House Backs Ban on Obesity Lawsuits

[MrRant 0]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved legislation nicknamed the "cheeseburger bill" that would block lawsuits blaming the food industry for making people fat.

 

 

 

Approved on a 276-139 vote, the bill came up one day after health officials announced that obesity was on the verge of surpassing tobacco use as the leading preventable cause of death in the United States and urged people to exercise more and eat a balanced diet.

 

 

The bill has backing from the White House and much of the food industry but it faces hurdles in the Senate, which has often blocked House-passed measures that would cap legal damages or protect certain industries from lawsuits.

 

 

The "cheeseburger" debate became a verbal food fight with lawmakers using words rarely heard on the House floor like "crap," "foolish" and "sanctimonious" to describe the bill or each other.

 

 

The "Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act" would prevent what the bill calls frivolous lawsuits against makers, distributors or sellers of food and nonalcoholic beverages arising from obesity claims.

 

 

Backers said it is needed to protect the industry against an organized onslaught of lawsuits in which trial lawyers urge fat people to look for someone to blame. Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) chairman James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, said fat people should "look in the mirror."

 

 

Bill sponsor Rep. Ric Keller (news, bio, voting record), a Florida Republican who calls himself a "chubby guy" with a taste for double cheeseburgers, said his legislation is about "common sense and personal responsibility."

 

 

Mostly Democratic critics, backed by some consumer groups, said the courts, not Congress, should determine when lawsuits are frivolous. North Carolina Democrat Rep. Melvin Watt (news, bio, voting record) said, "There's not a single pending lawsuit now that hasn't been dismissed."

 

 

The best-known case, filed by teenagers against McDonald's Corp., has been thrown out of federal court twice.

 

 

Critics said the bill sent a message to the food industry that it did not have to worry about public health. "That's the wrong message," said Massachusetts Democrat Rep. James McGovern (news, bio, voting record).

 

 

Watt, who is black, called the bill "crap" when Sensenbrenner likened it to historic civil rights legislation. Watt quickly apologized.

 

 

Keller said his legislation would not block civil suits stemming from tainted foods or mislabeling -- although critics said it was so broadly worded that it would make it hard for individuals to file such suits.

 

 

The bill would block suits in state and federal courts, and dismiss any that have already been filed. A few states have already passed their own bans on fat suits, and others are considering them.

 

 

The congressional debate comes as public health officials have sounded the alarm about the number of fat Americans -- including growing numbers of children. Overweight people face numerous health risks.

 

 

John Cady, head of the National Food Processors Association, said, "This bill is a timely and needed response to the threat of lawsuits seeking to pin the responsibility for obesity in this country on the food industry." (Additional reporting by Jackie Frank in Washington and Deborah Cohen in Chicago)

 

Thank god the porkers can't sue anymore.

[Guest Cerebus]

Not surprising seeing how much Agribuisness donated to members of Congress in 2002. I'm not saying I disagree with the law, but just to let people know one of the reasons why they voted the way they did.

[Lightning Flik 0]

I'm thinking that the Senate won't pass this law for some inane reason. I can't think of one off the top of my head, but you better believe someone will.

[Guest Cerebus]

I'm thinking that the Senate won't pass this law for some inane reason. I can't think of one off the top of my head, but you better believe someone will.

I don't think so, since the Great Plains have a dispraportionate amount of power in the Senate. (btw is your handle from the Suikoden series?)

[Lightning Flik 0]

I'm thinking that the Senate won't pass this law for some inane reason. I can't think of one off the top of my head, but you better believe someone will.

I don't think so, since the Great Plains have a dispraportionate amount of power in the Senate. (btw is your handle from the Suikoden series?)

I still think for an inane reason the bill won't be passed. Eventually, yes. But not right now as is, just because someone will find a loophole in it.

 

...holy fucking shit. I've NEVER had someone come out and actually say what the hell my name is from. Best I've gotten, was "isn't that from some video game?" Wow. Call me impressed that someone finally got it without me telling what exactly.

[MrRant 0]

I've been telling you your name forever.

 

 

 

Lightning ELK~!

 

 

 

[Guest Cerebus]

I'm thinking that the Senate won't pass this law for some inane reason. I can't think of one off the top of my head, but you better believe someone will.

I don't think so, since the Great Plains have a dispraportionate amount of power in the Senate. (btw is your handle from the Suikoden series?)

I still think for an inane reason the bill won't be passed. Eventually, yes. But not right now as is, just because someone will find a loophole in it.

 

...holy fucking shit. I've NEVER had someone come out and actually say what the hell my name is from. Best I've gotten, was "isn't that from some video game?" Wow. Call me impressed that someone finally got it without me telling what exactly.

It is the second best video game series next to Final Fantasy but this is not the right forum for that

 

(PM if you want to chat more about it...I'm a suikoden freak)

[Guest Smues]

(Viktor is cooler)

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I'm the one who has Luca Blight as his avatar.

[Lightning Flik 0]

Firstly, I think we've got a lot of Suikonuts on the board (and looks like they came out of hiding)

 

Secondly, I know Viktor is much cooler, but back at IGN (originally where I came from) someone had Viktor, so I went with Lightning Flik instead.

 

Thirdly, I wasn't sure if that was Blight or not, I've been meaning to ask, but I just figured it was the Suikonut in me just wanting it to be him. Cool to know that my intuition was right.

 

And this thread has SO deviated from the original purpose. Time to right

the ship.

 

My guess is that they'll find something totally "moraly" wrong with this law and say neigh to it. I'm willing to be that it'll be at least till after the re-election before the law gets passed.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

My guess is that they'll find something totally "moraly" wrong with this law and say neigh to it. I'm willing to be that it'll be at least till after the re-election before the law gets passed.

 

I agree with this line in the article......

 

Mostly Democratic critics, backed by some consumer groups, said the courts, not Congress, should determine when lawsuits are frivolous. North Carolina Democrat Rep. Melvin Watt (news, bio, voting record) said, "There's not a single pending lawsuit now that hasn't been dismissed."

 

Honestly, what's the point of the law? Frivilous lawsuits are hyped in the media, but 99% of them are tossed right out of court. There's no problem, and certainly nothing that requires excess legislation. And if there's nothing to solve, is there a reason this bill SHOULD pass?

[Guest MikeSC]

Mostly Democratic critics, backed by some consumer groups, said the courts, not Congress, should determine when lawsuits are frivolous. North Carolina Democrat Rep. Melvin Watt (news, bio, voting record) said, "There's not a single pending lawsuit now that hasn't been dismissed."

 

Honestly, what's the point of the law? Frivilous lawsuits are hyped in the media, but 99% of them are tossed right out of court. There's no problem, and certainly nothing that requires excess legislation. And if there's nothing to solve, is there a reason this bill SHOULD pass?

Because companies have to spend untold millions every single year on all of these inane lawsuits.

 

Why do you think so many simply settle out of court?

 

I'd be all for a loser-pays system, myself, but there is no way the trial lawyers would EVER allow the Democrats to possibly allow that to pass.

-=Mike

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

A loser pays all system would place FAR too much power in the hands of people who can afford the benefit of proper counsil. Now if there was some kind of penalty for bringing a frivilous lawsuit upon the courts, I could see that.

[Guest MikeSC]

A loser pays all system would place FAR too much power in the hands of people who can afford the benefit of proper counsil. Now if there was some kind of penalty for bringing a frivilous lawsuit upon the courts, I could see that.

As it stands now, plaintiffs can file NUMEROUS suits for any reason and never really suffer a penalty. This is why people sue over coffee being too hot and the like.

 

This will make people stop and think and turn us away from this overly litigious society that we have become.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

A loser pays all system would place FAR too much power in the hands of people who can afford the benefit of proper counsil.  Now if there was some kind of penalty for bringing a frivilous lawsuit upon the courts, I could see that.

As it stands now, plaintiffs can file NUMEROUS suits for any reason and never really suffer a penalty. This is why people sue over coffee being too hot and the like.

 

This will make people stop and think and turn us away from this overly litigious society that we have become.

-=Mike

Unless they're lawyers themselves or can find probono work for thier silly lawsuits then they have to pay the cost, and trouble, of writing up a complaint.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

As it stands now, plaintiffs can file NUMEROUS suits for any reason and never really suffer a penalty. This is why people sue over coffee being too hot and the like.

 

This will make people stop and think and turn us away from this overly litigious society that we have become.

-=Mike

 

Honestly, I don't think our country is overly litigious. The media has alot to do with it, by displaying the most egregious examples of frivilous lawsuits, but these cases are far from the norm, and rarely, if ever, make it to trial.

 

As for the McDonalds coffee lawsuit, that case is about ten years old at this point. Aren't there any other examples of a friviolous lawsuit succeeding that we can refer to?

[Lando Griffin 0]

Not to mention that the McDonalds coffee lawsuit wasn't that frivolous to begin with.

[Guest Cerebus]

As it stands now, plaintiffs can file NUMEROUS suits for any reason and never really suffer a penalty. This is why people sue over coffee being too hot and the like.

 

This will make people stop and think and turn us away from this overly litigious society that we have become.

-=Mike

 

Honestly, I don't think our country is overly litigious. The media has alot to do with it, by displaying the most egregious examples of frivilous lawsuits, but these cases are far from the norm, and rarely, if ever, make it to trial.

 

As for the McDonalds coffee lawsuit, that case is about ten years old at this point. Aren't there any other examples of a friviolous lawsuit succeeding that we can refer to?

And it really wasn't that frivolous. A similar case had occured not too long before and a judge had warned McDonalds to lower the temperature of their coffee nationwide, which they didn't. That was the reason the suit got so high.

[Guest MikeSC]

As it stands now, plaintiffs can file NUMEROUS suits for any reason and never really suffer a penalty. This is why people sue over coffee being too hot and the like.

 

This will make people stop and think and turn us away from this overly litigious society that we have become.

-=Mike

 

Honestly, I don't think our country is overly litigious. The media has alot to do with it, by displaying the most egregious examples of frivilous lawsuits, but these cases are far from the norm, and rarely, if ever, make it to trial.

 

As for the McDonalds coffee lawsuit, that case is about ten years old at this point. Aren't there any other examples of a friviolous lawsuit succeeding that we can refer to?

Ask Wal-Mart if we aren't a bit too litigious. Ask anybody who makes any medicine.

 

I'll give you a hint: We have directions on HOW TO USE SHAMPOO.

 

Do you know why?

 

Odds are, some inept dunce SCREWED UP and sued.

-=Mike

[Guest hunger4unger]

From a British standpoint I would say that the US is too litigious. There also seems to be a "compensation culture" over there which is slowly sneaking into the UK. I'm happy about this descision to allow the ban on obesity lawsuits.

[C Dubya 04 0]

Does anyone think that it would be possible to work out a system where if a lawsuit was deemed to be frivilous, the plaintiff would be responsible for all costs? That would be in my mind the ideal situation, but it might make things too ambiguous. I don't think that the loser in all cases should pay the costs associated with them, but in stupid trials they should.

 

I really hope this passes the Senate. It's not anyone else's fault if you're a fat fuck. Don't sue McDonalds, stop gorging yourself there.

[Guest MikeSC]

Does anyone think that it would be possible to work out a system where if a lawsuit was deemed to be frivilous, the plaintiff would be responsible for all costs? That would be in my mind the ideal situation, but it might make things too ambiguous. I don't think that the loser in all cases should pay the costs associated with them, but in stupid trials they should.

 

I really hope this passes the Senate. It's not anyone else's fault if you're a fat fuck. Don't sue McDonalds, stop gorging yourself there.

I like the idea --- but I don't think it'd work in a practical sense.

 

Not many judges would be willing to say the suit is totally frivolous --- and all of the appeals of that would take forever.

-=Mike

[C Dubya 04 0]

Yeah, I don't really think that would work either, but it would be nice. Stop clogging our legal system with stupid BS.

 

On the appeals side of things, at least the plaintiffs would be paying out the ass even more on those. The defendents wouldn't even need to be involved.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

What exactly does England do regarding this -- They have some sort of scheme that makes Defendants pay for court costs if they lose. Is this for every kind of trial or ones seen as frivolous?...

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

In Canada, the loser pays for the court costs of both parties.

[Guest Cerebus]

I know in the case of major lawuits that go in favor of the defendant the judge DOES make them pay legal fees...I don't feel like looking it up anybody else want to?

[Guest hunger4unger]

Who ever loses pays the court costs, unless the CPS lose a case where I think the costs are borne by the government.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Approved on a 276-139 vote, the bill came up one day after health officials announced that obesity was on the verge of surpassing tobacco use as the leading preventable cause of death in the United States and urged people to exercise more and eat a balanced diet.

Well you know Big Tobacco would do anything to get obesity in #1.

 

"I'll give you a hint: We have directions on HOW TO USE SHAMPOO.

 

Do you know why?

 

Odds are, some inept dunce SCREWED UP and sued."

 

Reminds me of a joke. A guy is having a nasty case of hemorrhoids, and sees his doctor. Doctor prescribes some suppositories, says to take one a day for a week and call him back. Guy comes back, says his hemmorhoids are even worse. Doctor is puzzled, he checks it out, and the guy was right. Doctor says to take two suppositories a day for this week and come back in a week. Once again, the case gets even worse. Doctor looks at the patient and says "what the hell are you doing with these, eating them?" The guys says "Well what do you THINK I'm doing, sticking them up my ass?"

[Vyce 0]

Honestly, I don't think our country is overly litigious.

 

Speaking as someone halfway through law school, I can most assuredly tell you that you could not be more wrong.

 

We sue over everything here. And often do, for money, or just for shits & giggles.

[Guest Cerebus]

Vyce is half way through law school? God help us all...