McDonalds Obesity Lawsuit Thrown Out!

[arnisador]

You can eat your fries again, folks!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...71&e=1&u=/nm/20030904/hl_nm/food_mcdonalds_dc

A federal judge on Thursday threw out a revised lawsuit against McDonald's Corp. that accused the world's biggest fast-food company of using misleading advertising to lure children into eating unhealthy foods that make them fat.

 

[jfarnsworth]

I very rarely eat there. Having looked at their website and nutritional value I have not been back to a fast food restaurant yet.

 

[don bohrer]

For loosing the lawsuit.... Death by bigmac!

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by jfarnsworth
I very rarely eat there. Having looked at their website and nutritional value I have not been back to a fast food restaurant yet.

I agree with you Brother JF.

You pay for it now or later with a few cents more you can get real food

 

[don bohrer]

The local sonics make a green chili cheese burger that kicks!

Mmmm...green chili cheese burger

 

[LostGrrlDies]

well thats a bunch of ********!!

i didnt eat there in 2 weeks and i lost 10lbs.








(of course it has nothing to do with the fact that i exercise often and typically dont eat mcdonalds)

 

[liangzhicheng]

I think it's good that the case was thrown out. Unless McDonalds and other fast food companies are putting an addictive substance into their foods, a Big Mac does not equal a cigarette. Time for the general public to stop blaming others and take personal responsibility for their health (and hopefully others things as well) :asian:

 

[jfarnsworth]

Originally posted by LostGrrlDies
well thats a bunch of ********!!

i didnt eat there in 2 weeks and i lost 10lbs.

(of course it has nothing to do with the fact that i exercise often and typically dont eat mcdonalds)

Cool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[theletch1]

I've always thought that this was another of those "I got no brain" lawsuits anyway. If the people in America want to sue some one for fat kids then sue themselves for not getting the kids off their butts and out from in front of the t.v. I eat a lot of fast food on the road, just don't have time to sit down for a meal. I, however, am very thin. A fast metabolism and a very active lifestyle keep me that way. I'm gonna have to do a search on rediculous law suits sometime soon.

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by theletch1
I've always thought that this was another of those "I got no brain" lawsuits anyway. If the people in America want to sue some one for fat kids then sue themselves for not getting the kids off their butts and out from in front of the t.v. I eat a lot of fast food on the road, just don't have time to sit down for a meal. I, however, am very thin. A fast metabolism and a very active lifestyle keep me that way. I'm gonna have to do a search on rediculous law suits sometime soon.

I totally agree. If you have the money to sue, then you have the money to feed your kids some nutritious food and the time to take them to the park for some activity. The term guardian doesn't just mean protection from predators, but protection from unhealthy life styles. Most of these kids aren't buying their own Big Macs.

Kinda like sueing gun companies for deaths caused by their guns (and off on the tangent we go).

 

[theletch1]

The term guardian doesn't just mean protection from predators, but protection from unhealthy life styles.

And quite often that means protection from themselves. Someone should track down the old lady that origionally sued for the hot coffee in the lap and pummel her. These common sense lawsuits drive me nuts. How about taking a little personal responsibility for your own actions and actually thinking about what the consequences for your actions will be. Then if you get "injured" it's no ones fault but your own.

Did ya know there is a warning on the back of the package for a fan belt that says "Ensure engine is not running before attempting installation."? Who was the idiot that tried to put one on a running engine? Any one else got any "Well, duh" warnings they've seen on packaging?

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by OULobo
I totally agree. If you have the money to sue, then you have the money to

This would probably have been a huge class action suit, at least once the principle was established, and the lawyers would have been happy to get in on it.

 

[Nightingale]

the coffee lawsuit was justified...

that particular mcdonalds had been warned not just once, but REPEATEDLY by the health department that their coffee was way too hot.

normally, spilling coffee does not cause third degree burns. You'd expect maybe a scald, run some cold water on it, and you'll be fine... not so with this incident... She needed skin grafts and was in the hospital for a week!

to put things in perspective, a sunburn is basically a first degree burn, a second degree burn blisters, and a third degree burn is pretty much when you set your hand on a hot stove and leave it there until you can smell burning flesh and can't feel pain anymore.

McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit

Everyone knows what you're talking about when you mention "the McDonald's lawsuit." Even though this case was decided in August of 1994, for many Americans it continues to represent the "problem" with our civil justice system.

The business community and insurance industry have done much to perpetuate this case. They don't want us to forget it. They know it helps them convince politicians that "tort reform" and other restrictions on juries is needed. And worse, they know it poisons the minds of citizens who sit on juries.

Unfortunately, not all the facts have been communicated - facts that put the case and the monetary award to the 81-year old plaintiff in a significantly different light.

According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation.

The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

-Ohio Assn. of Trial Lawyers

 

[theletch1]

Thanks for the info Nightingale. I did not know all of that. I suppose we'll have to find another lawsuit to use as the example for potential Darwin award winners who get lucky.

 

[Nightingale]

how about the one about the burglar who had a slip and fall on the front porch of the house he was robbing (on his way OUT) and sued the owner of the home and WON?! (forget the case name, but it was in the midwest somewhere)

 

[arnisador]

These things are always more complicated than they appear at first.

 

[Ender]

I'm gonna sue Hustler magazine for carpel tunnel....

 

[pknox]

Originally posted by theletch1
Any one else got any "Well, duh" warnings they've seen on packaging?

More of an instruction than a warning, but I love when the microwave popcorn, which is in a little plastic bag, has the steps for cooking on it...the first step is "Open package." How the heck could I read the directions if I didn't already open the package? It also warns me, after telling me to put the thing in the microwave, that "product will be hot." Anyone who doesn't realize that something that just came out of being in the microwave for three minutes is going to be hot shouldn't be allowed to operate a wristwatch, not to mention a microwave.

 

[Nightingale]

the label on my hair dryer says "do not use while showering"

 

[Ender]

Can I supersize that?