Another stand on stupidity.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday that would block lawsuits by people who blame fast-food chains for their obesity.What do you know, someone actually wants people to be accountable for their gluttony. But not everyone.
The "cheeseburger bill," as it has been dubbed in Congress, stems from class-action litigation that accused McDonald's of causing obesity in children.
The legislation's backers say matters of personal responsibility don't belong in the courts.
"Congress has allowed the need of big corporations before the need of our children," said Rep. Bob Filner, D-California.Shock, they're from California. Mommy state Xtreme.
Oh, wait, Vermont is against it also:
Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., voted against the measure, saying it seeks to "protect large corporations from legitimate consumer lawsuits."I don't think his points add up. Is this a legitimate lawsuit or not? If not, then why should a jury even hear it? Or is he trying to say that the courts should be deciding on what is frivolous?"If you eat a lot of high calorie junk food, you should not be surprised that you gain weight," Sanders said. "I think most people understand that and wouldn't award anyone money if they were on a jury and someone was trying to collect because they gained weight eating at McDonalds."
2 comments:
I heard a bit about this on the news as I was passing by the TV the other day and yes, the Senator you mentioned didn't think McDonald's should be sued, but didn't think the lawsuits should be stopped by legislation. I would tend to agree with him, but I find it hard to believe that lawyers will ever police themselves. The courts can keep finding against the plaintiffs on these things, but there will always be some lawyer willing to take on a similar case on the chance of a big payoff. If this legislation stops that giant waste of time and money, dandy.
I honestly think that defining frivolous is a good thing for the legislature. Unfortunately, they generally so vague with their definitions that they screw up the beneficial parts of the court process.
In this case and in the The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act are both instances where the definition of frivolous is well justified.
Post a Comment