Thought you might like this one...

Newspaper report:

Overweight kids sue fast food giant

TWO OBESE teenagers are suing McDonald's for millions of dollars - for making them fat.

Both girls, who come from New York, are at least five and a half stone overweight. They claim that the fast food giant is to blame for their obesity after having eaten the chain's burgers and fries several times a week for years.

The unnamed teenagers, one of whom is 5ft 9ins tall weighing 19st and the other 5ft 3ins and weighing 14st, are claiming that the chain's meals are unhealthy, and have led to them becoming overweight and developing serious health problems, including heart disease.

The two girls, whose parents have filed the lawsuit in New York on their behalf, stand to win millions of dollars in compensation if they're successful.

«1

Comments

  • I'd love to see McDonalds lose but its a dangerous trend. I could sue RW for making me want to run!
  • They are thinking about putting health warnings on the wrappers so that this won't happen again!
  • What does it profit a woman if she gains millions of pounds but loses her internal locus of control and screws her life up pursuing litigation? (from St Velociraptor's Epistle to the Forumites)
  • It's amazing the lenghs some people will go to so that they don't have to take responsbility for their own actions.

  • I think it makes the kids and the parents look thick like they couldn't work this out for themself. They're just out to make a fast buck. I hope they lose.
  • I'd like to see what they ate for the rest of their meals because I bet it wasn't just fresh fruit and veg.
  • It probably dawned on them that they were overweight when they could no longer get through MacDonalds doors.
  • Actually I've have another thought, I think the parents should be done for bringing their kids up so badly and not following the governments guidelines on healthy eating, I mean it's published enough, in the papers, on the tv. They should be done for child abuse or something. (Ok I'm rattled now.)
  • That was tried in the USA a few years ago. It was something really appalling like a 30-stone eight-year-old girl who was confined to her room because she couldn't move due to her size. I can't remember the outcome.

    These extreme cases aren't the real issue, though. If EVERYONE in the country whose BMI is over 25 lost just ONE kilogram, it would have a big impact on the rate of obesity-related diseases.

    I don't like Macdonalds, but I like frivolous litigation even less. I hope Ronald's lawyers blow the case off the face of the earth. Nobody forced the disgusting little bloaters to eat so much - because nobody ever got fat on ONE Happy Meal three times a week, and my kids certainly didn't when we employed a lovely nanny whose approach to catering was regular trips through the Arches.
  • I can't beleive they will succeed.
  • It's about time people wised up and took some responsibility for their actions.

    I just hope that the ridiculous levels of litigation seen in the US don't surface here.

  • I'd love to see McDonalds win but there was a case in America recently where a woman sued a shop because she tripped over a toddler and broke her ankle. It was her own child but she still won!
  • Hear hear, V-rap! How far back do these litigious troughers want to go? How about they sue their parents for passing on stoopidity genes.
  • I guess it's some bold litigator's attempt to extend the example relating to "I smoked too much and it's killing me now so it must be the tobacco manufacturer's fault".

    However, what are you going to put on food to avoid liability - "Eating too much will make you a lard-arse"? Or how about "If you weren't so neglecting, you may have noticed that your kids haven't received any basic nutrition education from you or, if they have, they've neglected it and you now have a fat kid who is not only unhealthy, but probably also gets bullied at school (if she isn't playing truant by now unable to take it any more) and will end up massively unhappy, if not anorexic too."

    Litigation sometimes seems to be people's excuse for their own stupidity, lack of education or neglect. That's not what it's there for. Litigation is a solution to help put right something where an injustice has been done, not as compensation for one's own failings.
  • Does anyone know if MCD's has ever denied that their food was unhealthy?
  • Also does anyone know how to shrink a picture so that it fits the 100x120 pixel requirement to post it on the board
  • Its only unhealthy if its all you eat.

    Fruit is good for you, but if you eat nothing else.....
  • You'll be Dustin-with-runs!
  • Charlie - ask that on the tech forum - you should get an answer.

    Dustin...all fruit will be a very messy experience!
  • Don't forget that MD lost a case a while back when someone burn their tongue (or mouth) on hot coffee. Apparently they weren't expecting it to be hot.

    I hope MD win and the litigious b@st*rds have to pay costs.

    Parents should take responsibility and even so the kids cannot surely be that thick!!!

    It really p!sses me off!!!!
  • RB, you're remembering the granny who actually spilt it on her crotch and suffered burns. Her initial award (410 million dollars!! That's what you get when you allow juries to assess penal damages levels) was whittled down to something that McD's thought they could cope with (about 2 million I think - in their grand scheme of things, not masses of cash - lottery win for her, given the surgery on burns cost her a total of 10,000...) and they gave up I think.

    Best bit about it was the way in which the burns occurred - she was driving along with the thing wedged in between her legs trying to open the coffee with one hand while keeping the other on the wheel!!!!!!

    Personally, stupidity seems to be the best defence McD's could have put forward...
  • If it was a man it would have been penile damages!!!

    Sorry for lowering the tone but thanks for the correction.

    Stupidity seems to be quite rewarding doesn't it??
  • I hope they win and McDonalds get swamped by thousands of similar cases. Net result McDonalds go out of business along with all the tobacco companies etc. etc.

    Well in a perfect world it would happen.
  • I hate both McD's and stupid litigation like this - I *so* agree with V-rap about people taking responsibility for their own actions.

    Having said that (to answer an earlier question) I have seen posters advertising the "healthiness" of McD's food.

    Not that I'd recommend it, but I reckon that three Big Macs a week and forty miles a week wouldn't leave you that unhealthy.

    I believe the McD's coffee award was $2.9 million. There was also a case where a woman shampooed her dog, and then killed it trying to dry its fur in her new microwave. She won the case because the packaging didn't contain any warning about not sticking dogs in it!

    I guess it's cases like this that lead to the "silly" warnings on packets such as (on a packet of nuts) "open packet and eat contents", because otherwise some litigation happy idiot will swallow the packet whole and sue the manufacturers!

    Iain
  • Another hot drink case is in the Telegraph today, this time McD won. A group of consumers sued McD because the hot drinks they bought were hot and they claimed not to have realised that if hot drinks are spilled they can scald.
    One of the complaints was that the cups used were too efficient, so as consumer's hands did not hurt (they would probably have sued if they had) they failed to register that the drink inside the cups mght be hot.
    The Judge pointed out that most customers preferred their hot drnks hot and realised that could entail scalding if the drink was spilled. McD owes a duty of care to customers, but this did not extend to refusing to serve them hot drinks in case they spilled some. It was not unreasonable to assume the customers were bright enough to know that hot drinks were hot.
  • This is almost as stupid as the case of an American woman who successfully sued a fridge manufacturer because the fridge toppled over when she stood on top of it whilst attempting to change the kitchen light bulb.

    The sad thing is that they will probably win.
  • I guess it comes down to where you draw the line of knowledge and make it the producer's job to inform you about things...trouble is, the stupidity threshold is so low now that the warnings required probably apply to people who can't read! Ironic...
  • My only word on the subject is PATHETIC!
  • It'll end up that all food will have to have a label stating ….

    “This food will make you fat if not consumed as part of a calorie controlled diet.”
  • we live in a society plagued by lawsuits and whinging... B***er it!

    Atleast it keeps us amused for a while though!
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.