Oh, but some idiot judge or overweight jury will probably agree......remember the woman who sued and won because she burned her mouth drinking coffee----someone didn't tell her it was hot. DUH!

Oh, not the coffee thing again. That actually wasn't a stupid lawsuit (ha ha, I just accidentally typed "lawshit" -- how funny) because as I understand it, McDonalds had been making their coffee WAY too hot and it was dangerous and they were told to fix that but never did. She had serious burns, not the kind of burns you would get from regular coffee.

UPDATE
 

Obesity Suit Against McDonald's Dismissed
57 minutes ago Add Business - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Gail Appleson

NEW YORK (Reuters) - In a major victory for the fast food industry, a federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a widely watched suit in which McDonald's hamburgers and French fries were blamed for children's obesity.




U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet said the plaintiffs, including a 14-year-old girl who is 4-foot-10 and 170 pounds, failed to show McDonald's Corp.(NYSE:MCD - news) products presented a danger unknown to consumers. He also cited concerns the case could "spawn thousands of similar 'McLawsuits"' against all types of restaurants.


"This opinion is guided by the principle that legal consequences should not attach to the consumption of hamburgers and other fast food fare unless consumers are unaware of the dangers of eating such food," Sweet said.


"If consumers know...the potential ill health effect 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."


Although the judge threw out the suit in it's entirety, he ruled the plaintiffs could refile claims in Manhattan federal court within certain limits.


Sweet also said McDonald's had rightfully pointed out that the case was the first of its kind to reach this stage in federal court and could result in thousands of copycat cases.


The suit was brought on behalf of overweight children who ate at two McDonald's restaurants in the Bronx borough of New York City. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, blaming McDonald's for health problems that included diabetes, coronary heart disease, high blood pressure and elevated cholesterol.


The suit was one of at least four cases filed against McDonald's and other fast food chains over the obesity issue. At least two cases have been dropped and another is dormant.


The judge noted that Americans spend more than $110 billion on fast food each year, and cited studies showing that on any given day in the United States, almost one in four adults visits a fast-food restaurant.


"The potential for lawsuits is even greater given the numbers of persons who eat food prepared at other restaurants in addition to those serving fast food," Sweet said, citing reports that show almost half of the American food dollar is spent on food eaten away from home.

He said the court had a duty to "limit the legal consequences of wrongs to a controllable degree and to protect against crushing exposure to liability."

Thanks for the update! I'm so glad this lawsuit got blasted out of the water.

Thank god they threw it out. People are just plain stupid if they don't know fast food makes them fat.

on a similar note... i heard on the news that the new pita sandwich that is getting advertised every 5 minutes has more calories and fat than (I believe) a quarter pounder (or something similar to that.)

i can hear the lawsuits now: but I thought pita sandwiches were supposed to be healthy :rolleyes:

bah...

I'm so glad the case got thrown out.

This is just another example of parents refusing to actually raise their kids properly and blame society and businesses for how they turn out.

I read the judge's opinion a few minutes ago- it's pretty entertaining. Any of you law people, i'd highly suggest it. Nice, easy opinion to read as well

Well, I have some sort of in on this subject considering my fiancee works for the McDonalds Co. He actually thought that McDonalds was going to settle out of court so they did not have to deal with the publicity. I guess considering that the case got so much publicity they went through with it. As for the fact that they are going bankrupt, that is not true. What is true, due to the economy, they closed lots of stores and there stock is going way down (not a good thing for my fiancee). While I do not know if this is exactly true, my fiancee has said that Burger King is going bankrupt.

Back to the case, I to am happy that they threw it out, not only because the close tie I have to McD, but for the fact that I believe that it was stupid that the parents were blaming McD instead of looking at themselves.

~Dorothy =)

The case will resurface. I hope McDonald's will have to pay for their crimes, and I hope I live long enough to see it.

Pay for what crimes? If anything, the parents of these obese children on whose behalf they're filing lawsuits need to pay for the carelessness with which they raised their kids! Geez, feeding them Mcdonalds to the point of obesity?!

XOXO,
Annie.

Wait!!! You mean I could sue someone because I'm fat. Man I need to get in on this money train. Where's my lawyer at?
but seriously, it's because of parents like these that the government feels it needs to step in and tell the parents how to raise their children. I mean heck with the government and school districts playing the part of parent why don't we just give them custody of all children until they turn 18 and then release them on to the world. That would make these parents jobs easier, rather than looking after the welfare and health of their children like anyone with half a brain would be able to do.

This story reminds me of the TV talk shows where the parents are complaining about how 'sexy' their kids are dressing. I just think, "So your seven year old went and drove the car to the mall and bought all those clothes?"

Really, I wish people would realize that life is related to the choices you make and that you have to face the consequences.

Ha ha...I don't feel sorry for them one single bit. Maybe now they'll cook wholesome meals for their kids instead of gorging them with McDonald's. I read People Magazine a while back about obese children--some of these kids ate in a day what my family eats in a week (grocery bill-wise). The parents acknowledge that they can stop it (ie, most of the kids covered did not have metabolic problems which led them to be overweight), but the kids are essentially spoiled--that they get what they want all the time, and for them, it just happens to be food. Whatever happened to the word "no"? I heard it as a child, and I turned out fine. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

For calling what they serve food, first of all. But also for ruining the lives of two innocent protesters in England, who were handing out pamphelts that said McDonalds was helping to hurt the enviornement. The McD's lawyers claimed that their business suffered losses that were signifigant and not able to over come them. FReaking McDonalds World Wide could not deal with two hippies in England? Every McDonalds should be burnt down. Also, I agree that these kids are morons, and their parents should be put away for neglect.

Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp.
 

http://www.abanet.org/journal/redesign/j28food.html

FAST-FOOD SUIT BACK ON THE MENU
Appeals Court Reinstates Class Action Against McDonald’s

BY MARTHA NEIL

A lawsuit claiming that eating at McDonald’s made two children obese may go ahead with discovery, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided Wednesday.

The New York City-based appellate court reinstated the class action against the Oak Brook, Ill.-based restaurant chain, saying the complaint pleaded a valid claim sufficient to permit discovery.

Last year, a district court granted McDonald’s a motion to dismiss the case. But Wednesday’s ruling by Judge Jed Rakoff said the lower court assumed facts that were not yet in evidence in order to find a lack of causal connection between the suit and the claimed injury. Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 03-9010.

The class action claims the company violated state consumer protection law by providing misleading information about the nutritional value of its menu offerings.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Samuel Hirsch of New York City says he plans to focus discovery on "the ingredients, the advertisements, the type of representations that they made."

In dismissing the case, the district court said key questions were not addressed in the complaint: "What else did the plaintiffs eat? How much did they exercise? Is there a family history of the diseases which are alleged to have been caused by McDonald’s products?"

However, the 2nd Circuit held those questions to be "the sort of information that is appropriately the subject of discovery, rather than what is required to satisfy the limited pleading requirements" of a motion to dismiss for failing to state a claim.

The complaint alleges that the two minors named as plaintiffs—their parents brought suit on their behalf—were led to believe by McDonald’s advertising that the chain’s menu offerings "were healthy and wholesome, not as detrimental to their health as medical and scientific studies have shown."

Relying on these misrepresentations, the complaint states, the plaintiffs ate at McDonald’s three to five times weekly from 1987 through 2002. As a result, they developed "obesity, diabetes, coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol intake, related cancers, and/or other detrimental and adverse health effects," the complaint alleges.

Paris R. Baldacci, a clinical professor at Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City, says the 2nd Circuit decision "wasn't surprising at all from a New York practice and pleading perspective."

New York law is applied by the federal court because this is a diversity case, Baldacci says, and under the state’s liberal pleading standards, a simple "I ate food that made me ill" would provide the required notice of the transaction at issue.

McDonald’s corporate headquarters did not respond to a request for comment, but said in a written statement: "Common sense tells you this particular case makes no sense. Today’s ruling, which is strictly procedural, simply delays the inevitable conclusion that this case is without merit."

Critics have pointed to the Pelman suit as another example of a society in which individuals increasingly seek to hold others responsible for their own bad lifestyle choices.

But Hirsch says McDonald’s shouldn’t be allowed to market food to young children that the company knows to be bad for them.

"I think that McDonald’s has to downplay the decision, but they know full well that it’s a lot more significant than they’re prepared to admit," Hirsch says.

______________________________________________

I guess this is actually going to survive above water for a little longer.... And what ever happened to "not eating what's bad for you" defense?


RUgreek