, did anyone tell me that the stuff that was peddled to me was unhealthy. Every tv commercial was designed to get me to eat fat-laden foods, and then to Super-Size it. You say that some of these lawsuits are brought by people who ate at MCD every day. EXACTLY! They were enticed to do just that! My point is that the stuff was PUSHED to us (and the world), that the pushers spent billions to get us to disease. This isn't about someone who has an extra helping of mashed potatos at home and puts on a few pounds, this is about companies pushing products that can kill... ala cig companies.
More importantly, if a lawsuit is frivolous, let the judge throw it out or a jury decide. DO NOT give an industry carte blanche immunity a priori, effectively eliminating one of the very few curbs on the corporate world. I don't remember anyone defending Lilly when they got immunity from lawsuits in the Homeland Security bill. Further, the Repukes wouldn't be bringing forth this legislation if the foodco's weren't scared or had something to hide.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. Oh Come On Chiburb

I've not yet formulated an opinion on this lawsuit, but you didn't know eating at McDonald's was bad for you? I've known since the early 70's (high school age) that people all talked about how greasy the food was but it still tasted good.

I've known since the 60's that too much fried food wasn't a good idea. I remember seeing that as a poster in my doctor's office (plus on about watching how much charbroiled food you ate) when i was 10 or 11 years old.

I didn't need to know the exact caloric content and fat fraction of a Big Mac and Fries to know i shouldn't get carried away with how much of it i ate, and i was a thin, basketball playing athlete who probably was burning 6000 calories a day. If i knew this stuff in high school in the 70's, it seems a bit disingenuous to say that people didn't know because McD's didn't tell them.

It's one thing for Big Tobacco to hide their own data regarding health effects. That's obfuscation of facts. But why would McDonald's be the only ones to know that fatty foods are fatty foods?

I'm, in principle, opposed to any restrictions on the ability to sue for damages. But, this one creates a philopshopical dilemma for me.
The Professor

[chiburb]

16. Well, Prof...

Since you're a little younger than me...

Nope. I had no idea that eating at McDs was bad for me in the 50's or 60's (when I was in HS). I DID know that it was fast, tasted good, and was cheap (that should've been my clue). I don't think it was 'till the early 80's that I became aware of the link between the junk and obesity/illness. But that isn't the point...

Should the takers of Thalydimide (sp) been without recourse when their children were born with flippers? Because congress passed a law protecting the drug maker? Should the owner of a Ford Pinto have been without recourse when her car blew up when rear-ended? Because congress passed a law protecting the car maker? Once again, my point is that there are VERY FEW ways we, as citizens and consumers, can keep the corps from doing whatever the hell they want. The threat of a lawsuit is one of them and this legislation will leave us even more vulnerable.

Besides, do any of us know the facts? Haven't there actually been very few successful suits against tobacco? Why would this be any different? Most lose, one or two or three will win. Let's see how it plays out... just don't cancel the game!

[wildsexcrazedweasel]

42. you're comparing apples and oranges...

very few people get birth defects because they eat a single combo meal. The pinto had a serious design flaw that the manufacturer knew about and didn't correct because it would have cost $10 more per car. This defect was instantaneously lethal...you get rear-ended once, the car goes boom.

Fast food isn't the healthiest thing on the planet to eat, but if you eat it just once in a while, it's not going to kill you.

If you eat starchy foods at home all the time, it will eventually kill you. (for example, if you were to eat 5# of potatos a day, every day.) Will potato manufacturers and retailers eventually be held liable for that? If things continue as we're going, very possibly.

For that matter, too much water will cause your body to flush out necessary nutrients and will eventually cause your kidneys to fail. (if you don't drown in it) Should we sue Evian because of that?

"Once again, my point is that there are VERY FEW ways we, as citizens and consumers, can keep the corps from doing whatever the hell they want."

SURE THERE IS. DON'T BUY AND CONSUME THEIR PRODUCTS IN SUCH LARGE QUANTITIES. NOBODY is forced to eat at McD's three times a day. Don't like their food? DON'T EAT IT. That's where consumer's power lies.

[tom_paine]

20. As always, Professor, a cogent and well-worded post

I'm, in principle, opposed to any restrictions on the ability to sue for damages. But, this one creates a philopshopical dilemma for me.

I'm with you there. The Repugs constantly harp on abuses of the Legal System that are real. But that is human nature, and such abuses take place with every institution/program...every human activity.

Which brings to mind the cliche, "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

I am also torn on this one. I agree with many people saying jury awards are the only things restraining corporate corruption.

With the Emperor's Minions in charge of the regulatory apparatus, this may be more true than ever.

And yet, what the Senate is doing in this case seems right to me, so long as it meticulously outlines what can and cannot be sued for (e.g dead relatives of obese people suing McD vs. McD's surreptitously adding a flavor enhancer that turns out to be toxic and concentrates in pancreatic tissue, then supressing in-house data to minimize financial damage)

[chiburb]

21. I agree with that Tom_Paine...

I'd just be less suspicious if a Dem introduced this. Well, most Dems...

[sangha]

26. Let's be realistic Tom

First, do you really think the politicians are going to do an unbiased job deciding what can and what cannot be sued for?

Secondly, do you really think the courts are incapable of dealing with frivolous lawsuits? If so, what makes you think so? Remember, one of these "obesity" cases has already been dismissed because, to simplify the judge's decision, they didn't have a case.

However, the judge also described how the plaintiffs might have a case if they could show deception on the part of the fast food vendors. What does it tell you when a judge --and judges are least tolerant of frivolous lawsuits because they're the ones that have to deal with them-- suggests how a lawsuit might be won?

IOW, to believe the idea that these people are suing simply because they are obese and because fast food is fattening is to believe the propoganda the RNC and the corporate media puts out.

Ask yourself, why do I (you) believe that these lawsuits are "dead relatives of obese people suing McD's because they serve fatty food"? Is it because that's what the media told you? Or did you read the plaintiffs brief?

[MiddleRiverRefugee]

13. Does this bill have a cool name?

i.e. "The Greasy Junk Food Tort Reform Act of 2003"

I haven't Thomas'ed it yet.

-uibp

[SyracuseDemocrat]

14. um

ok maybe not everyone knew what these foods were like in the 70s and 80s, but these kids suing are 15 years old. they were almost born in the 90s, and no one can tell me that they didn't know mcdonald's was unhealthy. everyone knows that feeling in their stomach after they eat at mcdonald's, it's not a good feeling. even if mcdonald's put their ingredients and calorie counts on the menu, people would still eat there. people need to take responsibility for what they eat, and not eat there every day for more than 3 years. that's just common sense. if these lawsuits lose, i hope that the plaintiffs have to pay court costs for the respective defendants.

[tom_paine]

15. I've got no problem with this

This is exactly the kind of un-commonsensical extremism that forms the grain of truth that the Totalitarian Busheviks wrap their odious lies around.

I could see if they were adding poisons without telling the people buying the products (such as tobacco's 500+ additives), maybe there would be grounds for some action (I'm no lawyer, so this is not a legal opinion, just my 2 cents).

(though I hate the idea of suing someone for a choice you make yourself knowing it's no good)

But come on!!! I'm carrying a spare tire. Given the current state of the Empire, so are most people. I know McDonald's is bad for me. I would have to be mentally challenged NOT to know.

I have NO problem with this law, unless the Totalitarians use it as a vehicle for "Tort Reform" amendments or other of their customary chicanery.

[chiburb]

19. TP,

How do you know they aren't adding poisons ala the ciggies? What are the 'natural and other' flavorings? I suspect they come from a plant in New Jersey (see Fast Food Nation)like most additives. Maybe, if this legislation fails, we'll find out via depositions. If the legislation passes, we'll never find out.

[tom_paine]

22. The best point you've yet made, chiburb

But, provided this bill does not restrict other avenues of taking on fast food companies besides the "I ate too much McD, got too fat, now I'm dead...pay my relatives because I didn't know what I was doing", could this not still be addressed?

Allowing for these frivolous lawsuits just to get to the depositions on what additives are really in the burgers (isn't that why we had FDA during the Days of the Old Republic?) seems to me to be using a nuclear bomb to swat a mosquito. It is also, to my mind, leaving a damaging situation in place for some nebulous future benefit.

[sangha]

27. I'm surprised

that you think that there's even a small possibility that this *ISN'T* a part of their "Tort Reform" project.

[Orangepeel]

23. Such lawsuits are stupid, but they shouldn't be banned

It is a natural part of the legal system that some people sue over stupid things. Stupid suits should be thrown out of court (like all the obesity suits so far) and any penalties associated with filing frivolous lawsuits should be applied.

But, Congress should not pass a law barring any kind of lawsuit. It isn't Congress' place to interfere. Most people think that this type of suit is stupid and maybe unethical, but Congress shouldn't be deciding that. If they do, what's to stop them from declaring other types of lawsuits that they don't like stupid and unethical.

[chiburb]

24. I think you just

Answered Tom Paine's question in #22...

On edit: I see he didn't ask a question, but made a point. Never mind...

[Democat]

25. I'm glad they aren't wasting time on stupid issues

While people die in Iraq and numerous serious issues face America domestically and aroud the world our elected officials spend their time on things like this?

[classics]

28. You should have known.

This is a bad omen for all product liability lawsuits. If people are just supposed to know fast food is bad for you, even though its advertised as being healthy, shouldnt they also know that all bad products are bad for them?

As much joy as fattie-haters may take in this bill, it sets a bad precedent for product liability legislation. Should we disallow all medication or tobacco lawsuits and tell the injured 'you should have known better?'

Common sense is important and does come into play here, but when mega-corporations spend billions advertising products and safe and healthy, you cant let them hide behind a shield by blaming the victims.

This wont stop here, look for this blanket false-advertising protection to soon extend to other product areas.

[sangha]

29. Really?

How should I have known about ingredients when these companies don't tell me what's in them?

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. I have an idea

Let's encourage everyone to sue about everything.

* If you are hurt in an auto accident going 150 mph, sue the carmaker, the state for building the roads and issuing you a license.
* If you are hurt in your home, sue the builder, your mortgage lender, and the county for issuing a building permit.
* If you get a disease during unprotected sex, sue your partner, sue Hollywood for encouraging sex and sue the federal government for not making such sex illegal.

God, no wonder we are stuck with the leeches (I mean lawyers) in our party.

[sangha]

45. What a poor excuse for an argument

We aren't talking about car accidents, home accidents or unprotected sex. Try and pay attention next time

[oldcoot]

34. I also have concerns about this bill

You are correct to suggest that this bill might be the first step toward preventing other types of lawsuits. I also am concerned about what the final version of this bill will look like. For example, will it ban or could it be interpreted as banning overweight people from suing corporations that discriminate against them (i.e. job discrimination)?

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. I don't believe so

From what I understand, it's only to prevent overweight people from suing about how they got that way.

Yes, if someone is stupid enough to hire a less-qualified thin person over a more-qualified overweight person for any job where weight does not matter, then they are fools and deserve to be sued. (Weight does matter in jobs like supermodel and such.)

[goobergunch]

31. The bill is S. 1428

sadly, the text isn't available yet.

[depakid]

33. Let the civil justice system decide the issue-

McDonalds and others spend billions of dollars to persuade people that their restaurants are healthy, wholesome places to take their families. The most insidious of their marketing is aimed directly at hooking children- and they go to great lengths to do this, hiring child psychologists, constructing highly visible playcenters, and pairing their products with action heros and movie characters.

A lot of libertarian minded folks parlay the argument about "personal responsibility" and that's all well and good. But what about corporate responsibility. Aren't corporations people too? Shouldn't they be held responsible for their actions? Shouldn't they be called to account when they know that their products pose an unreasonable risk and are in fact causing harm?

Personally, I know what goes into most fast food and it's utterly disgusting- I'd as soon eat dirt. But not everyone knows about the food processing business or has a clue about saturated and trans fats. Few realized that chicken McNuggets have 40 some odd ingredients and most fast food chicken products- marketed as a healthier" alternative, actually contain more fat than ground beef.

Without going into a dissertation on products liability law, it suffices to say that McDonalds and others are only being held to the same standards as any other business that conceals the fact that its products pose a risk of harm and fails to take responsible actions to make its products safer.

Last I heard, we still had some semblance of a civil justice system in this country. Despite what the media would have you believe, frivolous lawsuits are rare (read- you've been LIED to). In any case, they won't survive a motion to dismiss or summary judgment. Only cases with a sound (though sometimes novel) legal theory and the evidence to support it ever even make it to a jury.

Mitch "Mc"Connell is one of the most corrupt politicians and the national scene and a disgrace to the Senate. Nothing that comes out of his mouth- no matter how disingenuous, surprises me. Given the huge amount of money that the McDonalds and others give to Republican candidates, his statements and the Senate's move to grant special privileges and immunities to the fast food industry come as no surprise, either. It's simply part of a much larger plan to ensure that corporations cannot be held accountable for the damages that they inflict on individuals and society as a whole.

[slackmaster]

36. I would agree if a strict "loser pays all" policy was implemented

People file suits knowing damn well they are based on illogical grounds, in hopes they can dupe a jury into granting a settlement from a defendant with deep pockets like McDonald's.

I believe there should be a standard, streamlined procedure to determine which suits were not filed in good faith and force the losing plaintiff to pay all attorney's fees and expenses for the defense. The only way for a defendant to collect under the present system (at least in California) is to file a separate countersuit. I think the countersuit should be an automatic sequel if a judge determines that the case was frivolous.

[depakid]

39. California law already provides a remedy

although unless you're in the legal profession, you wouldn't hear about it- not from the corporate press, whose business it is not to offend the source of its revenue- the advertisers. People who file frivolous lawsuits or motions, already are subject to attorneys fees, costs AND sanctions imposed by the court. In most cases, the defendant must submit a pleading to that effect, but a seperate suit for abuse of process and such isn't always necessary.

If you consider it carefully, the so called "loser pays" doctrine is misguided. Most people aren't in any position to pay the kind of attorney's fees that corporation rack up while trying to paper the plaintiff's counsel to death. All the "loser pays" doctrine does is keep the "little guy" down by deterring their right to seek damages for their injuries. It doesn't protect the dairy farmer who Monsanto sues for claiming that his milk is free from bovine growth hormones. In fact, it doesn't deter SLAPP suits at all, because wealthy corporations can easily afford to pay, whereas the dairy farmer cannot.

The civil "justice" system is already weighted HEAVILY in favor of big money. Try getting a lawyer to take a case on a contingency fee. In most cases, they won't, either because it's too much of a risk or the eventual verdict or settlement doesn't provide enough of an economic incentive. That's why class actions are so important, because it's about the only way to reign in widespread abuses, such as those commonly seen in the credit card industry... or the fast food industry.

[w4rma]

37. Maybe the Fast Food resuraunts need to raise the quality of their food

instead of cutting corners on it?

Allowing the use of groth hormones on the cattle so that they can cut more meat off even though the hormones stay in the meat and are fed to their customers.
Frying their products in grease, instead of broiling them or at least using a healthier cooking oil.
Leaving LOTS of fat in the meat.

Similar arguments could be made about all the food sold at these places. Folks are more inclined to buy cheap stuff over more quality stuff. Should there be a lower limit to the quality on food since obesity DOES cost the public taxpayer money in medical and probably some other areas also. A case could be made that McDonalds is indirectly profiting off of U.S. taxes. Should we set regulations to raise the standards as we do with gas milage? McDonalds is a HIGHLY prifitable franchise, can the standards be raised without lowering McDonald's prices, but instead some of the profits that tax payers indirectly give them?

Atm, I don't mind the lawsuits if they can be done in a way that forces these corporations towards more healthy food.

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. Thanks

And what other aspect of my life do you care to control? Government can encourage healthy lifestyles, but I don't want them channeling me toward salad and away from beef. It's none of their damn business.

[alarimer]

43. I have a problem with this

Because they are making fast food companies exempt probably only because of campaign donations. This is simply another example of government of by and for corporations. Nothing else. Let the courts decide what is a valid lausuit and what isn't.