23-01-2003 11:41									#31
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet said the plaintiffs, including a 14-year-old girl who is 4-foot-10 and 170 pounds, failed to show McDonald's Corp.(NYSE:MCD - news) products presented a danger unknown to consumers. He also cited concerns the case could "spawn thousands of similar 'McLawsuits"' against all types of restaurants.

The first reason is okay--McD's didn't do anything wrong. That's a good reason to throw out a suit.

But the second reason is a little silly, don't ya thing? You can't sue because others might sue as well? Let's say you get run over by a drunk driver. What's the judge going to say--no suit because lots of people are run over by drunk drivers and we don't want them all suing

	23-01-2003 23:05									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: But the second reason is a little silly, don't ya thing?

It's common. Judges try to limit proximate cause so that the courts aren't overwhelmed.

quote: Because Ito let Johnnie Whats-his-face bring the race card in. He definitely should have brought his foot down.

His foot down? On what grounds?! Jonnie Cochran had every right to assert a race defense.

	23-01-2003 23:21									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You know I remember a few years ago, with all the alcohol, tabacco and gun suits that people JOKED that a suit like this would be brought. That one was, just shows how far we've sunk.

There is huge lawyer money in product litigation. It's to the extent that its starting to warp the system. Read the latest Grisham novel.

	23-01-2003 23:42									#34
	Inflate your Upload Space

Nah!"

	23-01-2003 23:50									#35
	Put an end to popups!

Datajack Franit:

Do you mind if I insult your ethnicity and question your mother's heredity? No? Then kindly knock it off with the fatass commentary. Same goes with others in this thread who seem to get a kick out of these folks losing their lawsuit.

And speaking of the lawsuit, it was right to toss it out. The last time I checked, McDonald's food did *not* contain some sort of addictive substance in it — ala nicotine — that hooked people into *needing* McD's food every day (or every hour) in order to survive. Leave that to the tobacco companies.

Gatekeeper

	24-01-2003 00:00									#36
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

OK I'll play

People need food to survive. Thus it has to be addictive right

True they don't need to eat McDonald's food. They can eat anywhere. But the same is true with cigarrettes. You don't just have to buy one brand. You can buy any brand you like.

OK I'm stretching, but I had to try something.

	24-01-2003 00:30									#37
	Re: McDonald's Obesity Suit Thrown Out Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov See, the American court system isn't entirely ****ed! Now did the judge make the dumbass plaintiffs kick pay McDonald's court costs for bringing such a stupid suit?

What are those fatties waiting for? Sue the judge for preventing them to get a trail - it can't possible be their own fault, their weight are just a little above normal for americans - it must be someone else

	24-01-2003 11:50									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by GP There is huge lawyer money in product litigation. It's to the extent that its starting to warp the system.

Yeah, f'instance it got rid of Corvairs, asbestos and silicon breast implants.

	24-01-2003 12:02									#39
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Dissident big 'n tasty is my nickname for my penis. Just thought I'd let everyone know that.

Now I see why you have the "picking up women" problem and asked for help in the other thread

	24-01-2003 12:09									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

yes big 'n tasty is my pickup line.

	24-01-2003 12:25									#41
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Fact : 100% of the lottery jackpot winners gain weight.

If these fat people would have won the case... I just wonder what would have happened...

	24-01-2003 12:34									#42
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

they would have sued the lawyers that won the case for them.

	24-01-2003 16:50									#43
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc I'm shocked that it took this long to throw it out.

That was pretty quick. Consider the suit was filed, Mc Donalds had 30 days to file a response. Mc Donalds made a motion to dismiss, giving its grounds for dismissal. The plaintiff is then given 30 days to file a response to the Mc Ds motion to dismiss. After the reponse is filed the judge could have then call both parties in to argue their positions. Then the judge take time to make a decision on the motion, again sometimes taking around 30 days. Seeing this was the NY District of the Federal Court, the judge probably is overloaded with cases, I consider this one to be done with fairly quickly. If it had actually gone to trail we would not have gotten a resolution for well over a year.

	24-01-2003 18:12									#44
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui His foot down? On what grounds?! Jonnie Cochran had every right to assert a race defense.

As far as I can tell, the judge can determine what evidence is admissable or not. Besides, IIRC, the race card wasn't in the original defense, so he needed the judge's permission to expand it. Ito should have just denied it.

	24-01-2003 20:40									#45
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Just about any trial court judge would have allowed the expansion. OJ was on trial for his life and most judges allow great leeway in criminal cases of that sort.

	25-01-2003 22:34									#46
	Increase the size of your Attachments

The point being it was not a set-up thing, that LAPD didn't frame Simpson. The whole purpose of the race defense was just that, Simpson got framed. Us vesus them. Since the case wasn't about this, Ito shouldn't have allowed it.

	25-01-2003 23:36									#47
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Um... why shouldn't Ito have allowed a valid defense? I still haven't recieved a valid answer to this. The case wasn't about OJ being framed so he cannot assert the defense that he was framed? That's silly.