Interesting Law Suit
 

Just found this story online..

Woman Sues Snack Food Makers For Destroying Diet
A woman who claims her diet aspirations were thwarted by corn and rice puffs containing more fat than was indicated on the label is suing the makers of the snack food for $50 million. Meredith Berkman, 37, says that instead of losing weight, she gained weight and suffered "mental anguish, outrage and indignation" because the Pirate's Booty brand of corn and rice puffs contained more than three times the fat content on the label. The snacks were recalled in January after the Good Housekeeping Institute found the products contained 147 calories and 8.5 grams of fat per serving, instead of 120 calories and 2.5 grams of fat, as was claimed by the manufacturer. The makers, Robert's American Gourmet Food, Inc., reportedly attributed the mislabeling to new machinery that changed the nutritional information

If they contained just 27 more calories and 6 more grams of fat than the label claimed, just how many packages did she consume to cause her to gain enough weight worthy enough for a lawsuit?


:?:

Unfortunately, there are a lot of sue happy people around. In New York City a few years ago, a man jumped in front of a subway train, survived, and then sued the Transit Authority because the engineer did not stop the train in time. Also, the woman who sued McDonald's because the coffee was hot. Isn't coffee supposed to be hot? Now the mother of the boy who drove the plane into the building in Florida wants to sue the drug company that makes the acne medicine and blame the drug for his suicide run even though there was no acutane found in his body. As John Stossel would say, "Give Me A Break.":(

and then there's..
 

the woman in jail who left word to her lawyer to sue the jail for not stopping her from committing suicide in her cell! I can't remember if she actually did commit suicide or not

I was just reading a guy's site who sues telemarketers and email spammers for any infraction he can find; he's had several successful cases (I think most of them settle out of court). I have mixed feelings about that -- I despise spammers and telemarketers and would love to stick it to them, but this world is already too lawsuit-happy. Kind of seems like to creating a problem while trying to solve another.

kiwi

My husband's lawyer uncle told me of a lawsuit where a man tried to break into someone's house while they were on vacation. He only made it into the garage. He inadvertantly locked himself in the garage and survived for a week on dogfood and pepsi, the only food in the garage. When the owners returned home, he sued them and (get this) won. What a world to live in!

Well is it the people that are sick OR the justice dept ? It makes you just shake your head and say what am I doing wrong here. Here I work hard, pay my bills, put my blinker on when I'm making a turn and they reward someone who eats kibbles & bits.... go figure ? :lol:

But no matter what crazy nonsense goes on here, I still wouldnt want to be anywhere else in this world than here in the Good Old U.S.A.

:D

Other than good old Canada perhaps!:lol: Liz

wow!
 

that is amazing. these lawsuits where a person puts themselves in harms way on purpose and suffer are wrong in blaming the victim.

they may be winning in the courts but that doesn'tmake it right.

also because of sue happy people I won't let anyone near my horse pet my horse or feed or anything with my horse.

the neighbors that just moved it asked if I could let their daughter who is horse crazy if she could pet my horse and feed her carrots. I explained due to liability issues I have to say no.

he understood. It is a shame that I cannot share my love of horses with a little girl because of fear of being sued, even if I am the one wronged not the person who is suing me because the horse stepped on their toes or bit them when they tried to feed the horse an apple.

it is a wicked world when bad is good and good is bad.

If this has all ready been addressed my apologies.
For some reason the servers aren't refreshing
right this second so I can't find out. *g*

Regarding the coffee lawsuit. McDonalds was
completely and totally responsible for the burns
Ms. Liebeck suffered. They comprised 6% of her
79 year old body including but not limited to
inner things, genitals, perineum, buttocks and
groin.

She was a passenger in the car, not the driver.
The cup tipped and spilled into her lap as she
was adding cream and sugar. The car was stopped
at the time.

3rd degree burns. 8 days in hospital skin grafts
and debridement. Permanent scaring.

She tried to settle with McDonalds for the cost
of the hospital bill. $20000. They offered her
$800. She asked for mediation. They refused.

At the time of the incident McDonalds required
there coffee to be maintained at 185 degrees.
Coffee is normally found at 135 to 140.

The testimony proved 3rd degree burns will result
in any food/liquid over 180 within 2 to 7 seconds.
Hot becomes a hazard over 145 degrees period.

Over 700 people before Ms Liebeck had experience
burns. McDonalds knew this. Some were also 3rd
degree.

Previous requests from consumers and safety organizations to lower the temperature had been ignored.

The reason for the higher temp? Cheaper grade of
coffee which saved them money on free refills.

There own executives testified that they felt
it would be more fincially sound to pay claims
and worker's compensation benefits to people burned by their coffee, versus making any of
the changes being asked of them.

i.e. Better grade of coffee, lower temp thus resulting in possibly free and or more refills.

Some of the kinder remarks the presiding Judge
made concerning there conduct included wanton reckless and callous.

The jury initially awarded Ms Liebeck the sales
from 2 days worth of coffee as punitive damages.

The Judge Reduced that amount to $600,000.00

Burns are horrific for any age but when one
also considers the thinness and fragility skin affords chidren and elders?

It honestly makes me shudder. Had it happened to
my Mother I would have done my best to make sure
we weren't shuddering alone.

To find it's all in the name of curtailing the
number of free refills you might be obliged
to honor? *insert rude noise here*

Trust me. I want my hot stuff hot and my cold
stuff cold. :)

I don't however expect to require skin grafts
as an end result of that desire on my part.

Sorry for the soap box, but this is one case
they garnered a great deal of bad press on the
part of Ms. Liebeck with McDonalds coming across
as doing nothing wrong.

When they most assuredly did.

Skew

I totally understand your view Skew and I can sympathize with the lady, but coffee is supposed to be hot and people know this. It's one of those situations where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Because people are going to complain if they don't get hot coffee and they are going to complain if it is too hot and they spill it on themselves. And not to say this woman was in the wrong but when you know you have a cup of "hot" coffee wouldn't you be extra careful? People do stupid things and want to be compensated for it, and the sad part is they are.

Too many people are sue happy to a point it is ridiculous. Like the kids suing because they said the fast food places made them fat. Come on. Anyone who frequents a fast food place on a daily basis and is eating big macs and such knows this food is fattening. What do they think? They are going to lose weight?!

Well put Cristi!

Liz

We'll agree to disagree on this one then. :) *g*

This was never a case of a customer simply complaining that for "her" the product was "too"
hot for comfort.

And absolutely I agree with you, many nonsense
suits are just that, total nonsense.
Just not this particular one. :)

This was a case of a major corporation ignoring
a burn hazard they were aware of simply for the
sake of a higher profit margin.

Yes! I too expect hot to be hot and cold to be
cold. [Luke warm stuff bites. *g*]

Yes if we spill a cup of freshly purchased hot
coffee in our lap we expect it to be hot and
not terribly comfortable.

We don't expect it to be "so" hot we'll need skin
grafts. Nor should we.

Hand washing and showers.
115 degrees for adults
100 for babies.
Dishwashers between 130 and 140

Hot water heaters max setting 140
generally pre set from the factory.
Its recommended to reset at120 to avoid scalding accidents.

[Most dishwashers have a heating element that makes up the difference from the tank temperature.]

Which to me, shows how egregious McDonalds was
in maintaining the temperature of their product.

A product that's ingested, generally speaking by those on the go, was being served 65 degrees
hotter then what's recommended for our home hot
water heaters.

I mean if we're capable of sanitizing our dishes at 140 why in the world would 185 seem like a
dandy idea for something we drink? Knowing if
"it's" spilled severe burns will result.
Not can Will.

All I know of Ms. Liebeck is what I researched during the time of the incident. But knowing she
was of the same generation as my Mom they as a
group, weren't ones to make waves or question
their perceptions of authority.

[The concept of disagreeing with say a Teacher or Dr. took years to achieve as their absolute right and privilege. To them it simply wasn't done.]

Automatically thinking "lawsuit" when harmed or simply ticked off, wasn't the way the majority
of them were taught to live and conduct their lives.

She to my mind was not capricious in what she was seeking, which was simply payment for her hospital bill. She went through all the proper procedures to Not go to court until there was no other option left open to her.

No matter how hard the spin doctors for McDonalds worked at playing the "their the real victim here" card when all the facts were revealed it didn't play with the jury nor the judge.

Sorry *g* But yes, I was in total agreement with
the verdict rendered and the monetary judgment
awarded.

Although I did feel it was a tad on the low side... :)

Skew

I wasn't referring to the lady about the complaints but "people" in general because I see it all the time. Sure this lady had the right to sue McDonalds because "she" spilled "hot" coffee on herself. It is apparent that "anyone" has the right to sue anyone over anything now days. Again I sympathize with her and had it been me I wouldn't go after McDonald's, it's just not something I would do if "I" made the mistake. Coffee is supposed to be hot, sodas are supposed to be cold, etc. Anyway, as you said we will agree to disagree. :)

LindaT, that is funny! I too would like to know how much she ate to make her fat.

All these cases are ridiculous and that is what I am talking about. I mean come on, you break into someone's house and get compensated for it? What is up with that?

Leens, you are right I do think it is the justice system. What kind of attorney would even consider cases such as these? People know they can get compensated for doing ridiculous things and that is sad.

Kiwonk, that is crazy!:dizzy:

The case that sparked this thread is interesting in and of
itself. At first glance it would seem to be bogus.

If it is considered a nonsense suit and summarily dismissed
as such, with nothing in the way of consequences to the
manufacturer, other companies might decide to test the waters.
Lets for the sake of argument say some do.

We're mainly here due to the fact we're utilizing some form
of food modification to achieve a weight loss.

No matter the plan, fat grams, lower carbs, no sugar, lower
calories etc. etc. we now read labels and buy those products
that fit into our new eating plan and subsequent weight loss.

Say for example we now buy and consume 10 new to us
products based on the government issued nutritional information
listing on the back, that will work within the confines of what
we now choose to eat.

5 of them tell the absolute truth and 5 of them fudge.
We work our program, we don't cheat, we follow the guidelines
and we trust in the fact no one is lying to us.

During the course of the year we notice the weight and inches
aren't coming off as expected. We figure it's "us."
We're not working hard enough or we're eating the wrong things.
But wait. We are eating the appropriate food[s].
We are exercising.
We did the research, we read the labels, we're doing our part.

We keep working.

By years end a few things can be presumed based on the
level the 5 manufacturers fudged their numbers.

We consumed enough additional, unknow to us, calories,
carbs and fat grams to stymie our weight loss program,
from a possible loss of 50 pounds to a net loss of 25.

Or we broke even.

Some of us based on gender, pre-existing medical conditions,
and age might have gainned weight.

Personally I would want more in the way of sanctions to those
manufacturers that lied, then the corporate equivalent of
"my bad." Preferably against the first fudger before others
decided it was okay to modify there numbers too.

Now is it "worth" 57 million? Well it got there attention..
Pretty much what it was designed to do. I doubt anyone
including her lawyer thinks that would be amount of the
judgment, were Robert's to be found guilty.

Would certainly hope Robert's checks into that magic
machinery the company is using, though. The ones that can
change the nutritional information label without any data entry
personnel being involved?

Don't know about y'all but I wouldnt be the one to work late...
Just me and the machines...Nope not gonna happen.

No telling what they know how to do...
*insert X file's theme music* ;)

Skew

Sorry, I'd change what I was eating, not go suing people because I'm fat. They can't lie that much about their product. Maybe we could sue the sisters if we haven't lost weight since we visit this site all the time.