House Resolution 339, A.K.A. the “Cheeseburger Bill” was sent on to the United States Senate a few days ago (you can see the House roll call here), and hopes to
[P]revent legislative and regulatory functions from being usurped by civil liability actions brought or continued against food manufacturers, marketers, distributors, advertisers, sellers, and trade associations for claims of injury relating to a person’s weight gain, obesity, or any health condition associated with weight gain or obesity.
Seems pretty straight-forward, no? Well after reading the comments on CalPundit’s current post on the matter, it seems that there are a lots of folks who don’t really know what they’re talking about.
Many claimed that this bill was pointless because the frivolous suits are already being thrown out. The fact that they’re already being thrown out certainly precludes any future frivolous suits from going to trial, then, right? Makes perfect sense. And that’s precisely what GW Law Professor and notorious tort-law-shark John Banzhaf wants you to think. “Somewhere there is going to be a judge and a jury that will buy this, and once we get the first verdict, as we did with tobacco, it will open the floodgates,” he says.
Several also tried to turn those of us who support personal responsibility into hypocrites, trying to claim that we don’t think corporations out to be held responsible. Utter bullshit, really. What it comes down to is a definition that a restaurant CANNOT be responsible if your dumb-ass chooses to eat lots of fatty food. This fact is without regard for advertisements, how tasty the food is, or who the ads are targeted at. You’re the one stuffing your mouth, if you wind up weighing 400lbs, that’s your own damn fault. Period.
There was the borderline legitimate argument that society ought to care because the number of obesity deaths and diseases are increasing, thereby increasing health-care costs for everyone. So OF COURSE we should be allowed to sue the restaurants for getting us fat, right? Because when the Tobacco companies were sued, the plaintiffs got all of the money, right? Wrong. In fact, back in November a law firm that represented Massachusetts sued the state for $2 Billion, their 25% cut of the $8 Billion settlement. Apparently the $775 Million that the state was offering was just not quite enough.
Ignoring the fact that I’ve seen no credible statistics to support this opinion, the logic is that people sue Fast Food companies, Fast Food pays ridiculous sums of money, and therefore the cost of Fast Food goes up, allowing consumers to pay for the “damage” that they’ve caused [to themselves]. Maybe we ought to just levy an additional income tax people who are over-weight. That’d be a more appropriate solution to the “problem” if being overweight is indeed the cause of so much health-care expense. After all, why should someone who doesn’t gorge themselves on fast food have to pay for those that do?
Another argument levied against the bill is that it exempts corporations from the justice system. Not so. In fact, the bill specifically allows “action[s] in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly and willfully violated a Federal or State statute applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, distribution, advertisement, labeling, or sale of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of injury.”
So basically what the law is saying is that you’re not allowed to sue because you ate too much. If the advertisements are misleading or the labeling is wrong, you still have a case. If you’re just a dumbass that doesn’t exercise enough, tough shit.
The final thing that annoyed me was the amount of belly-aching that went on over how hard it was to find out nutrition information at McDonalds. Yes, it’s apparently an EPIC ADVENTURE to walk across the restaurant to the Super-Sized poster on the wall that has all of the info on it. One not-so brilliant commenter, CatM, said this:
My local McDonald’s has NO brochures but does have a big poster up on the wall. It’s not very useful unless you want to get out of line and run over there–or have it memorized.
Let’s all feel sorry for her, shall we? This poor, poor soul that has to GET OUT OF LINE to go find out if the double quarter-pounder with cheese (super-sized) and coke that she’s about to order has too much fat in in. Cry. Me. A river. Let’s also not forget that the nutrition information is TWO CLICKS away from McDonald’s front page. (First click “EAT SMART” on the main menu, then click “Nutrition Info”)
This is instructive of the real problem. People SHOULD be taking the time to read this stuff, but instead they get fat and hire attorneys to reimburse them for their past idiocy. Our not-so-brilliant commenter from before also offered this gem:
I actually think it’s good that people can at least file lawsuits because it brings attention to the unhealthy fare served by fast food places and has forced many of them to make some much needed changes. Without this kind of attention, I think they’ll go back to their wicked ways of encouraging people to stuff their faces. Most people when asked whether they want to “Supersize” for only 30 more cents! don’t run over to the calorie wall chart first to see how many more calories that will be.
Their “wicked ways!” Oh, heavens no! Hey! I’ve got an idea… let’s BURN THEM AT THE STAKE! Listen, lady… not only do I like my super-sized value meal, I need it, ok? I need it to keep from withering away to nothing because, unlike some people, I actually get enough exercise to justify eating copious quantities of fatty foods. Just because people like you can’t be bothered to turn your brains on before “stuffing your face” doesn’t mean that people like me should have to do without.
At the end of the day, what it comes down to is that if you can’t watch what you eat and exercise enough to cover it, you’re going to be fat. Period. You know what’s going to happen when McDonald’s starts labeling their food? Nothing. EVERYBODY KNOWS that stuff is fatty and caloric. You want to know what’s going to happen when fast food chains are required to change their menus? People will find their fatty, unhealthy, but yummy dinners somewhere else… and they’ll still get fat.
So until I hear a reasonable scenario where someone else could be to blame for a person’s obesity, I have to believe that this bill is a good thing.
Now I think I’m going to McDonalds to get a super-sized value meal while they still exist. Fat, carbs, and calories be damned.
it’s kind of funny that it’s named the ‘Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act’ when the bill states that a liabilty suit can not procedd unless quote “the product was not in compliance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.” Government presupposition of personal responsibility always kind of annoys me. Take your weight onto your own hands but leave the power in ours. Civil law isn’t supposed to be legislatively mandated, that’s precisely why it’s civil law. Cause of action is best left up to judicial discretion. The one jury, one judge, thing doesn’t stand either. One sympathetic judge’s ruling can be easily reversed on appeal which typically involves several judges. In most jurisdictions statutory violation is cause for determination of negligence per se. This is typically the limit of what role legislators play in impacting causes for foundation facts on negligence in tort law. The tobacco example draws attention away from the fact that most of the largest tobacco settlements involved cases where false advertising or failure to observe health mandates were claimed as part of the suit, thus statutory negligence existed and as such these cases would have proceeded even if similalry worded legislation existed in regards to tobacco distributors. Tort law EXISTS in order to provide people with the ability to impact society without involving governmental criminal prosection. In addition to compensating victims it establishes guidelines in much the same way as criminal law. I’m reminded of a quote that I saw in which a child looking at some steps allong Niagara Falls(owned.maintained by some tourist guide company) asked her father “are those safe?” The father immediately thought to himself- they must be, or someone would get their ass sued off. Liability forces people and organizations to act with a reasonable amount of care and discretion, or face the consequences. None of this has anything to do with whether or not some fat ass should be able to get compensated by McDonals. Don’t confuse issues with policy, they’re not the same. The issue is people sueing fast food restaurants… it’s unimportant, passing, trivial … The policy question is should the legislature be allowed to usurp the judiciary? This is important, precedent setting and long term. Change happens slowly, but it does happen. Each step is small, but existant. And often times that is why it goes unnoticed. But we shouldn’t solve a small problem with a solution that could negatively impact one of the most important basic concepts of our government : seperation of powers. Let them sue whoever they want, hopefully they won’t win ( I doubt they will) and in the mean time the fast food companies will adapt and defend themselves through legal means. Don’t feel too bad for burger king, I have a feeling they’ll be OK. I do feel bad that Pete can’t get his supersized value meals, but in reality there is nothing saying that they can’t sell you 2 meals at a 10& discount.
-Matt
There’s nothing saying that they can’t super-size the value meals, either… I’m still not clear on whether they decided against it to avoid law suits or just because they decided it wasn’t as profitable, but no matter, it’s still irksome.
I’m not so sure that this sort of legislation breaks down separation of powers. To me, this is reaffirmation of checks and balances.
Consider this: we’re all taught in grade-school civics that the legislative branch writes the laws, the executive branch enforces them, and the judicial branch interprets them… if the legislature feels that a law is being misinterpreted or misused, one of it’s checks on the judicial branch is to re-write the law or introduce new legislation.
In this case, the legislature is saying “No, that’s not what we meant. It’s not McDonald’s fault that you’re fat.” Would any of these cases get through in the absence of this law? Maybe, maybe not. The fact is, though, that the mere existence of the suits costs corporations money and wastes time.
If there are no false-positives in this bill — parties who have a legitimate complaint who are not allowed to sue — then hopefully it will keep innocent parties out of court at the hands of the trial lawyers.
Just my 2 cents… thanks for your comment!