Lawsuit against fast-food industry is attack on personal responsibility

Todd-'o'-Vision

Super xVirgin Man
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Posts
5,609
WASHINGTON, DC -- A lawsuit filed by an obese New Yorker against several popular fast-food chains should be immediately dismissed, Libertarians say, because individuals – and not restaurants like Burger King – are responsible for what they eat.

"Claiming you don't know that fatty food is bad for you – now that's a real whopper!" said Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party executive director. "This man and his lawyer should be rebuked for filing this preposterous suit – then forced to reimburse the targeted companies for any legal expenses."

Caesar Barber, a 5-foot-10-inch, 272-pound maintenance worker, filed a suit in Bronx Supreme Court last week that accuses McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's and KFC Corp. of false advertising because they "misled" him about the nutritional value of their food. Barber says he has been eating fast food "four or five times a week" since the 1950s and blames that for his diabetes, high blood pressure and series of heart attacks.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and also aims to force the fast-food industry to offer "greater variety" to consumers, including vegetarian meals. Supporters also hope to spur federal legislation requiring warning labels on fast food similar to those on tobacco products.

"This lawsuit isn't just an attack on Burger King and McDonald's; it's an attack on the very notion of personal responsibility, without which a free society can't function," Dasbach said. "Does anyone really believe that Mr. Barber was too dumb to know that repeatedly gorging himself on saturated fat was less healthy than ordering, say, a fruit dish or a chef salad? Has he never heard of the words 'dieters' platter,' 'health club,' or 'No, thanks?' And does anyone want to reward him for that behavior by forcing the restaurant industry to fork over millions of dollars?

"Keep in mind that if businesses can be punished every time someone abuses their products, eventually they will go bankrupt, their employees will be jobless, and responsible consumers won't have access to these products."

And make no mistake: This lawsuit isn't designed to compensate one man for his medical expenses; it's designed to extort billions of dollars from the fast-food industry, Dasbach warned.

"Barber's attorney, Samuel Hirsch, has called the legal action 'the
first of its kind' and likened it to the lawsuits against the tobacco
industry," Dasbach said. "It's no accident that he targeted the four largest fast-food chains in America, rather than a mom-and-pop restaurant: He and his client are far more interested in shaking down successful businesses than in changing the menu at McDonald's."

Though Americans might be outraged and even amused by this lawsuit, no one should be surprised, Libertarians say.

"The successful lawsuits against tobacco companies set the precedent that people were not responsible for their own unhealthy behavior," Dasbach said. "Politicians were only too happy to pile on by suing tobacco companies for billions of dollars and using the money to create new programs. It became inevitable that other industries, such as guns and even fast food, would be targeted."

But instead of wondering which industries are going to be next,
Americans should stand up for personal responsibility and demand an end to such ridiculous lawsuits, Dasbach said.

"The court should throw this lawsuit out immediately – before Mr.
Barber makes a meal out of the entire restaurant industry."
 
I support the suits against tobacco companies, but that suit is just insane.

I used to eat McD's every day, but I had to give it up. No withdrawal pains, only the once a month craving or so, and it is easily resisted.

if you are overwieght, because you overeat, it is your own problem not the person who sold you the food.

eat less, get up off your butt and exercise, mild exercise cuts the chance for diabetes in half.

everything, including fast food, in moderation.
 
Unfortunately we have a serious trend over the past couple decades of whittling away personal responsibility.

I'm no lawyer, but...

Lawsuits are just one manifestation of this. I think the number one solution to this is sensable and VERY easy to accomplish...so it'll never happen.

Do away with punitive damages going to the plaintiff. This money is NOT part of the 'damages' claimed by or decided in favour of the plaintiff. It is by definition a punishment for the institution being sued to financially encourage them to change their ways.

This is why McDonalds gets listed on the lawsuit, but the local quickie-mart is NEVER listed. This is why the manufacturer of the automobile is always listed and NOT Billy Bob's used cars. Deep pockets.

Should McDonalds have a greater punitive sum charged against them than a local mom and pop store...absolutely. Because it takes more of a punishment financially to make it economically prudent on their part to change their proceedures. Chances are JUST the damages are a serious threat to the mom and pop store and they'll fix what happened right quick, regardless of ANY punitive damages.

This money should go to defer court expenses to the tax payers, to charity, to balancing the budget, whatever but NEVER, NEVER, EVER to the plaintiff.

And just think this is just one idea to address one facet of the dumbing down of people's responsibility. What if we all stood up and said we weren't going to belittle ourselves by accepting such nonsense??

Ahh....I'm dreaming again.
 
Jedi_Outcast said:
I support the suits against tobacco companies, but that suit is just insane.


I'm not sure what year it was exactly when the Surgeon General came out and stated as FACT that cigarettes were harmful to your health. But I would say ALL claims against a tobacco company filed by anyone under 18 on that year should be thrown out as well.

We all make decisions, and when informed we should be held responsible for those decisions. I think it is time we grew up as a society.


ACK...I need to stay away from this thread...it hit a nerve...
 
Blah. I can't even believe that a lawsuit like this is being brought. We need reform.
 
Jedi_Outcast said:
I support the suits against tobacco companies, but that suit is just insane.


Oh come on man!

the choice you make to smoke is the same choice you make to eat large amounts of fast food.
You know that they can both be bad for you, yet you do it anyway.

Nobody has ever
held a gun to someones head and told them they HAVE to smoke those cigarettes or eat that Big Mac.

And don't give me some bullshit about advertising being to blame either.
 
This lawsuit is pure bullshit..

I happen to know atleast three people who eat at McDonalds 5-6 days a week.. sometimes more than one meal a day there.

One is my ex husband-He has been employed by McDonalds for 16 years. He had a problem with his weight after we divorced. He gained a lot of weight.. but it wasn't because he ate at McDonalds but it's because of what he was eating when he got home from work. He went on a diet (which included McDonalds food.. and no, it wasn't strictly their salads that he ate) and he exercised. He lost over 50 lbs.. and is doing great maintaining his weight.

The man that filed this lawsuit and the lawyer that took the case.. are complete morons! (And no, this is not a put down to any of the lawyers on the board :) )
 
I can only think his goal is to get as much money as possible so he can quit his job and turn into Jaba the Hut by gorging on fried chicken and Big Macs all day....
 
I heard this question posed on either O'Reilly or Hannity...



What happens if McDonalds refuses service (like we now expect a bartender to do)?

"I'm sorry sir, but we are going to have to cut you off at two quarter-pounders because you look a little heavy and we are worried about you cholesteral..."

Do they then get sued for discrimination?
 
IA951 said:
Jedi_Outcast said:
I support the suits against tobacco companies, but that suit is just insane.


Oh come on man!

the choice you make to smoke is the same choice you make to eat large amounts of fast food.
You know that they can both be bad for you, yet you do it anyway.

Nobody has ever
held a gun to someones head and told them they HAVE to smoke those cigarettes or eat that Big Mac.

And don't give me some bullshit about advertising being to blame either.

true you have the same choice, But I rember a study somewhere that cigarettes are just as addicting as heroin. try saying that about a Big Mac. much easier to walk away from that "all beef pattie...etc...etc" than a marlboro


sources:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/uksmokestory_000208.html

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/tobacco/legislation/warnings/e_a.html

unlike some, I can cite my sources. remember GOOGLE is your friend.
:D
 
Last edited:
dreamer0919 said:



I'm not sure what year it was exactly when the Surgeon General came out and stated as FACT that cigarettes were harmful to your health. But I would say ALL claims against a tobacco company filed by anyone under 18 on that year should be thrown out as well.

We all make decisions, and when informed we should be held responsible for those decisions. I think it is time we grew up as a society.


ACK...I need to stay away from this thread...it hit a nerve...

Whilst what you say is true, it is also true that the tobacco companies were still saying their product was safe.

The tobacco companies have no real defence, they have known the dangers in smoking since the fifties and have consistently done little or nothing about it.

The case against the fast food companies is, however, a total farce. What's next? Butter manufacturers, cheesemakers, processors of oil for deep frying? What a nonsense.
 
Jedi_Outcast said:


true you have the same choice, But I rember a study somewhere that cigarettes are just as addicting as heroin. try saying that about a Big Mac. much easier to walk away from that "all beef pattie...etc...etc" than a marlboro



I would bet that you have never been on a diet. lol
 
jeez, what in the sam hell ever happend to personal accountability???? If you smoke, you know the risks, and if it kills you, its YOUR fault. If your obese and cant stop popping McDonalds fries, guess what, its YOUR fault. These companies are merely providing a service that there is a demand for. Its called free enterprise, its also called capitalism. Either way, the bleeding heart liberals and ambulance chasing lawyers are absolutely ruining the system. You cannot protect people from every ill of soctiety, thats called a utopia, something never once exsisting on earth.

Can ya tell I so do not agree with these lawsuits?
 
La Huesera said:

I would bet that you have never been on a diet. lol

as a matter of fact I am ALWAYS on a diet, of the low carb, no sugar variety :D
 
I have thought about trying that one, but not sure if I could take the no bread thing.
 
the sugars I can live without, haven't had a "real" coke for 2 years. it's the carbs that are tough. no rice, pasta, bread, or grains.
 
I actually can't believe that people are surprised or outraged by this after the tobacco lawsuits. It was the logical next step.

Next year someone will sue Frito Lay or the grocery stores for stocking their products. After that it'll be donut shops.

Like my wife said (and I said in another thread), we need to sue the government because we have too much personal freedom and that's just not right.
 
Jedi_Outcast said:
the sugars I can live without, haven't had a "real" coke for 2 years. it's the carbs that are tough. no rice, pasta, bread, or grains.
That is what would kill me also. I love bread.. how the heck are you supposed to have a sandwich without bread???? I like rice and other grains, but can do with out much pasta. (unless it's mac and cheese lol)
 
I rember a study somewhere that cigarettes are just as addicting as heroin.

I've heard that too and while I've never had heroin it's very hard to imagine that it is on the same level as cigarettes. If the stuff is really that weak then it should be sold over the counter.
 
SINthysist said:
I heard this question posed on either O'Reilly or Hannity...



What happens if McDonalds refuses service (like we now expect a bartender to do)?

"I'm sorry sir, but we are going to have to cut you off at two quarter-pounders because you look a little heavy and we are worried about you cholesteral..."

Do they then get sued for discrimination?


RMAO...This is so funny.

I can just envision it. Maybe they should put some cholesteral test devices at the counter too. How about a nurse standing by to make judgements?

 
I think the guy and lawyer should have to pay for their lawsuit was of time and money he is just trying to get money for nothing and i will bet you he still eats at those restaruants. People are to sue happy they think it as an eay way out grow up.

As for smoking i think that more information to kids and teenagers about how addicting it is does not hurt. but if you smoke you know it is and you keep buying them. what about alchahol i have no problem with it except for drunk drivers i have been in a accident (me not the driver and was first time drunk) and since then i have never 1. drunk and drove 2. have not gotten in a vehicle with a drinking driver. ok i will shut up getting off the subject sorry but that guys lawsuit is totally out of line.
 
Our system doesn't need reform. There are safeguards in place to take care of frivolous lawsuits. A good defense lawyer can probably get this suit thrown out on a Summary Judgment.

All tort reform does is increase the profits of insurance companies. It has never been shown that when tort reform passes, any money is trickled down to the consumer. It simply increases the bottom line for the already bloated insurance industry, which, by the way, spends billions of dollars in the media to hold these extreme cases up as an example of all that is wrong with our system.

The fact is, our system works just fine the majority of the time. To safeguard our right to hold companies accountable, we have to put up with the occassional frivolous lawsuit. This is not a heavy price to pay for safer working conditions, products, cars, food, medical care, etc.

But you know what? The insurance industry is winning. So many people buy into the crap they're selling that it makes me sick. Of course, like I said they are literally pouring billions of dollars into advertising, propaganda and lobbying. Yes indeed, they have very deep pockets.
 
So how would we feel about any of the proffered "Loser Pays" systems? It'd sure cut way back on the frivolous lawsuits if the loser had to pay the court expenses for both parties, wouldn't it?
 
Rubyfruit said:
Our system doesn't need reform. There are safeguards in place to take care of frivolous lawsuits. A good defense lawyer can probably get this suit thrown out on a Summary Judgment.

All tort reform does is increase the profits of insurance companies. It has never been shown that when tort reform passes, any money is trickled down to the consumer. It simply increases the bottom line for the already bloated insurance industry, which, by the way, spends billions of dollars in the media to hold these extreme cases up as an example of all that is wrong with our system.

The fact is, our system works just fine the majority of the time. To safeguard our right to hold companies accountable, we have to put up with the occassional frivolous lawsuit. This is not a heavy price to pay for safer working conditions, products, cars, food, medical care, etc.

But you know what? The insurance industry is winning. So many people buy into the crap they're selling that it makes me sick. Of course, like I said they are literally pouring billions of dollars into advertising, propaganda and lobbying. Yes indeed, they have very deep pockets.

I thought the trial lawyers were winning. I read about outrageous lawsuits all the time. The two that seem to be the most outrageous are the woman that split coffee in her lap...give me a break! The second is the Tobacco settlement. How could anyone in the United States not realize that smoking is bad for you. Since I've been a child, there has been a relentless string of messages saying that smoking is bad.

I know that the tobacco settlement was more than that. One aspect is that it's getting the tobacco companies to hand over lots of money..I thought in part to defray the medical costs incurred by states to treat medical expenses for smoker related illness where the government has had to cover the expenses. (it makes sense that smokers should have to pay for smoking related illnesses). It's too bad that states are using the money for all sorts of other purposes though.
 
JazzManJim said:
So how would we feel about any of the proffered "Loser Pays" systems? It'd sure cut way back on the frivolous lawsuits if the loser had to pay the court expenses for both parties, wouldn't it?

Sadly it might also discourage legitimate litigants who cannot afford to lose.
 
Back
Top