House bans fast-food lawsuits

[BigBigBear]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/10/fat.lawsuits/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a bill Wednesday to ban lawsuits by obese customers who say they became overweight by eating at fast-food restaurants.

The bill, which passed 276 to 139, is one part of a broader Republican push to reform the nation's civil liability laws by banning what many consider to be "frivolous" lawsuits.

-----

Another spectacularly bad idea - while they're at it, they could ban suing hospitals, suing chemical or pharmaceutical manufacturers...anybody.

WTF is Congress doing protecting industries from lawsuits? The courts already have controls in place to handle frivolous lawsuits....

No one will make a big deal out of this, since it can conveniently ntied to "greedy trial lawyers", and who wants to stand up for THEM ?

Sheesh...isn't there anything better for this Congress to be doing?

[DarkPhenyx]

1. OK, protecting teh gun industry...

...hospitals, the chemical/pharma industry...I agree, bad ideas. However suing the fast food industry because you are fat from eating their food? Sorry, no sympathy.

[metisnation]

3. protecting the manufacturer

because bush wants to reclassify fast food as manufacturing to artifically prop up unemployment by sector. Its called product liability.

[DemBones DemBones]

25. Good point. I suppose that

makes it important to the Bushistas. They keep needing to prop up their misdeeds with more misdeeds.

[VolcanoJen]

29. Spot ON, metisnation.

You absolutely called that one.

[metisnation]

32. Manufacturing

is my speciality. I have an inside line on the manufacturing industry like no other. I think I hit a bulls eye on this one...manufacturers are pissed at Bush and might even abstain from voting. in 04 all together. Manufacturers have been punished for the last 4 years..if Bush can give the "impression" that manufacturing is being represented in Washington Rove figures Bush will get votes from this influential group. So what does Unkie Karl "the Marxist" Rove do...push to reclassify mc donalds as manufacturing and promote law that protects their product liability. Someone will sue and there will be precedent set so that the people cannot sue large corporations for liability because of the precident set. Crooked Crooked Crooked Liars..John Kerry is right.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

37. Are you talking about

ANUFACTURING JOBS?

[Occulus]

42. But if that door swings one way

couldn't it just as easily swing the other, with * declaring that certain forms of manufacturing understood to be so now could later be declared nonmanufacturing jobs?

I'm very, very suspicious that there isn't something hidden here. Lord knows they're adept in the art of the hidden agenda. Games within games within games....

[maggrwaggr]

12. the point is congress has no business telling us who we can sue

or not sue.

That is the role of another branch of government.

Congress needs to mind its own business.

[DarkPhenyx]

28. Does Congress ahve the right to tell people...

...if they can or cannot call your house?

[joeunderdog]

41. Not all of Congress..."Trash food makers fatten GOP coffers" (Globe)

snip

As we know, photo-ops are shows laden with the political equivalent of hydrogenated fats, meant to disguise the fact that there is no meat on the bones. Even as Thompson spoke, the pharaohs were on Capitol Hill, sitting in glee as the House voted, 276-139, to ban lawsuits against trash-food companies. The bill's sponsor, Republican Ric Keller of Florida, said, "The food industry is under attack and in the cross hairs of the same trial lawyers who went after big tobacco."

Unsaid was that Keller and his fellow Republicans were in the cross hairs of the food industry. Among Keller's current top five political contributors are the corporation that runs the Olive Garden and Red Lobster chains, Outback Steakhouse, and Disney (and we all know how healthy the food is at Disney World).

snip

Many companies give to both parties, but there is no mistaking their political loyalties. Coca-Cola and affiliated donors, for instance, gave $807,000 to Democrats but $1.74 million to Republicans. PepsiCo gave $255,000 to the Democrats but $1.7 million to Republicans. Nestle gave the Democrats $59,000 but gave the Republicans $208,000.Burger King gave $20,000 to Democrats but $111,000 to Republicans.

Of the $26 million contributed by restaurant companies and food processors in the 2000 elections, 71 percent of the money went to Republicans. The National Restaurant Association, Philip Morris (with a constellation of trash food in its resume, such as Kraft), Outback, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, McDonald's, Waffle House, Pizza Hut, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Burger King, Cracker Barrel, and General Mills are among the top contributors on lists compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics that gave 77 percent or more of their money to Republican causes.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/12/trash_food_makers_fatten_gop_coffers/

I'm against our great protectors in the GOP banning lawsuits against industry in almost every category, but I'm finding this one a little hard to swallow. Who eats at Mickey D's to get in any shape but round?

[Bake]

40. This is a waste of legislative resources

There are already ample measures in place to deal with "frivolous" lawsuits -- it's called Rule 11 in the Rules of Civil Procedure of the federal courts and every state court.

Congress needs to butt out of it. This is just grandstanding on their part. Legislation was NOT called for.

I wonder how the asbestos manufacturers (and companies who use asbests as a component of their products) feel when they see BushCo. rising up to defend McDonald's but ignoring their own pleas for protection? None too happy, I would assume.

Bake

[dansolo]

36. They want to set precedent

So they can protect those other industries next. I think that it is up to judges to throw these cases out. I don't think that *ANY* industry should be given any sort of blanket protection from lawsuits.

[eyesroll]

2. I'm not a fan of giving any industry blanket immunity

Yet I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility in these things. There's not a human alive who doesn't know that a steady diet of Big Macs isn't the healthiest thing in the world (at least, this is something everyone should know).

Then again...do the fast-food restaurants tell the truth re: nutrition info? That throws a problem into it.

Maybe a filtering system, similat to what they have for medical malpractice in some states -- an independent board throws out the frivolous stuff, while allowing the serious cases to proceed.

[ConcernedCanuk]

4. Well, seeing as people just don't get "fat" in an instant -

.
.
.
.

I think we can leave people to their own devices on what they eat - -

Fast-food is just a polite term for JUNK food in my opinion

Oh yah, I eat it now and then cuz it tastes GOOD - -

But I can't see people being allowed to sue because they didn't "notice" that they had to buy bigger and bigger clothes,

and not figure out it had something to do with what they are eating . . :shrug:

so although I'm not a McDuck's "fan" per se, I agree with the House of Reps on this one - -

:dunce:

[BigBigBear]

5. But wait...

The courts have a perfectly functioning mechanism for tossing frivolous cases already. They throw the case, and assess court costs to the plaintiff and attorney jointly.

I'm not cheerleading for lawsuits blaming fast food places for making people fat, but I think this is a separation of powers issue.

And look - it's already been established that they lie about nutritional and fat content. It appears they can now do this with impugnity.

[DoNotRefill]

6. Court costs yes....

but not litigation costs to the sued company.

That's why there's talk of the gun manufacturer's liability protection. Certain groups have publicly stated that their goal is to bankrupt the gun industry by repeatedly filing frivolous suits against them. The companies have no choice but to defend against the suits, regardless of legal merits, and at great cost, over and over and over again. They've already killed several companies by exactly this tactic. It's called legislation through litigation. They KNOW that they can't win in the legislature, so they attack by other methods.

[Cronus Protagonist]

10. Who are these groups?

You mention them and refer to them as "they" - can you identify them and some or any of these frivolous lawsuits that were filed solely to break the gun industry? I'd like to look into it further.

"FUCK BUSH" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[DoNotRefill]

16. Here are some articles...

http://www.vpc.org/press/9911bank.htm

"For example, Lorcin Engineering arrogantly stated in 1996 that it was filing for bankruptcy to protect the company from at least 18 pending liability suits."

http://www.saveourguns.com/litigation.0001.htm

http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/12/naacp.guns.02/

"The NAACP leader called the lawsuit "an effort to break the backs of those who perpetuate the sale of guns in our community." "

http://www.gunlawsuits.org/probono/victims.asp

This is part of the Brady organization. They're actively trying to recruit people to sue the gun makers in an effort to bankrupt them.

"The Project seeks to achieve reform of the gun industry by providing pro bono legal representation to individual victims of gun violence and their families in suits against gun manufacturers and sellers."

[DoveTurnedHawk]

7. I Am Cautiously in Favor of This

As a lawyer, I am not typically in favor of restricting lawsuits like this, BUT I do believe that lawsuits of this nature are complete BS.

The only thing I would be concerned about is if the bill is so broad that it somehow exempts the fast food companies from liability for deceptive or "unfair" practices (e.g. deliberately misleading people about how fattening their food is, or, I dunno, something hypothetically akin to "spiking" their food with fatty, addictive additives a la cigarette companies and their nicotine spiking). THAT would be BS.

DTH

[napsi]

9. If you eat Krispy Kreme

doughnuts....is there really any question they are loaded with fat and sugar? Have we become this stupid? No, we're lazy and we want someone else to blame....that simple. It's pathetic.

[dax]

14. They ARE spiking their food with fat with govt help

The govt. is subsidizing advertising for the dairy industry to increase the use of cheese in fast food which is part of why obesity is rising-higher fat contents supersize meals etc. stuffed crust this and double cheese that-it is no accident and our govt is paying for it. My father is a nutritionist who has consulted on govt. panels and he says they rewrote the food pyramid for the beef and dairy industry changing the quantities etc. this administration is destroying scientific oversight for profits industry trumps science

[Mel]

17. there's the rub

the Republicans wouldn't allow language/amendments into the bill that covered what your talking about that's why I don't support this bill it reeks! Don't trust anything these pukes are doing they are up to no good. I have to wonder if there's things in the food that people don't know about that they should....kinda like what was added to cigarettes to make people more addicted?
I did hear one caller who called in opposing the bill he talked about a story he had watched. I think it was either 'front-line' or 'night-line' the burger companies are adding fat to the meat. I don't know if that's true or not I haven't confirmed it.
Anybody hear or see the story?
One other thing if it's found out that a certain additive/filler is the cause for the rise of diabetes and the companies knew but didn't let us know this bill pretty much takes our rights away to sue those companies.

[napsi]

8. Lose weight now...ask me how....

Don't eat junk food.........who are we going to file suit against next? How about the grocery stores for putting all that food in one place? Give me a break.....this is such nonsense.

Oh wait...........it's not their fault they ate 6 Big Mac's a week and supersized their fries?

[maggrwaggr]

13. I'm glad to see you've taken their bait

this is a corporatist issue, and it's just the tip of the iceberg. What they really want, and they've made it quite clear, is to pass legislation which protects companies rather than people.

About the only threat people can use against a big corporation is a lawsuit. It's about the only thing that a big corporation will respond to. Worry about being sued.

This is just the beginning of the rights of individuals being taken away. It has NOTHING to do with frivolous stupid lawsuits anymore than our invasion of Iraq had anything to do with bringing Democracy to the middle east.

:eyes:

[david_vincent]

24. I'm with you on this one, maggrwaggr

Seems to me you've hit the nail right on the head - twice.
And as for teaching people responsibility, AlFrankenFan, why are we always trying to teach people but giving corporations a pass when it comes to responsibility? Especially resource-extraction corporations (mining, logging, fishing, etc.).

[Occulus]

43. There's an argument against this somewhere

that involves corporate personhood itself. The question being, if corporations are considered persons under the law (and for some reason, specifically a case involving Souther Pacific Railroad, this seems to be true), why is legislation being passed to protect them from suits?

Isn't this a bit like passing a law for a particular individual, say, a high-standing member of society, or even for a single family in a state?

[truebrit71]

11. I'm sorry but don't these bozos have more important things to legislate??

Like extended unemployment benefits to those out of work souls NOT fortunate enough to have been hired by the government last month??

What a bunch of useless wankers....

[AlFrankenFan]

15. I somewhat support this

Con: This opens the door for banning other kinds of lawsuits that are considered "frivolous"

Pro: This teaches people personally repsonsibility, though it's an odd way to do it.

[belle]

18. IF it's strictly limited to that particular form of lawsuit, I'm for it

Much more so than, say, caps on medical lawsuits. But people do sue for some absolutely ridiculous things. Once I was sitting in a Chinese restaurant and some woman walked into the glass door (like a bird, you know). she came in yelling and hollering about how they didn't have a sign on the door so there was no way she could've known it was there (well, look, lady, the handle and the frame might've been a giveaway) and she had just a terrible headache, and she'd be nice and allow them to give her a free meal so she didn't have to sue. They politely declined, and after yelling and hollering some more, she left, threatening big lawsuits and sporadically remembering to clutch her head. I can tell you *I* had a headache from her grating voice by the end of it. The worst was that there was a friend patiently waiting for her; iI can't remember if the friend got up and left with the woman or sat there and ate lunch by herself. either way: klassy, with a capital K.

[AlFrankenFan]

19. I hate to say it, but it's sad how stupid some people are n/t

[BigBigBear]

20. You can't legislate stupidity

away. That lady will probably have some difficulty finding a decent lawyer to litigate that case. If she finds one, I hope he gets Groundless and Frivolous tossed in his face, court costs (AND opposing attorney's fees, which DO get assessed if requested and granted by a judge), and if he's a serial offender, his Bar Association should sanction or disbar him.

I think courts should be responsible for protecting the legal system from abuse, and for the most part, they do so.

Sorry, but the idea that Tom DeLay grants himself the right to ram through some bill protecting some industry from lawsuits just scares the hell out of me.

[depakid]

23. Funny how "corporate responsibility" is almost always excluded

from the discussion when code words like "personal responsibility" are used. Seems rather contradictory, don't you think, seeing as how corporations are granted most of the rights of "persons," yet rarely held to the same responsibilities.

Matters like these should be left to the common law, rather than granted broad immunity by a thoroughly corrupt Congress.

As far as personal responsibility goes- should an appropriate case arise, that issue ought to be left in the hands of jurors, where it has resided for centuries.

[AP]

31. Bush wants to call them mnfgr'rs. Let's subject them to product liability

suiits.

Right?

It's only fair.

[Democat]

21. Is this what the Republicans think is important to America?

Kerry in 2004, get rid of the GOP. They are making America into a horrible joke!

[daleo]

22. They should pass a law protecting countries from frivolous invasions

It would be a better use of their time.

[Scout]

26. "greedy trial lawyers", and who wants to stand up for THEM ?

yeah, and who wants to stand up for those lazy, disgusting, weak, un-educated, slothful FAT people too?
</sarcasm>

[struggle4progress]

27. Making fun of fat folk for election year gains

NYT quotes Sensenbrenner:

"This bill says, 'Don't run off and file a lawsuit if you are fat.' It says, 'Look in the mirror because you're the one to blame.'"

GOP portrays itself as party of personal responsibility.

[AP]

30. I read an article in the New Yorker on how french fries are made

and it's like reading about how Ford made the Pinton.

They used to use butter, but consumers started to care about calories and about butter so they swithc to margarine. They have a few choices, but the cheapest alternative is partially hydrogenated fat. They know that it's the most deadly of the fats, but it's cheap and has a long shell life. They design the frying process so that it delivers maximum flavor, even though it's the least healthy.

Meanwhile, they sell the product as safe.

When I was little, I remeber thinking that a Big Mac was a healthy meal. When I was older and came to my senses, the only thing I would buy when everyone else was getting Big Macs was french fries (and sometimes a milk shake). then I discover that they're almost as dangerous (if not moreso).

And it turns out they're dangerous because the manufacturer is making production decisions based on what saves them the most money, even though those decisions create the most risk for consumers. Hmm.

[michael_j_martin]

33. Split decision

On one hand, anybody who is dumb enough to eat enough fast food to become obese deserves exactly what they get.

On the other hand, just because congress believes the American judicial system is too screwed up to see the truth of the first point doesn't mean its the government's job to protect big business.

Looks to me like a lose lose situation.

Just look at the bright side; now that McDonald's and KFC are running ads that deceptively portray their products as "healthy", at least all the trial lowers can still sue them for false and misleading advertisements.

God I love this country!

[radfringe]

34. just call it the SHEESH-burger bill

:eyes:sheesh-burger:eyes:sheesh-burger:eyes:sheesh-burger:eyes:

like protectionism for burger "manufacturers" is suddenly going to result in people shedding pounds...

isn't there something more important that they could be working on, instead of wasting OUR money on this kind of junk bill?

what they are really saying is that juries are too stupid and incompentent to render verdicts and awards...

[republicansareevil]

35. Why not let Courts just do their job?

I agree with BigBigBear on this one. There are already mechanisms in place to deter frivolous lawsuits. If those mechanisms are not effective, why not make some changes at the root? Increase the penalties or something like that. It's stupid and very dangerous to make law after law deciding what sorts of lawsuit are allowed and which have merit. That is the job of the Court system, not the legislature.

[DoNotRefill]

38. WHOA, buddy!!!!

The problem with changing the legal system is that in order to do it effectively, you'd have to go the the so-called "English system", where the loser pays the legal costs of the winner. Sounds good, right? It does, right up to the point that you realize that it would severely curtail smaller but meritorious lawsuits where there's a large disparity in resources between the (generally poor) plaintiff and the (generally rich) defendant.

Passing legislation saying "this is not a tort" is a MUCH less intrusive method (and far more fair) of fixing the problem than going through true tort reform.

Oh, and BTW, the court system generally doesn't make law, they interpret the laws made by the legislature. Making laws is the legislature's job.

[republicansareevil]

39. I'm not advocating changing the system.

I'm just saying that IF there is a problem with our system in which too many frivolous lawsuits are getting through (not at all a given), then changes to the system should be considered and discussed, rather than making laws about which cases have merit. I never said anything about going to the British system. I agree it is the legislature's job to pass law and the Court's job to interpret law. But I don't like laws that try to substitute their judgement for the Courts. For the same reason, I don't like term limits laws -- because they are trying to substitute their judgement for the voters'. Let each part of the system do its own job. I don't like tinkering.