A Judge has commen sense: McDonalds lawsuit dropped.


The Judge threw out the lawsuit blaiming McDonalds for causing health problems.

said the Judge.

IMHO this Judge got it right.

But the lawyer who filed the suit said he is going to re-file the suit within a month.


Thank GOD!

Now, we’ll really be doing well when a judge realizes that the lawsuits against the tobacco companies are the same thing! Maybe not in the past, but absolutely as of late, it’s known to everyone in this country that smoking can give you cancer and all sorts of other problems. How can someone then sue he tobacco company and win?!?!?!?!

Woo Hoo! Sometimes things go right. Thanks for sharing that, I had not yet seen it.

Because the tobacco companies manipulated the contents of their products in order to make them more addictive. Because the tobacco companies took steps to hide the extent of the dangers of their products. And because the tobacco companies did not adequately warn consumers about the dangers of tobacco products.

But, those are just guesses.

How is the McDonald’s case the same as tobacco lawsuits?

No problem. I am happy about the outcome as well.

Though the Judge has common sense Slee still cannot spell. Dear Mods, please fix my spelling error.


I want to sue when the Big Mac is missing the pickles! - Jinx

Actually I hate the pickles on a burger. I think I’ll start a thread and take a poll.

Is it really neccessary to start a poll for every little mundane and pointless thing we think of? I mean, do the other dopers even care? I think I’ll take a poll to see what they think about polls.

Robb, I’m 31, for my ENTIRE life, it has been well known that cigarettes are dangerous, it was printed on every pack. How much more do you need to do than print “Smoking cigarettes is hazardous to your health.” on every single package? It was common knowledge that the things were dangerous and addictive. It is also common knowledge that McDonalds food is fattening.

Face it, anyone who took the tobacco companies’ word about the safety their product over the Surgeon General’s assessment (printed right on the pack) was kidding themselves. In the same vein, anybody who “didn’t know” that McD’s food was fattening is just as dumb, or never cared enough to actually find out.

It is this sort of obliviousness to commonly known facts that makes some of us equate the two situations.

Cheesesteak, and during your entire life did you know the extent to which the tobacco companies tried to hide the truth about their product? Did you know the extent of their manipulations to boost the harmful elements of their products and to increase their ability to addict people?

You are welcome to equate the two, but it won’t mean that they are equal.

As long as McDonald’s sells you what they say they are selling you, they won’t be in trouble.

The dangers were printed on every single pack. Every single time somebody pulled out a cig, they had the warning right in their hand. Hiding the truth? The truth was on every pack. Tar and nicotine levels were also printed on the pack, though I honestly don’t know for how long.

IMHO, Cigarette smokers had as much, if not more, warning about the dangers of cigarettes than these McDonalds customers, and their lawsuit has just as much merit.

How about a round of applause for Judge Robert Sweet for getting it right. I am ana attorney and I have appeared before him and must say that he is one of the most sensible judges in the entire US Court system. He even looks like the stereotypicial white haired judge on the big bench just like in any old movie.

The plaintiff is threatening to amend his complaint, and I would love to see the oral argument when McDs moves to dismiss again.

I’ve seen Judge Sweet shred counsel before. And the low-life attorney for plaintiff really deserves to be torn a new one and sent back to doing slip and fall cases in the Bronx.

Correction - Dangers were printed on every single back, not every danger was printed on every single pack.

If Kentucky Fried Chicken put an addictive chemical in its chicken that made you crave it fortnightly, but only said, “fried foods from KFC are bad for you,” they’d be liable.

Everytime I took a puff off a cig and hocked up a lung, I had a hunch it wasn’t too good for me. If you didn’t smoking is bad for you, you must be the most ignorant person in the world.

World Eater, did you have a hunch that it was “standing too close to the microwave” bad or “thrusting my head in a woodchipper” bad? Possibly somewhere between? Or are there no shades of gray here?

I’ll side with Munch. Cigarettes are physically addicting, and the addictive substance was manipulated to provide the biggest bang.

While people may take comfort in eating McDonalds (BK, KFC, etc), it is not addictive. If you are going to find McD’s guilty, then every ice cream shop, pizza parlor, chinese take-out and any other food store not selling meuslix, tofu and soy milk exclusively will have to go also.

Lots of things are bad for you in excess. If you drink two gallons of orange juice a day and get vitamin C poisoning, do you sue Tropicana?

Nicotine is an addictive drug they manipulated to hook you.

So what if they have warnings on it? They still sell it. Booze manufacturers don’t manipulate the amount of alcohol in their products to hook you. Cigarette manufacturers do manipulate nicotine. It’s criminal.

Kids can buy glue, “concentrate the contents and inhale.” There’s a warning on the label telling you not to do that! But they do. Glue manufacturers aren’t purposely manipulating the addictive chemicals in glue to addict kids. Tobacco companies do.

Big Macs are not criminal from an addictive substance point of view anymore than glue is. But tobacco companies are evil.

I can remember way back when I first started smoking during jr. high school years. When bumming, we’d ask for a “coffin nail” or “cancer stick”.

As much as I’d like to blame somebody else for the years of added expense and other fringe benefits of smoking, I’m afraid, to quote Jimmy Buffett, “It’s my own damn fault”.

Cigarettes, with no manipulation of any kind, are addictive and cause cancer. If that alone makes them criminal to sell, they should be illegal.

From the FTC:

                        TABLE 1
          YEAR        TAR (mg.)   NICOTINE (mg.)
          1968        21.6        1.35
          1969        20.7        1.38
          1970        20.0        1.31
          1971        20.2        1.32
          1972        19.9        1.39
          1973        19.3        1.32
          1974        18.4        1.24
          1975        18.6        1.21
          1976        18.1        1.16
          1977        16.8        1.12
          1978        16.1        1.11
          1979        15.1        1.07
          1980        14.1        1.04
          1981        13.2        0.92
          1982        13.5        0.89
          1983        13.4        0.88
          1984        13.0        0.89
          1985        13.0        0.95
          1986        13.4        0.93
          1987        13.3        0.94
          1988        13.3        0.94
          1989        13.1        0.96
          1990        12.5        0.93
          1991        12.6        0.94
          1992        12.4        0.92
          1993        12.4        0.90
          1994        12.1        0.90
          1995        12.0        0.87

If there was manipulation, it was to REDUCE the amount of nicotine. Or are we really just talking about what the companies did 35+ years ago?

Cheese, I’m sure you’re old enough to know that cigarette pack warnings have NOT always been there. I think you will find that the great majority, if not all, of the people who sued the tobacco companies and won are much older than you, and got hooked on cigarettes when there were no warnings on the packs. Indeed, it is not all that long ago that some physicians recommended their patients start smoking to combat weight gain, anxiety, and other things.

Most of the people who sued Big Tobacco are 20-30 years older than you. There weren’t warnings back then.

Furthermore, there’s simply no McDonald’s equivalent to the fact that the tobacco companies

A) INCREASED the level of addictive substances in their tobacco to hook more people, and
B) Withheld knowledge about the dangers of smoking, and the addictive nature of nicotine, from the public.

Neither of these has any equivalency to the McDonald’s case. There’s no evidence that McDonald’s is putting crack in the Big Macs or that McDonald’s knows something about fatty foods the rest of the world doesn’t and is hiding it. Even if you argued that McD’s puts salt and sugar in the food to make it tastier, salt and sugar aren’t addictive drugs.