January 26, 2005

The return of the ambulance, umm, waddlers

Jerry Nadler, call your office: the Second Circuit has reinstituted the suit against Mickey-Dees.

But you have to love the district court judge on this:

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.

Of course, McDonald's is relying on the legal principle known as the Vernon Wormer defense, ie that "fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life."

(I just deleted a longer bit that indiscriminately used the word "piehole" repeatedly, as it was a wee bit intemperate. Still, for my money, I have no idea why the word "piehole" is so funny, but Lawhd help me it is.)

BTW, nobody tell Ith about this----it could very well be a mellow-harsh-er.

Posted by Steve at January 26, 2005 12:38 PM

What I want to know is this:

1. How old were these alleged "youngsters" at the time of their apparent McDonalds' debauchery?

Because, if they were under, say, the age of sixteen or so, that raises another question:

2. Why didn't their fargin' PARENTS say "no, we are not eating at McDonald's today. We are not eating there this week. Too much McDonald's is not good for you." (Which is exactly what my parents said to my brother circa 1985, long before the "you made me fat" class-action lawsuit was even a twinkle in a crooked lawyer's eye).

I mean, cripes. I'm kinda fat. You know whose fault that is? Mine. I like to eat*. I don't like to exercise. I know I have "fat genes" from looking at my dad. I do watch my caloric intake and exercise, but I'm never gonna be Calista Flockhart. And I'm OK with that.

*By this, I mean real food, like the kind you cook at home, not fast-food crap. If fast food was the only thing that made you fat, I'd be skinny as a supermodel.

Posted by: ricki at January 26, 2005 01:17 PM

Why should anyone else be held liable for a persons own careless behaviors i mean why do they want to hold anyone from STRUM/RUGER to McDONALDS liable for a persons own irresponsible acts? they should be sent to sit in the corner with nothing but bread and water for a whole month

Posted by: mad heron at January 27, 2005 09:41 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?