|
|
Would You Like Fries With That Lawsuit?
-- Special Edition: Part 1 --
We’d like to
welcome you to Part 1 of a two part special edition of the Lawyers Stink
E-mail Newsletter. While the newsletter generally comes out once a month,
we felt it was in the best interests of our subscribers to bring you this
special edition series.
As you may or may not know, a 56 year old man is
now suing a number of fast food giants claiming that their food is to
blame for his poor health. And we’re not talking just any kind of lawsuit,
mind you. No, this super sized lawsuit is of the class action variety and
specifically targets fast food behemoths McDonalds, Burger King, KFC and
Wendy’s.
As predicted in our highly acclaimed book,
Wake Up and Smell
the Lawyers (click
here to read excerpts), it was only a matter of time before America’s
slithery lawsuit crazed legal community started trying to get their hands
into the deep pockets of U. S. food companies. This class action whopper
of a lawsuit claims, in a nutshell, that the cited companies sell foods
that are high in salt, fat, cholesterol content and sugar which ostensibly
cause a myriad of health related problems, including: obesity, diabetes,
coronary heart disease, strokes, high blood pressure, cancers and other
detrimental and adverse health effects and diseases. In other words, the
fast food companies sell fast foods.
The overweight gentleman, who has been recruited as the “lead plaintiff”
in this class action litigation shakedown, claims that eating at these the
fast food chains caused a myriad of health related maladies, including
obesity, diabetes and the two heart attacks he has suffered. He stated
that he ate at these fast food restaurants four or five times a week out
of necessity – since he was single, wasn’t a very good cook, the food was
cheap and the service was quick.
His lawyer points out in his allegations that the big four defendants have
been irresponsible and deceptive in the posting of the nutritional
information about their food. Further (here’s where the lawyer and client
believe the big bucks will come from), the lawyer claims that these fast
food giants have created an addiction in their consumers – especially
among the poor and the children. These downtrodden sorts just can’t help
themselves. Sound familiar? It should.
It looks like the plaintiff and his lawyer are taking Burger King’s old
jingle of “have it your way” a bit too far, doesn’t it? Come on, for
crying out loud, who’s really being “irresponsible” and “deceptive” here?
Did these members of “Big Fast Food” force the plaintiff to eat at their
restaurants? Of course they didn’t. Is that individual, just like the rest
of us in America, responsible for what he puts into his mouth? Of course
he is. Are quarter pound burgers with cheese, chocolate milkshakes, Big
Macs, French fries, a bucket of Colonel Sanders chicken (secret recipe and
all) and the like addictive? Of course they’re not.
Maybe you like them and maybe you scarf them down like it’s going out of
style, but addictive? Pu-leeeeeeeze -- get real. But that’s precisely the
problem with these kind of nonsensical lawsuits. Getting real is not going
to make the lawyers rich. And getting rich is the name of the game.
A responsible person would accept personal responsibility for what he or
she consumes, but personal responsibility is in very short supply these
days, especially with lawyers lurking at every corner. With their all too
familiar refrain of “you may be entitled to compensation!” resonating loud
and clear across our country, we have become a nation of pitiable victims.
Personal responsibility left the building about the time personal injury
lawyers entered the scene.
And as far as this “deceptive” claim is concerned, what kind of nincompoop
do you have to be to not know that cheeseburgers, French fries, fried
chicken and drinks that come in half gallon cups might not be good for
you? Do you really need a label telling you that the burger grease running
down your cheek, as you stuff another super sized bite into your already
super sized body, isn’t likely to give you an hour glass figure or Adonis-like
physique? Someone is being irresponsible and deceptive all right, but it’s
not the fast food companies.
As an aside, do some skinny people eat at these fast food establishments?
Of course they do. If eating fast food makes you obese, why aren’t these
individuals on the chunky side as well? So does eating burgers and fries
necessarily make you obese? Of course not. Could the lead plaintiff in
this lawsuit have gone into any of these restaurants and ordered some healthier
choices? You bet – but where’s the money in that?
Now look, I don’t want to make light of this gentleman’s ongoing health
problems. I’m sorry he is in ill health, but I still feel he should accept
personal responsibility for what he eats. Instead, he wants us to buy into
the notion
that he was duped into believing that the food at these restaurants was
good for him and that he was surprised to learn of the high calorie, fat
and salt content in the food. Correct that, he and his attorney couldn’t
care less what we believe; it’s what they can get a judge and jury to
believe that counts.
OK, so what’s the merits of their case, at least in the view of the
attorney and his plaintiff’s perspective? The attorney contends that the
restaurants are responsible for his client’s corpulence and attendant
health problems because each deceived his client into believing the fast
food he was devouring was healthy. Additionally, the lawyer asserts these
fast food companies should be required to list their foods ingredients on
their menus. Menus? What menus? I don’t recall ever being handed a menu by
the maitre-de when I have frequented these fast food chains. I guess he’s
talking about the board on the back wall behind the counter with the list
of food items.
Where are they going to list the ingredients there? Besides, these
restaurants already have nutritional charts posted on their walls that
show the caloric, salt and fat content of their offerings. Evidently,
that’s not enough. The attorney has been quoted as saying, “There is a
direct deception when someone omits telling people food digested is
detrimental to their health.” Hey, counselor, maybe you should wake up and
smell the coffee (or in McDonalds’ case, maybe spill the coffee). Is it
some big scoop here that burgers and fries and fried chicken, fast food
variety or not, are not exactly the ticket to a wafer thin figure?
By the way, calling any of these fast food joints a restaurant is
something of a misnomer anyway, isn’t it? After all, if you’re looking for
ambiance and five star quality, you’re looking in the wrong place. In
reality, these fast food greasy spoons are basically filling stations. You
pull in, fill ‘er up and get on down the road. Contrary to what the lawyer
and his client would have us believe, what you “fill yourself up” with is
left totally up to you.
When I eat at any fast food establishment, I make a
conscious effort to order items that are healthier in nature – like a
salad, a bake potato without butter, a chicken sandwich without
mayonnaise, etc. – and I never order burgers, fries and sugary sodas. It’s
my choice and I make it. Does that mean that someone who orders a belt
busting double meat whopper with cheese, super-duper sized fries and a 44
ounce Coke is doing anything wrong? Not at all. But if that person comes
back later and tries to claim he or she couldn’t help themselves and is
now demanding compensation by suing the restaurant, I not only think that
is wrong, it is “irresponsible” and “deceptive” as well. Toss in
opportunistic as well.
And if the plaintiff, by his own admission, dined at these fast food
emporiums four or five times a week, I’d like to know where he wolfed down the
rest of his other meals. I don’t think you get to tip the scales into the
“tilt” category on only four or five meals a week, do you? I didn’t think
so. Additionally, did the plaintiff engage in any form of regular exercise
or was he instead a couch potato?
Let’s get a grip here. How often have we
been told that eating sensibly and regular exercise is the ticket to a
healthy lifestyle? Plenty of times.
Does any of this matter to the lawyer? Of course not. As a matter of fact,
the lawyer is busily scurrying around to recruit a few more poster boys
and girls to use as additional lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit. One appears
to be a 57 year old retired nurse who evidently believes she ‘deserves a
break today’ by claiming that her habit of eating at fast food restaurants
at least twice a week for twenty five years caused hew to go from a size 6
to a super sized 18.
In addition, she is now is allegedly suffering from
hypertension, high cholesterol and a hyperthyroid problem as a direct
result of eating fast food twice a week. Good grief. And this woman is a
retired nurse. Shouldn’t she know a thing or two about nutrition? You
would hope so.
Another potential plaintiff is a 59 year old man who states that his
ritual of eating a pound of French fries weekly caused him to suffer from
diabetes, high blood pressure and made him obese and forced to walk with a
cane. He claims to have passed out in 1993 and had to be rushed to the
hospital emergency room because of diet related medical problems. That was
nine years ago! Shouldn't that little incident been a warning way
back then to knock off the French fry habit? Again, common sense would say
yes, but common sense doesn’t seem to have a lot to do with these
lawsuits, does it?
This sue the big boys script comes right out of the “Big Tobacco” lawsuit
play book. You should have the game plan memorized by now. It’s important
to remember that in order to pull off an effective class action
subterfuge, it is essential to claim the following:
-
The companies knew
the product was bad for you,
-
The companies knowingly concealed it and
-
The companies created helpless victims who couldn’t resist the additive
qualities of the product.
-
Then the lawyers need to trot out somebody who
allegedly got sick by consuming the product (AKA the lead plaintiff or
plaintiffs), cite that a whole bunch of other folks may have been affected
and wait for the big payday.
You can bet your bottom dollar that this case is just the start of a never
ending string of civil lawsuits that are sure to be hurled at every deep
pocketed fast food restaurant by get rich quick lawyers and their fast
food junkie clientele. Maybe McDonalds, Burger King, KFC and Wendy’s
should offer a lawsuit drive through window to keep our lawsuit mad
society happy. Burgers, fries and a lawsuit … to go.
Stay tuned for the second installment of our Special Issue of the Lawyers
Stink Email Newsletter.
As always, we wish you a lawyer free day!
Hey, if you’ve got a goofy lawsuit you’d like to pass on to us, simply
click
Stupid Lawsuits and Other Funny Stuff and we’ll add yours to
our ever growing list of stupid lawsuits.
And while you’re at in, why not take a few moments and check out our
growing collection of
Funny Lawyer
Quotes, Jokes and Cartoons?
It’s
Time to Wake Up and Smell the Lawyers
Book: If you haven’t read our highly acclaimed book, you’re missing out on
a load of information about America’s legal system – and a load of laughs
as well. You can read excerpts taken from the book by clicking
book
chapter summaries here.
You can sign up for our FREE newsletter by clicking subscribe in the box
on the left of the page. Please tell your friends, relatives and business
associates about our Lawyers Stink E-mail Newsletter. They can subscribe
at our web site:
http://www.power-of-attorneys.com (of course you can e-mail
this newsletter to them!).
If you would like to review past issues of our Lawyers Stink E-mail
Newsletter, simply click
view back issues
of our newsletter.
We always respect your privacy and will not share your e-mail address with
anyone. If, at any time, you decide that you don’t want to receive this
newsletter any more, simply click the unsubscribe link
within the body of your newsletter.
Thanks for reading this issue of the Lawyers Stink E-mail Newsletter and
we’ll see you next month. As always, we welcome your comments and
suggestions about our newsletter.
|
|
