"If consumers know (or reasonably should know) the potential ill health effects of eating at McDonald's, they cannot blame McDonald's if they, nonetheless, choose to satiate their appetite with a surfeit of supersized McDonald's products," U.S. District Court Judge Robert Sweet said in a 65-page ruling.
posted on January 22, 2003 01:14:15 PM new
Personally, I thought it was all a publicity stunt hosted by McDonald's sagging sales department. I mean, what is this guy really saying? He saying that "McDonald's Hamburgers are indeed fattening, but Oh, SO GOOD TO EAT! You just can't stop eating them once you try it!" I thought that because it was so obvious a publicity stunt, since no judge who wants to be re-elected would dare to rule in that guy's favor. So it had to be a set-up.
posted on January 22, 2003 01:40:27 PM new
The teenage girl that filed the suit was at least 200 pounds overweight. While her weight was blossoming, didn't her friends or parents notice?
posted on January 22, 2003 01:56:01 PM newa publicity stunt
More like another group trying to take advantage of a company, financially. We had a pretty long thread on here when the suit was first filed. I was surprised at how many felt McDonald's should have to pay these 'victims'.
I agree KD, and have often thought the same thing when I've read of people who are so morbidly obese that they can't walk or get out of their beds. Someone's bringing them the food.
posted on January 22, 2003 02:15:41 PM new
>More like another group trying to take advantage of a company, financially.
You are able to get 'The Message' as usual, Linda. But once again, you are not using logic IMO. There is no way that any court would have granted compensation to this person. None. Especially in light of how the public mood has been manipulated against their own good by that mass media blitz a while back highlighting ridiculous frivolous lawsuits. So where did YOU expect this case to go? Obviously, where nearly everyone else felt that it 'ought' to go: into the Junk Heap of judicial history.
Therefore, my assumption was that this was all a publicity stunt; although I did think that it was from McDonald's, even though junquemama had a shrewd observation in her post above. Of course, this highly publicized case might have encouraged the Bush Administration to do its capping of lawsuit awards to coincide with this publicity stunt.
>We had a pretty long thread on here when the suit was first filed. I was surprised at how many felt McDonald's should have to pay these 'victims'.
I missed posting in that one for the very reasons that I have already stated.
posted on January 22, 2003 03:36:04 PM new
Yes, KD I got "The Message" I'm special
There is no way that any court would have granted compensation to this person. I believe it was a group of people. And the idiot who spilled the coffee in their own lap and won their law suit didn't happen either? These type of suits are filed all the time, and they usually aren't dismissed.
posted on January 22, 2003 03:39:21 PM new
>These type of suits are filed all the time, and they usually aren't dismissed.
Funny, the 60 Minute Specials and Nightline reports and other news reports that I've watched always like to point out how few of these cases ever make it into court, let alone get before a judge without some real merit. Neither the courts nor the judges have the time for frivolous cases and there is a hard hand at work that prevents all, but a very few -- with merit, to get by. I guess I ought to tune into FoxNews' "Fair and Balanced Reporting" channel more often! LOL!
posted on January 22, 2003 03:58:20 PM new
I haven't read much about this other than a few blurbs, but it never occured to me that anyone believed that the suit would be taken seriously. I just mentally chalked up its attention to more media entertainment. But now that I read Junquemama's comment, I can see that it might have a certain propagandistic purpose.
posted on January 22, 2003 04:45:10 PM new
I agree that McD's should pay if they cause the coffee to spill. My question is what is the "standard" temperature for coffee? Is there a minimun temp. for it to brew properly? Just because their product is 20 degrees hotter than other restaurants, does this make it wrong? Everyone knows coffee is hot. I don't think McD's intends for its product to be consumed in a moving vehicle by the operator of such vehicle, even though it is common knowledge that most fast food is eaten in cars.
I saw one of the plaintiffs in the fast food lawsuit on The Dr. Phil Show and he claimed that McD's, Wendy's, KFC, etc. serve "addictive" food. I thought that was laughable. He said he was drawn to the fast food restuarants three times a day and couldn't help himself.
posted on January 22, 2003 05:08:31 PM new
Fast food is dog food. If anyone should do anything the food inspectors should shut them down. There isnt a bit of beef in those "burgers", and lets not forget the chicken nuggets. If thats chicken.......
posted on January 22, 2003 05:12:46 PM new
junquemama - Please don't ever feel uncomfortable voicing a different opinion. I've never had a problem with people not thinking the same way I do. Honest.
I read your link, and have heard that before. My stance on this lawsuit is that it was wrong.
The most important message this case has for you, the consumer, is to be aware of the potential danger posed by your early morning pick-me-up. Take extra care to make sure children do not come into contact with scalding liquid, and always look to the facts before rendering your decision about any publicized case.
To me, that's just common sense. It was an accident caused by someone who put hot coffee between her legs. My position is she should have known better and been more careful. I understand your sympathy for her [you have a big heart] and her injuries were very severe. I just don't judge McDonald's to be responsible for her decision not to put her coffee say in a tray or holder of some kind.
posted on January 22, 2003 05:36:31 PM newNeither the courts nor the judges have the time for frivolous cases and there is a hard hand at work that prevents all, but a very few -- with merit, to get by.
When you have some extra time...do a google search on frivolous lawsuits. There you will find many, hundreds if not thousands, that have gone to court. And we the consumers pay for it all in the long run. The costs of defending these suits are just added to our purchase price. We're the one's paying for these. Just like when people steal from stores, the store doesn't absorb the loss, they just raise their prices and we pay. And, of course, the lawyers are getting rich.
posted on January 22, 2003 06:35:03 PM new
Yep, like the idiots who, after becoming ill from smoking, turn around & sue the tobacco companies! No one forced them to smoke. Warning labels have been put on cigarette packages for over 40 years. Anti-smoking commercials & ads have been running almost as long. But these mental midgets refuse to accept their own responsibility for their cancers, emphysema, or whatever.
edited because "smoking" doesn't have two "i"s.
AND because "these" has only one "s"...
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
[ edited by bunnicula on Jan 23, 2003 07:37 AM ]
[ edited by bunnicula on Jan 23, 2003 07:39 AM ]
posted on January 23, 2003 07:30:34 AM new
I heard today that one of the plaintiffs was a homeless person. Now they are looking at sanctioning the attorney to.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
posted on January 23, 2003 07:39:10 AM new
bunnicula
When I started smoking at 8 years old in the early 50's no one, except maybe the tobacco companies, knew it was dangerous. A bad habit for sure and probably more addictive than heroin.
When I worked for Bendix Corp. in the 60's emptying box cars of Asbestosis without a mask or any safety equipment. No one told me it was dangerous. They knew..never told anyone. Just like Ford and the Pinto. They used a marketing plan to figure how many deaths and injuries and added to the price of the car.
I too am sick of the BS law suits. If I had my way (when I'm the emperor of the Universe) I'll hang 100 lawyers a day till we get rid of the bad ones. Shouldn't take more then a few years.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
posted on January 23, 2003 08:09:25 AM new
Personally, I would have liked to see the lawsuit go through the courts. I wouldn't have wanted the plantiffs to win though. I would just like to have had all the evidence made public.
That is what scared the industry the most about the lawsuit. Alot of the Fast-Food industries testing and marketing methods are kept secret. Parents bring there kids to the "testing" facility and just drop them off, they are not even allowed to watch what McDonald's does to get their kids to whine and scream for a trip to McDonald's. One thing for sure, its not the food, it has to do more with the psychological imagery.
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
posted on January 23, 2003 08:44:48 AM newIf consumers know (or reasonably should know)
McDonalds advertising is aimed at children. Their spokesman is a clown. The restaraunts have playgrounds designed for children under the age of eight. Is it reasonable to expect a five-year old to understand that the happy clown is serving him poison?
The judge's argument is foolish. It holds the consumer accountable for potentially dangerous products. The same argument might as well apply to drug dealers. Drug dealers aren't responsible, because users should have known better than to take the dangerous drugs.
posted on January 23, 2003 08:50:52 AM new
Whoops, should have been "restaurant." McDonalds should put a packet of insulin and a needle in every "happy meal."
posted on January 23, 2003 10:29:44 AM new
twinsoft - Is it reasonable to expect a five-year old to understand that the happy clown is serving him poison?
No...but the point is the parent is the one who is in charge. They get to make the decisions not the child.
Your girls are little, you'd better prepare yourself for all the things they're going to want to do in the future that you don't/may not approve of. Practice NO...again NO...again NO...why? 'cause I'm the Daddy.
posted on January 23, 2003 11:14:05 AM new
I can hardly believe McDonald's created this as a publicity stunt as Borillar suggests. I see absolutely no upside for McDonald's.
Worst-case scenario is that this goes to court and McDonald's loses. Then every overweight person that ever ate at McDonald's starts suing.
If it is a stunt then there's always the chance that, sometime in the future, an employee will leak the info and give McDonald's a black eye.
The best-case scenario is that the case is thrown out. But, where's the benefit? The only publicity McDonald's has been getting is image after image of unhappy fat people telling everybody that McDonald's food made them fat.
I think a catchy jingle would be much more productive than a McDonald's-food-makes-you-fat publicity stunt.
posted on January 23, 2003 11:15:12 AM new
McDonalds is in the business of attracting children to it's menu, just as tobacco corporations would like to attract children to cigarettes
The overwhelming amount of salt, sugar and fat included in the food is addictive in a sense that children develop a taste for this food and grow up to remain customers of McDonalds.
The commercials are all motivated to attract children. The toys and balloons and clowns are for children. The playgrounds are for children....and of course, the children bring even more customers...their parents.
posted on January 23, 2003 01:37:29 PM new
It is not the food that brings the kids. It is the advertisements.
It is where the "Cool" kids go and who doesn't want to be cool.
When your family goes to Mickey D's Steakhouse, the are happy. Notice the commercials, only happy healthy families go there.(maybe there is some truth in advertising issues here?) And with today's stressful lifestyles, children view this as a "solution" It will make them a "happy" family.
A they give you "free" stuff, toys and such that you "have to have" or suffer the indignity of not being cool.
All these things are carefully scripted and tested in secret groups. Things they look for: How can I get the young children to repeatedly whine and scream incessently until Mom and/or Pop give in, EVEN WHEN THREATENED WITH SPANKINGS.
You could make a meal EXACTLY like McDonald's, looks, taste and everything. Yet your child will still insist on going to McDonald's or "their life will be over"
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
posted on January 23, 2003 02:24:07 PM new
I saw a piece on one of the news programs (20/20, Dateline, etc. Sorry, no link) a while back about how advertisers are ALL marketing to children. There was a study that showed how children as young as 2 can recognize brand names and that sticks with them throughout life.
This is absolutely true! My 3 year old can recognize most major retailers and their products. When she was about 2 we drove by a Taco Bell and she said "Taco Bell!". We had never been to one before but because kids are inundated with commercials, ads at bus stops, billboards, etc. they become brand loyal as toddlers.
It seems ridiculous but anyone with young children knows all about it :0(
I got "The Message" I'm special 