General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Obesity suit may dog McDonald's

Started by Randall · · Last activity · 225 posts · 5,128 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
26 January 2005
Last activity
7 February 2005
Original author
Randall
Posts
225
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
5,128
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 225
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Obesity suit may dog McDonald's

    Court reinstates part of suit accusing the company of tricking kids into
    eating fattening foods.
    January 25, 2005: 7:07 PM EST

    NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court Tuesday revived part of the
    widely-watched obesity suit against McDonald's Corp. that accuses the
    world's biggest fast-food company of using misleading advertising to lure
    children into eating fattening, unhealthy foods.

    The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a trial judge
    wrongfully threw out certain portions of the complaint in September 2003 on
    grounds that it lacked information linking the plaintiffs injuries with
    eating McDonald's foods. The panel did, however, uphold other parts of the
    dismissal.

    The appeals court said the proof about injuries could be provided during
    pre-trial proceedings and did not need to be included in the initial
    filing. It said it was sending the case back to the trial judge for further
    proceedings.

    The ruling comes on the same day that "Super Size Me," a documentary about
    a man's month-long diet of McDonald's fast food, was nominated for an
    Oscar.

    McDonald's said they expected the obesity suit will be thrown out again.

    "As we have consistently said, 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," McDonald's
    said.

    "We are confident this frivolous suit will once again be dismissed,"
    McDonald's said.

    The 2003 ruling marked the second time U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet
    dismissed the case brought on behalf of two youngsters who blamed their
    obesity, diabetes and other health problems on Big Macs and Chicken
    McNuggets.

    Sweet said the plaintiffs had not followed detailed instructions he gave
    when he first threw out the case and told the plaintiffs they could submit
    a new filing with information backing up their advertising allegations.

    He said the complaint did not answer such questions as "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."

    The judge said that without this information McDonald's did not have
    sufficient information to determine if their foods caused the plaintiffs
    obesity or if instead the products were only a contributing factor.

    The suit had raised fears in the food industry of a new wave of
    tobacco-like litigation against restaurants and manufacturers. Indeed, when
    the judge threw out the first case, he left the door open to further
    litigation. In that ruling he referred to Chicken McNuggets as a
    "McFrankenstein creation" made of elements not used in home cooking.

  2. "Randall" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    The 2003 ruling marked the second time U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet
    dismissed the case brought on behalf of two youngsters who blamed their
    obesity, diabetes and other health problems on Big Macs and Chicken
    McNuggets.

    If they are younsters how did they get to McDonalds and how did they have
    the money for McDonalds? To me a youngster is somone under 10 if even.

    Maybe they should sue McMom and McDad.

    Angie

  3. "AngieRose" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Randall" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    The 2003 ruling marked the second time U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet
    dismissed the case brought on behalf of two youngsters who blamed their
    obesity, diabetes and other health problems on Big Macs and Chicken
    McNuggets.

    If they are younsters how did they get to McDonalds and how did they have
    the money for McDonalds? To me a youngster is somone under 10 if even.

    Maybe they should sue McMom and McDad.

    Angie


    OK, that cracked me up, but Oh, so true!

    Lynne A
    [email hidden]

  4. People refuse to take responsibility for their actions. The same is
    true at any buffet in town, lots of obese people with obese kids just
    eating like pigs. It really is sad.

  5. This reminds me of the person suing McDonalds because the coffee was
    too hot and burnt themselves when it spilled on them. What was
    McDonalds thinking serving hot coffee....

    People want accountability for actions unless it is their own...if your
    child is overweight and you let them eat at McDonalds regularly then it
    is the parent who should be held accountable. I am not so much as
    sticking up for the big company as sticking up for us parents who
    actually take responsibility for our actions and understand we are
    accountable for the health and safety of Our children.

    WIn $250 in Name brand Children's Software
    http://www.funpreschooleractivities.com

  6. Randall said:

    Obesity suit may dog McDonald's

    Court reinstates part of suit accusing the company of tricking kids into
    eating fattening foods.

    While I am not a fan of commercial and corporate manipulation, in fact I
    resent it greatly, most of these "tricked kids" have parents don't they?

  7. Someone just needs to get a McLife.

    W : )

  8. Quoted message said:

    This reminds me of the person suing McDonalds because the coffee was
    too hot and burnt themselves when it spilled on them. What was
    McDonalds thinking serving hot coffee....

    Unfortunately, that old bag won a ton of money... the judgement was
    later reduced a bit on appeal, but I believe it was still over a
    million bucks.

  9. Larry Bud said:


    Quoted message said:

    This reminds me of the person suing McDonalds because the coffee was
    too hot and burnt themselves when it spilled on them. What was
    McDonalds thinking serving hot coffee....

    Unfortunately, that old bag won a ton of money... the judgement was
    later reduced a bit on appeal, but I believe it was still over a
    million bucks.

    I can't stand how hot their coffee is. It's impossible to drink. I have
    to remember to ask them to add ice.

    --
    Bob in CT

  10. AngieRose said:

    If they are younsters how did they get to McDonalds and how did they have
    the money for McDonalds? To me a youngster is somone under 10 if even.

    Maybe they should sue McMom and McDad.

    LOOOOOOOOL, loved this one.

    Indeed. If you get your kids hooked onto American fast foods,
    you have no one but yourself to blame, and your kids have no one
    to blame but YOU.

    J.

    Quoted message said:


    Angie

  11. On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:02:21 -0400, Crafting Mom

    Quoted post said:
    Randall said:

    Obesity suit may dog McDonald's

    Court reinstates part of suit accusing the company of tricking kids into
    eating fattening foods.

    While I am not a fan of commercial and corporate manipulation, in fact I
    resent it greatly, most of these "tricked kids" have parents don't they?

    Apparently they are being raised by Ronald and the Hamburgler.

    The horror they must go thorugh.

    Jade

  12. Aw, everybody knows Grimace and Mayor McCheese are mind control
    experts.

    W ; )

  13. "Larry Bud" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    This reminds me of the person suing McDonalds because the coffee was
    too hot and burnt themselves when it spilled on them. What was
    McDonalds thinking serving hot coffee....

    Unfortunately, that old bag won a ton of money... the judgement was
    later reduced a bit on appeal, but I believe it was still over a
    million bucks.

    The real facts:

    http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

  14. Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Unfortunately, that old bag won a ton of money... the judgement


    was

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    later reduced a bit on appeal, but I believe it was still over a
    million bucks.

    The real facts:

    http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

    Yeah we know, the coffee was hot. Tough [censored]. I don't care if the cup
    was still bubbling and 211F. Anyone with a cintilla of common sense
    knows you don't put a hot cup of coffee between your legs. But alas,
    we're rewarding stupidity. This case was one of the first ones to do
    so.

    As far as the judgement, I was right except I didn't know the last part
    about the final settlement being sealed.

  15. Mark Probert said:

    "Larry Bud" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    This reminds me of the person suing McDonalds because the coffee


    was

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    too hot and burnt themselves when it spilled on them. What was
    McDonalds thinking serving hot coffee....

    Unfortunately, that old bag won a ton of money... the judgement


    was

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    later reduced a bit on appeal, but I believe it was still over a
    million bucks.

    The real facts:

    http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

    BTW, the "real facts" according to:
    Consumer Attorneys of California

    What a surprise!

  16. "Larry Bud" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Unfortunately, that old bag won a ton of money... the judgement


    was

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    later reduced a bit on appeal, but I believe it was still over a
    million bucks.

    The real facts:

    http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

    Yeah we know, the coffee was hot. Tough [censored]. I don't care if the cup
    was still bubbling and 211F. Anyone with a cintilla of common sense
    knows you don't put a hot cup of coffee between your legs. But alas,
    we're rewarding stupidity. This case was one of the first ones to do
    so.

    Anyone with a scintilla of sense knows that McDonald's claims history wrt
    scalding was so grotesque that the jury had to punish McDonalds. There had
    been thousands of scalding cases in the past, McDonalds knowingly and
    purposely continued a very hazardous practice, and, as a result, got burned.

    Quoted message said:

    As far as the judgement, I was right except I didn't know the last part
    about the final settlement being sealed.

  17. "Larry Bud" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Mark Probert said:

    "Larry Bud" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    [email hidden] wrote:
    > This reminds me of the person suing McDonalds because the coffee


    was

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > too hot and burnt themselves when it spilled on them. What was
    > McDonalds thinking serving hot coffee....

    Unfortunately, that old bag won a ton of money... the judgement


    was

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    later reduced a bit on appeal, but I believe it was still over a
    million bucks.

    The real facts:

    http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

    BTW, the "real facts" according to:
    Consumer Attorneys of California

    What a surprise!

    Do not expect McDonalds to tell you the truth. Here are a few more links:

    http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

    (check fact #8).

    http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

    http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785

    http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b77256026e6.htm

    However, I do not expect you to change your opinion.

  18. Regardless, the fact that they're KIDS says something. I mean, itsn't
    it the job of a parent to make sure that kids don't do things like eat
    themselves silly??

    I don't see this one going very far -- seems like a huge publicity
    stunt to me.

  19. "AngieRose" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]
    || "Randall" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    || news:[email hidden]...
    |||
    ||| The 2003 ruling marked the second time U.S. District Judge Robert
    ||| Sweet dismissed the case brought on behalf of two youngsters who
    ||| blamed their obesity, diabetes and other health problems on Big
    ||| Macs and Chicken McNuggets.
    |||
    ||
    || If they are younsters how did they get to McDonalds and how did they
    || have the money for McDonalds? To me a youngster is somone under 10
    || if even.
    ||
    || Maybe they should sue McMom and McDad.
    ||
    || Angie

    You should wash your moth out with soap. You know darned good and well that
    would mean accepting personal responsibility, when it's so m uch easier (and
    more lucrative) to blame someone else. Just ask the smokers who are suing
    the tobacco companies.

    --
    Peter
    270/219/180
    website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo

  20. On 26 Jan 2005 12:59:28 -0800, "Larry Bud" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    This reminds me of the person suing McDonalds because the coffee was
    too hot and burnt themselves when it spilled on them. What was
    McDonalds thinking serving hot coffee....

    Unfortunately, that old bag won a ton of money... the judgement was
    later reduced a bit on appeal, but I believe it was still over a
    million bucks.

    How much would it be worth to you to spend a week in the hospital with
    third degree burns to the groin? How about for your mother to do the
    same?

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.