Fast Food Law Suit!!

i hate fat people

and lawyers

ate it more often than not because I was single, it was quick and I’m not a very good cook

err, by this logic why doesn't he sue his school Home Ec teacher, or anyone he ever asked out who said no?

I really despair that there seems to be an American inability to accept culpability that's tied up in its litigiousness, with cases like this just another surreal example.

The lead plaintiff, 56-year-old maintenance supervisor Caesar Barber, ate at fast-food restaurants four or five times a week and blames his fatty diet for his obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and cholesterol and the two heart attacks he has suffered.

erm.

DUH.

"i hate fat people"

:,( At least im not a lawyer

This guy should be fed to the homeless.

This case sounds really stupid, and presuming that there's no legal basis for it (and I don't think there is) will probably be thrown out of court as being frivolous and the attorney appropriately sanctioned for bringing such a dumb lawsuit (courts can and do that if the case is frivolous enough).

That said, three caveats -- (1) this was reported on Fox, which is about one step ahead of The National Enquirer in terms of journalistic integrity and seriousness; (2) Consider Fox's pronounced right-wing bias, and that lawyer-bashing is a staple of right-wing discourse; (3) Someone should check if there are any tort reform (or, more accurately, tort deform) bills before the U.S. or New York legislatures, in which this case will become this year's "Granny Spills McDonald's Coffee On Herself and Gets $1M" bullshit story (to support tort deform).

American inability to accept culpability

that's EXACTLY what it is and i think related to the American Idol runners-ups' outrage at being called "the losers" by simon COWELL. this makes me really, really REALLY MAD - jesus h CHRIST ON A BISCUIT, eating shit all the time MAKES YOU FAT!!!! (i mean, the fast food companies should be exposed and taken to task for producing this pap but people still eat it of their own volition) when exactly did this not get through to you? and if you were so very very worried about it, why did you not change your diet - you CAN get healthier fast food you know! or alternatively, and i know that this sounds radical because it involves DOING SOMETHING FOR YOUR FUCKING SELF, get off your complacent arse, stop expecting everyone to spoonfeed you, and FUCKING LEARN TO COOK! you'll be having people sueing Jack Daniels next because they became an alcoholic. for FUCKS SAKE.

and Metro crudely but effectively teamed this story on their front page with that of the current famine crisis in southern africa. compare and contrast, indeed.

(um sorry for the potty mouth everybody!)

Probably the most unedifying aspect of this whole farce will be the legions of self-righteous Brits who have never been west of Cork telling us all how greedy, unhealthy and morally infantile Americans are. Over a pint or six and 20 marlboro lights.

actually senor pulpissimo i speak as a self-righteous vegan and "proper" food enthusiast who'll happily rant about the whole sorry situation in *insert location of latest FARCE here* (macD's is pretty much everywhere, right?) over a pint or 2 or organic best bitter. or maybe a bottle of red wine mmm. no cigarettes though. but other than that um, bang to rights...

Sorry, It's just the whole "inability of Americans to accept culpability" thing was a bit of an insulting generalisation. It's not really you, Katie, I've just read too many of the sneering, ignorant, disingenuously, hectoringly self-righteous tone of too many Guardian think pieces on the US. This whole story is just a piece of newspaper trolling.

NB In my office they are sneering about the stupid americans as they tuck into their post hangover egg and bacon breakfast croissants. I am actually fond of this behaviour.

believe it or not, the thing that really annoys me about this ISN'T that people will happily stuff their faces with mechanically recovered, nutritionally suspect meat day after day despite knowing that it's bad for them, and help to perpetuate one of the most appaling companies on the face of the planet in terms of both animal and human welfare. i know the vegan thing will make people think that this is the primary reason for my ranting, but seriously they can eat what the hell they want, whatever. it's the whole "oh the devil made me do it" aspect of it that's just bullshit - no-one MADE you scarf that 100th quarterpounder and large fries, no-one FORCED you to choose milkshakes over healthier alternatives. macdonalds food isn't heroin, for goodness sake - it's not addictive. you could have decided not to eat it, but you MADE THAT INFORMED CHOICE.

i do think macdonalds should be sued, but for different reasons. and i think that this points more strongly than ever for better food education and HOME EC LESSONS from a young age.

aargh posts crossed, SP. well, it was an American (Geeta) who made that generalisation in the first place, and you'll notice that i was not having a go at Americans per se - just people who shirk their responsibilities as adults when it comes to nutrition. it does seem to me though that the American litigation system is getting SCARILY random about cases like this though - i really hope it does get thrown out of court but in this crazy world - who knows what will happen?

um, not really relating to this case being discussed here, but much bad-for-you food IS addictive, right? eg caffeinated drinks like coke etc and sugary foods...

Not just 'unhealthy food' tho. IME eg Sugar is a lot less addictive than eg houmous and watercress sandwiches.

what!?! you cannot SERIOUSLY be telling me that cheeseburgers are addictive? i mean i can see that people would like eating them a lot, but i hardly think they go cold turkey when they come off them! caffiene yes but that's not the point. sugar - is there any evidence for this?

well, it was an American (Geeta) who made that generalisation in the first place

cool!! i haven't even posted to this thread yet!!

also unsurprisingly i'm with kris on this one

Thing is pulpissimo that yr workmates arent being hypocritical - what theyre criticising isnt the eating its the sueing surely?

Culpability-inability thing was from a New Zealander btw.

shit sorry for getting you all mixed up chaps!!

yes, Tom, strictly speaking you're right, but the factors they see motivating the litigiousness are the same as the initial guzzling: greed, ignorance, infantilism, stupidity. All of which, no doubt our fat and unhealthy friend has in droves, it's just the cartoon assumption of automatic superiority viz a viz moral conundrums that sticks in the craw. Especially from people who have come home from three-times refried Bengali curries the night before!

yeah but pulpo, a night on the curry and beer is something i do SOMETIMES. i don't survive on it, i have it occasionally as a treat and eat properly for most of the rest of the time, and i certainly don't rely on the curry house to make my food for me all the time! you dont have to be a str4igh3dg3000r in order to see that some people's behavioural patterns are all fucked up!

I like curry. I am not trying to attack anyone personally. I'm sure you don't believe that every American solely eats junkfood, or would view themselves as victim-entitled to sue those who rapaciously allowed them to eat it. I am burning a straw man aren't I?

Maybe an American poster can tell us why there is a more litigious culture in the US. Less protective market regulations? Cheaper, Quicker and more accessible courts? More advanced culture of the individual? Pursuit of happiness clause in the constitution? Satan?

hehe satan hoho! aye of course it is not americans per se, it's more specifically the LAWYER who convinced this fool that this would stand up in court, and the fool for... well being a fool really. *sigh*

usa = founded and given its constitutional axioms BY LAWYERS do you SEE!! freemasons mumble mumble eye on pyramid blah blah novum ordo saeclorum muttah muttah

or words to that effect

I hope this case does proceed, even tho' I cannot see the complainants winning.

Thing is, McDonalds is always quick to sue if anyone dares to claim their food is unhealthy etc. Those of you as old as I am will remember a few years ago, some Brits handed out leaflets outside one or two stores challenging both the claimed nutritional benefits of the food and also Ronald's environmentally-friendly credentials (something to do with S.America and the rainforests IIRC) and got sued to smithereens. The Brits defended themselves, the case dragged on for months and it was generally felt to be a bit of a public relations disaster for McDonalds, although they won (in part) the libel action eventually.

I have eaten often at these fast food restaurants, and will no doubt do so again. But I think a little more public awareness of the health implications of eating there can only be a good thing.

ahhh yes, mclibel. i guess the only good thing that can come out of this is increased awareness of the evils of MacDs - i mean whoever wins it'll be a prat (or a great big multinational conglomerate of prats) - but i really hope that McD's public relations takes another huge body blow.

Tobacco advertising laws are based on a causal connection between the advertising of a harmful substance and the consumption of it - at the very least in minors. Therefore if it can be proved that MacDonalds is knowingly selling a product which has no nutritional value and not warning consumers to take it only in moderation as part of a balanced diet then there could be the merest sliver of a case.

None of the above has ever been explicitly proved in a court of law (lack of nutrition was hinted at in McLibel, the advert causal connection has never properly been defended) - nit to mention the kind of humiliation the person bringing the case will have to suffer to win it. They would have to admit to being influenced COMPLETELY by advertising, not able to make a connection between eating habits and body mass, unable to get such information from other sources....

Nevertheless there are interesting aspects to this case.

Jesus Christ with dried egg yolk in his beard... What next? People suing tobacco companies for giving them cancer from cigarettes they smoked of their own volition?

i really hope that McD's public relations takes another huge body blow

Doubt it. This is late night talk show joke fodder, the whole case.

Err I think all of you guys need to mentally disconnect the "suing" bit from the "not accepting responsibility" bit, because the latter is just a rhetorical feint toward the former. By which I think I mean: if you feel that McDonald's has atrociously misled the public as to the nutritional value of its food, or hasn't properly disclosed the food's contents and health effects, or has in any way whatsoever manipulated you as a consumer, you can't simply sue on the grounds that "Mcdonald's are liars" -- you have to collect and trot out examples of specific harms, specific people with verifiable health effects which can be clearly traced back to this particular product. It's not as if anyone simply decided one day: I'm morbidly obese, it's McDonald's fault, and I'm mad as hell -- this is an organized, top-down, moving toward class-action suit testing just how much responsibility these corporations should bear for the effects of their products. And as with tobacco, the goal will be less to demonstrate that fast food is bad for you (this is the "choice" part) but that the corporations deliberately understate that badness. It's a "political" suit, and has no bearing whatsoever on the nature of Americans or our sense of culpability for our own actions.

None of which is to say that I support that contention, just that it's not a thoroughly insane one. What mostly amuses me here is that human technology has created food that is not food, and that's sort of what's being sued over: "all this time I thought I was eating potatoes, but really it was just sticks of beef tallow!"

The other funny part is the whole "you understated the health effects" in the first place -- as if those involved went through the charts and studies and decided smoking and/or eating the item was an acceptable risk. Like "well if I had known you were using that methodology in your longitudinal coronary-disease study I'd have recognized the margin of error in the long-term mortality rates and never have eaten that cheeseburger."

Cigarettes say they'll kill you on the box. Can someone who dies from ingesting Drano sue the hardware store? McDonalds just sells burgers, they don't tell you what to do with them.

nitsuh can I get an executive summary on that second to last post of yrs