One More Time, With Evidence

A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit against McDonald's by two obese New York City teenagers who blame the chain for making them fat. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the teenagers' lawyer, Samuel Hirsch, whose complaints were rejected twice by U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet for failing to properly state a claim, should be allowed to obtain documents from McDonald's that may help to flesh out his case. Hirsch, you may recall, is featured in the docu-comedy Super Size Me, in which he draws a blank when asked to explain his motive in filing the suit. "You mean, motive besides monetary compensation?" he says. "You want to hear a noble cause?" I'd settle for a plausible claim.

Comments

[$hy$ter]

They're a rich corporation and my chunky clients are poor. They have the money, we want the money. That's reason enough!

[ranger]

"allowed to obtain documents from McDonald's that may help to flesh out his case"

Please tell me that pun was on purpose and intended.

[chthus]

"The teenagers said they ate at McDonald's restaurants three to five times a week over a 15-year period."

The likelihood of them having kept any receipts is slim, so this estimate should first be called into question. The defense should also canvass all of the nearby delivery places to the teens residence (pizza, chinese, etc.) for records of frequency of deliveries to their address. These are unlikely to go back more than a few years, but even that would be helpful. Further, all bank/credit card usage by their parents should be requested. This could help establish patterns of eating that may expand the 'blame' for their obesity beyond McDonald's.

Getting down into the gutter, any and all embarrassing facts about this family should be dug up and subsequently released to the press. If all else fails, this type of public exposure might minimize the number of copycats.

I'm no lover of McDonald's (prefer it my way at BK) and I have a certain dislike of the type of lawyers involved in this case, but I would really like to see the people who brought this ridiculous suit get screwed.

[ranger]

Getting down into the gutter, any and all embarrassing facts about this family should be dug up and subsequently released to the press. If all else fails, this type of public exposure might minimize the number of copycats.

It's a damn shame that ANY of that needs to be done just to get people to understand the food they shove down their gullet is THIER choice. I'm not weeping for Ol'Ronald over this one either. However, it's ludicrous that they just might have to resort to the things you outline and deal with the expenditures that follow.

Defending yourself against lards that refuse to take responsability for thier lives should not have to be figured in as an "operating expense".

[Curious]

Is there something addicitve in Bic Macs? They ARE darn tasty, especially if freshly cooked, but unless they have addicitve substances in them then I don't see how they would have a case.

[smacky]

The likelihood of them having kept any receipts is slim

Slim! ha, ha!....

[Philip]

The likelihood of them having kept any receipts is slim

Fat chance!!!

[PintofStout]

Maybe a "loser pays" system would work better. If you bring a completely ridiculous suit and you lose you pay ALL the expenses.

There is still room for some of these cases to slip through, unfortunately, but they may be reduced.

[Juanita]

They're a rich corporation and my chunky clients are poor. They have the money, we want the money. That's reason enough!

Don't forget that McDogBalls advertises. The purpose of ads is to force people to do what you want. They are therefore responsible for making these kids fat.

The downstream effects on society of obesity are enormous, and the rich corporations that create bad food are responsible because they manipulate us through advertising. We need govenment regulations and fat taxes in order to compensate government for the societal cost of obesity caused by McDogBalls and their evil imitators.

[PintofStout]

I can't tell if you're joking Juanita.

I hope so.

[Jennifer]

If McDonalds loses this lawsuit, then wouldn't they or any other restaurant/food distribution company then have legal basis for a right to refuse to sell to fat people? "Sorry, Oprah, no Big Mac for you; we're afraid we might get sued."

[Jennifer]

To add to my last post, bartenders can be held liable if one of their customers gets drunk and has an accident; therefore bartenders have not only the right but in many cases the legal duty to refuse service to someone who's had too much.

[BigPhil]

Is there something addicitve in Bic Macs? They ARE darn tasty, especially if freshly cooked, but unless they have addicitve substances in them then I don't see how they would have a case

"Darn Tasty" is enough to make it addictive. Sue the bastards.

[Juanita]

If McDonalds loses this lawsuit, then wouldn't they or any other restaurant/food distribution company then have legal basis for a right to refuse to sell to fat people?

No, that is anti-obese people descrimination.

[Bob]

One has to wonder how much weight these two mighty boys have lost since they (presumably) stopped eating at McDonald's two years ago.

If they haven't lost any weight, their case is shot. If they have lost weight, why are they suing?

[MP]

No, that is anti-obese people descrimination.

The ADA and subsequent court rulings currently classifies Alcoholism as a disability, a classification that you likely support. So if a bartender refuses to serve you, by your logic that is anti-alcoholics discrimination. You can't have your cake and eat it do.

mmmm....cake....

[Jennifer]

MP-
Juanita is attempting to be satirical. Don't take her seriously.

[rst]

We know where this is going, kids. The Fat Tax. A "user fee" for the extra space, if you will. Paid to the lardasses in Congress who do little more than occupy space.

[jessica]

Since the obese are not a protected class, do they have the right to sue for discrimination?

[rst]

Since the obese are not a protected class, do they have the right to sue for discrimination?

I think if anything the re-opening of this case demonstrates that you have a right to sue for anything you want, meritorious or otherwise.

[Mad Mother]

Juanita:

You're muscling in my turf!!

[Epic]

I am appalled by the idea of suing the providers of things used abusively. It was wrong for booze. It was wrong for tobacco. It's wrong for fatty food.

However, I can understand why these two kids would do this. I mean, I'm opposed to such things on principle, but I imagine that if a lawyer approached me and told me I could make millions of dollars by filing a lawsuit, I don't know that my principles are that strong. Millions of dollars.

That's a hint, by the way.

[B.P.]

Wait a minute -- obese kids in New York City? Joe told me that if people lived stacked on top of each other in urban environments and had to walk everywhere, they wouldn't get fat.

[B.P.]

Wait a minute -- obese kids in New York City? Joe told me that if people lived stacked on top of each other in urban environments and had to walk everywhere, they wouldn't get fat.

[jessica]

Epic,
I think tobacco suits at this late date are frivolous; by now it ought to be common knowledge that cigarettes are bad for you. However, that industry slings around words all the time (e.g. light, low tar, etc.) with the sole intent of making people think they are smoking "safer" cigarettes. Down with tobacco subsidies! It'd be lovely to see those Philip Morris SOB's get corrected right out of the market. I for one would like to go to a bar without leaving smelling like an ashtray.

[Jennifer]

Jessica-
You're still CAPABLE of walking into a bar and walking out smelling like an ashtray? In which state do you live, where smoking at bars hasn't been banned?

[Mo]

Jessica,
I'll trade you your tabacco subsidies for the payola scam for "covering state health costs" straight up and Phil Mo will be sitting dandy.

If you want to go to a bar without smoke open up your own bar or find one that does (or move to MA, NYC or CA). It's the bar owner's property he can allow any legal behavior to occur on his premises that he wants. If there was a demand for smoke free bars, they would exist.

[Mo]

Also, light is a flavor distinction and low tar is a measured distinction. Also, cigarettes would be significantly safer if tobacco companies could advertise such. An example of this are the fertilizers that breakdown into radioactive isotopes when ignited. Cigarette companies could choose to use safer fertilizers, but they are more expensive, therefore they have no incentive to use safer methods because the state won't allow it.

[Brett]

Jennifer, you can smoke at bars in Dallas, so long as they are basically nothing but bars. The ordinance:

Smoking is prohibited in restaurants, bars within restaurants, hotel lobbies, bars within hotels, bingo halls, bowling alleys, hair salons, private clubs, and retail establishments. Restaurants are defined by their certificate of occupancy or the percentage of revenues from food (25%). Free standing bars (75% of revenue from bar sales), cigar bars and billiard halls are entirely exempt.

[Anthony Gregory]

I liked Supersize Me, and I actually like McDonalds too, in moderation.

I wonder if anyone who watched Supersize Me and decided to fast and became sick from malnutrition could sue the filmmakers.

[Epic]

Jessica,

I have no love for the tobacco business. Smoking causes a lot of misery. The tobacco settlement, however, was a naked money grab by state governments and lawyers. It was also a deal with the devil: The states don't get their money unless the tobacco companies stay in business. To that end, the settlement protects existing companies against competition so they stay financially healthy.

I'm right there with you on tobacco subsidies. It's a legal business, and it should stay that way, because we don't want to create yet another criminal empire, but we sure as hell shouldn't be subsidizing it. Also, to the extent tobacco companies are misleading people, they should have to pay damages.