An Oasis of Litigation

Obesity Litigation

Obesity

Interesting article in The Observer (Are we turning our children into 'fat' junkies?) caught my eye which talks at length about obesity litigation with particular reference to Pelman v. McDonald's Corporation which was last month dismissed with no leave for refiling.

Few legal experts believed that Pelman v. McDonald's Corporation would win on the first round, and they were right. Robert Sweet, a distinguished district court judge of the Southern District of New York, dismissed the class action suit in January, and McDonald's loudly proclaimed a victory for common sense. 'Every responsible person understands what is in products such as hamburgers and fries, as well as the consequence to one's waistline, and potentially to one's health, of excessively eating those foods over a prolonged period of time,' the company's lawyers said, adding that it would be impossible to prove whether eating at McDonald's was a major cause of the girls' ailments.

But legal scholars, being scholars, were more circumspect. Some interpreted Sweet's verdict as the opening volley in a battle against fast food that could turn into a full-fledged war to be fought not only by Hirsch, but also by the top legal minds in the country. Among Sweet's more poignant observations was that 'Chicken McNuggets... are a McFrankenstein creation of various elements not utilised by the home cook' and that 'it is hardly common knowledge' that 'McDonald's French fries are composed, in addition to potatoes' of a myriad other ingredients. Speaking directly to Hirsch's charge that 'McDonald's products are inherently dangerous in that they are addictive', Sweet wrote that such a claim 'does not involve a danger that is so open and obvious, or so commonly well-known, that McDonald's customers would be expected to know about it. In fact, such a hypothesis is even now the subject of current investigations.'

Posted by Paul at October 14, 2003 05:33 PM |