1. UNIT 3 SEMINAR LET’S GET STARTED: MCDONALD’S OBESITY CASE - TIMELINE vs.

2. ASSIGNMENT McDonald's Obesity Case Let’s take what you have learned in this unit and put it all together. We have explored litigation lawsuits, particularly the elements of a tort lawsuit and the types of damages involved. We have also examined the role of fault in lawsuits. How do lawsuits begin? How does the public respond to cases? Negligence, as we have learned, is a type of tort wherein an injured person proves that another person acted negligently to cause injury to the plaintiff, entitling the plaintiff to recover damages to compensate for harm or injury. It is interesting to look at how a negligence case begins, how fault is determined, and how the courts examine these cases. The Phillip Morris tobacco lawsuit was a huge lawsuit involving many issues, but one was negligence on the part of the tobacco company. Click here to see a short synopsis of the timeline for this lawsuit, which begins in 1999 and ends in 2007

3. . Overview of the Case: In the following case, several obese teenagers claimed that McDonald's was to blame for their obesity. The lawsuit was originally filed in 2002 by the parents of two teenage girls on behalf of their daughters. Ashley Pelmand and Jazlyn Bradley were the teenagers who claimed damages caused by their obesity. They filed a class-action lawsuit against McDonald's Corporation, claiming that McDonald's was negligent and at fault for their obesity. This falls on the heels of adults who are suing McDonald's for their overweight state. How did this case begin? Where did it start and where did this case end up? In this unit we will be looking at a timeline for this case; examining how a case progresses, how public opinion comes into play, how the courts handle the case, and finally, what the end result is. To prepare for this week's Written Assignment, read some background information about this suit: Another McDonald's Lawsuit--Fat or Fast Food? McLawsuit Reheated: It Doesn't Taste Any Better Lawyers revise obesity lawsuit against McDonald's

4. The whole thing does seem ridiculous--until you meet the plaintiffs. They're kids, and part of being a kid is having a poor idea of what's good for you. Ashley Pelman, 14, Jazlyn Bradley, 19, and several other teenagers say in their suit that "as [a] result" of eating Happy Meals, McMuffins and Big Macs over the years, they "have become obese [and] developed diabetes, coronary heart disease, high blood pressure" and other problems. The young people claim that McDonald's didn't adequately warn them that its meals contained lots of fat, salt and sugar, even as the company pushed bigger, more sinful portions via "supersize" enticements. Their lawyer, Samuel Hirsch, says the chain's kid- focused ads and toy promotions portrayed McDonald's as child friendly, leading his clients to believe it was O.K. to eat there as often as they wished, sometimes two or three times a day. One of the clients, a 400-lb, 15-year-old boy, says he ate at McDonald's nearly every day, beginning at age 6; he now has diabetes.

5. McDonald's responds that it "is no more responsible for an individual's overall diet and lifestyle choices than any other food destination, whether it's your own kitchen, local restaurant or grocery store." In other words, you can't say McDonald's caused you to be fat unless the company force-fed you Quarter Pounders from birth. "Every responsible person understands what is in products such as hamburgers and fries, as well as the consequences to one's waistline, and potentially to one's health, of excessively eating those foods," McDonald's lawyers argued in a court brief. But while every responsible person may understand that, surely every child doesn't. Which raises the question of what the parents were doing when these kids were scarfing down all those burgers. Israel Bradley, father of Jazlyn, said in an affidavit that he "always believed McDonald's was healthy for my children." He says he never saw any information about ingredients at his local Mickey D's. Perhaps not. But any parent who has to look at a chart to know that French fries are fatty probably isn't serving macrobiotic health shakes at home. U.S. District Court Judge Robert Sweet may decide that a restaurant should bear no more responsibility than a parent--in which case this suit will be flame broiled. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003804,00.html#ixzz 1aUITfkjb http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003804,00.html#ixzz 1aUITfkjb

6. The McFatties are back. A month after a federal district judge dismissed their class action lawsuit against McDonald's, a group of overweight children and their parents filed a new complaint against the fast food giant maintaining that Ronald, Grimace and the Hamburglar must pay up for childhood obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and heart disease. The revised lawsuit alleges that McDonald's misled consumers by getting them to believe that fast food fare was nutritious and "could easily be consumed as part of a balanced diet and lifestyle without any detrimental health effects." Furthermore, the new claims plead total ignorance on the part of the Super Sized kids because the Big Macs, Chicken McNuggets, Filets-O-Fish, and French Fries they ate with reckless abandon "were so processed with additives and other ingredients and preservatives as to create a danger and hazard unknown to... consumers." Despite the tremendous legal stamina exhibited by the overweight, out-of-shape plaintiffs, their reprocessed allegations constitute nothing more

7. than reheating bad leftovers. The judge already ruled "that legal consequences should not attach to the consumption of hamburgers and other fast food fare unless consumers are unaware of the dangers of eating such food." For this reason, "one necessary element of any potentially viable claim must be that McDonald[']s products involve a danger that is not within the common knowledge of consumers," according to the court. Seizing upon these comments, the plaintiffs' latest complaint dwells upon their lack of dietary knowledge in an effort to prove they didn't understand that eating a Quarter Pounder a day wouldn't keep the doctor away. Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that McDonald's is to blame and must pay for their weighty health problems since the less- than-tiny tots couldn't name every last ingredient in the food handed to them in a paper bag via the drive-thru window. But a lack of such knowledge does not make McDonald's liable for the unfortunate — but far from unforeseen — consequences of the youths' daily consumption choices. As explained by the judge when he "deep fried" the original complaint, as long as "a person knows or should know that eating copious orders... of McDonald[']s is unhealthy and may result in weight gain (and its concomitant problems)... it is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excesses."

8. It is wholly irrelevant that the plaintiffs may not have known all the "McFrankenstein" ingredients that made up their daily unbalanced diets. The only legally important question is whether they understood that regularly chowing down on fast foods could enlarge their waistlines and constrict their arteries. There is simply no question but that the corpulent complainers knew — or, at least, should have known — that a daily diet of fast food could cause significant health and weight difficulties. After all, "[i]t is well-known that fast food in general, and McDonald[']s products in particular, contain high levels of cholesterol, fat, salt, and sugar, and that such attributes are bad for one," as the judge pointed out a month ago. Based upon this common knowledge, the hurdle is still too high for the plaintiffs to succeed in picking McDonald's deep pockets for their own overindulgences.

9. NEW YORK, New York (CNN) -- Lawyers who last month couldn't get a federal judge to bite on their claims that McDonald's food was responsible for making their clients fat went back to the counter for a second helping Thursday, filing a revised complaint accusing the fast food giant of making misleading nutritional claims. The original complaint was dismissed on January 22 by U.S. District Court Judge Robert Sweet, who said plaintiffs failed to show that McDonald's food was "dangerous in any way other than that which was open and obvious to a reasonable consumer." But he gave lawyers for the obese McDonald's eaters 30 days to amend the complaint to try to establish that there were dangers that were "not commonly well known." In the revised complaint, attorney Samuel Hirsch accused McDonald's of "deceptive practices in the advertising, processing and sale of foods, including Chicken McNuggets, Filet-O-Fish, Chicken Sandwich, french fries and hamburgers." Hirsch asked for class-action status for the suit on behalf of "hundreds of thousands of New York state residents under the age of 18" who suffer health problems as a result of eating McDonald's food.

10. In the 46-page complaint, Hirsch alleged that McDonald's does not make its nutritional information "adequately available" and said numerous claims made by the fast-food chain are misleading and untrue. While a McDonald's nutritional booklet claims the fish in a Filet-O-Fish is "100 percent cod with a pinch of salt to taste after cooking," the list of ingredients for the sandwich includes modified corn starch, dextrose, cellulose gum, citric acid and an anti-foaming agent called dimethylpolysiloxane, the complaint alleges. The suit also alleges that while McDonald's claimed in advertisements that its beef is nutritious and leaner than beef purchased in a supermarket, the levels of saturated fat and cholesterol would not make the beef nutritious. The United States Department of Agriculture has also found that meat used in fast-food outlets was generally fattier than retail meat purchased in grocery stores, the complaint said. In a statement McDonald's called the new lawsuit "senseless" and accused the plaintiffs of "focusing on only one food organization." "McDonald's serves quality food and ingredients from quality suppliers and continues to be a leader in providing customers with nutritional information about our food," the statement said.

11. Legal action first of its kind A McDonald's spokesman told CNN in a telephone interview that "eating McDonald's food can easily fit into a balanced diet. I eat its food every day, and I'm perfectly healthy." Lawyers representing McDonald's have also said "every responsible person understands what is in products such as hamburgers and fries, as well as the consequence to one's waistline, and potentially to one's health, of excessively eating those foods over a prolonged period of time." McDonald's lawyers also contend that it would be impossible to establish whether eating at McDonald's was a major cause of ailments because genetics, medical conditions and sedentary lifestyles could also be factors. Company lawyers also warned that if the case were allowed to proceed, "it would lead to an avalanche of litigation."

12. The landmark legal action was the first of its kind against a fast-food chain to make its way into a U.S. courtroom. "Contrary to what many may think, we are not looking to get rich from a large money settlement," Hirsch told CNN. "We are proposing a fund that will educate children about the nutritional facts and contents of McDonald's food." The original suit was filed last August by the parents of two girls who claimed McDonald's and two of its restaurants in the Bronx failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose the ingredients and effects of its food, including high levels of fat, salt, sugar and cholesterol.

13. The plaintiffs argued that McDonald's should be held accountable for the girls' obesity, heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and elevated cholesterol. The girls, also listed as plaintiffs in the revised complaint, are Jazlyn Bradley and Ashley Pelman. Bradley, 19, is 5-feet-6 and weighs 270 pounds; Pelman, 14, is 4-feet-10 and 170 pounds. Bradley said her regular diet included an Egg McMuffin for breakfast and a Big Mac meal for dinner. Pelman preferred Happy Meals and said she ate at McDonald's three or four times a week. Bradley's father, Israel, said he never saw anything in the Bronx restaurants that informed him of the food's ingredients. "I always believed McDonald's was healthy for my children," he said in an affidavit.

14. Assignment: You have now learned more about the McDonald’s case. This is a two-part assignment. For the first part of the assignment: You will provide a timeline of the case, including how and where it started, what steps were involved, and where the case ended. What was the final decision? In this timeline of the case, you will provide a progression in short paragraphs. At the end of your paper, provide the links that you have used to help you understand the progression of this case. Your timeline will begin with a date on the left side of the page and a short paragraph on the right of how this case initially began. You will continue this down the page until you finish the timeline of the suit. For the second part of the assignment: After reading a minimum of ten public news sources on this lawsuit, what do you believe is the common public response to this lawsuit? In a two to four page paper, present the opinion as perceived by the public related to the facts of this case. What are the concerns of this lawsuit? How could public opinion affect the lawsuit? Is this lawsuit affecting other industries? Do you agree or disagree with the general public opinion and why/why not?

15. 10... as having adequately alleged the elements of a GBL § 349 claim. Defendant has failed to show, and this Court fails to see, that the absence of this information makes the complaint vague and conclusory such that defendant cannot interpose a response in good faith. Accordingly, plaintiffs need not confirm that each plaintiff saw or heard each advertisement. Pelman IV, 396 F. Supp. 2d at 445-46. As such, in Pelman IV, this Court did not order the specificity requested by McDonald's, but rather simply ordered Plaintiffs to provide a brief explanation of how they "were aware of the nutritional schemes they allege to have been deceptive." See Pelman IV, 396 F. Supp. 2d 439 (2005). It is concluded that Plaintiffs' SAC complies with this

16. ASSIGNMENT In this two-part assignment, you are expected to: 1.Explain the timeline of a lawsuit. Examine the negligence issues alleged by the plaintiff 2.Analyze the public policy concerns involved in this lawsuit Paper Format: Use Times New Roman or Arial Size, size 12 font. Be sure to double space work and put your name, date, and assignment on each page of the paper. You may use the header function of Microsoft Word to do that if you wish. Use proper grammar, punctuation and spelling. Submit your Written Assignment to the Dropbox by the end of Unit 3. The link to the Dropbox can be found at the top of the classroom page.

17. Consider This You are driving to work in the morning, and it’s rather misty outside. The sun is rising and it looks like it might be a nice day later on, but it’s a little foggy now. You just had a sip of your Starbucks coffee as you listen to your favorite tunes on the radio. You receive a cell phone call from your son. He missed the bus again. You call your husband to pick up your son. He agrees. Done. You’re happy as you continue on your usual route to work. The speed limit is 30, but you usually drive about 36 miles an hour as all the other traffic does. You feel that you are keeping up with traffic. After all, you’ve driven this route for five years, and you’ve never had a ticket.

18. As you round the curve, you see a woman crossing the street to pick up her mail. You slam on the brakes, but it’s slippery and as you slow down your car slides over to the side of the road. You hit with woman with your car. She suffers severe injuries and will have a permanent limp for the rest of her life. Questions to Ponder... Do you believe you were negligent in this action? The plaintiff wants money to be compensated for the medical bills, physical therapy treatment, and lost wages from her job that she will have to leave due to her incapacity to work as a landscaper. She is claiming damages in the amount of $800,000. How will she prove negligence in her claim against you? Are you considered a tortfeasor?

19. One’s duty under the tort of negligence is judged by the standard of care that an ordinary prudent person would use in same circumstances. Legislatures have designed statutes to protect the public in instances where negligence is involved in certain situations. We will discuss the case of a dog bite and negligence. For our Town Hall meeting this week, we will discuss a fact pattern. First, watch a video that relates to the scenario (with a little humor involved). In this scenario, a person enters a hotel to find out how much a hotel room is. The customer is talking to the desk clerk and is bitten by a dog. The clerk claims that the dog is not his dog. Is the desk clerk liable? Can negligence be proven in this situation? In preparation for our Town Hall meeting, locate your state statute regarding dog bites. You can do this by using a search engine such as Google. You can search for your state statute and search for the words dog bite. For instance, Minnesota's statutes can be found here. If I search within thislink for dog bite, I would find this statute. Perform the same research for your state, find your state's dog bite statute, and come to seminar prepared to share what you have learned. Putting together what we have learned this far, would the plaintiff be entitled to any compensation? Why or why not? Be able to support your answer.

20. 347.22 DAMAGES, OWNER LIABLE. If a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is acting peaceably in any place where the person may lawfully be, the owner of the dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked or injured to the full amount of the injury sustained. The term "owner" includes any person harboring or keeping a dog but the owner shall be primarily liable. The term "dog" includes both male and female of the canine species. History: 1951 c 315 s 11951 c 315 s 1; 1980 c 347 s 1; 1986 c 4441980 c 347 s 1

21. Illinois is a strict liability state. Overview Emotional distress Pending legislation Litigation forms and other materials for attorneys If your case involves injury to a dog, see What To Do If Your Dog Is Injured or Killed If your case involves injury to a dog, see What To Do If Your Dog Is Injured or Killed Overview The State of Illinois has a statute that makes the owner of any animal (whether or not a dog) liable for injuries to people, whether or not caused by a bite, without negligence on the part of the owner. "Owner" means any person having a right of property in an animal, or who keeps or harbors an animal, or who has it in his care, or acts as its custodian, or who knowingly permits a dog to remain on any premises occupied by him or her. (510 ILCS 5/2.16.)

22. The relevant part of the Animal Control Act is as follows: 510 ILCS 5/16:Sec. 16. If a dog or other animal, without provocation, attacks, attempts to attack, or injures any person who is peaceably conducting himself or herself in any place where he or she may lawfully be, the owner of such dog or other animal is liable in civil damages to such person for the full amount of the injury proximately caused thereby. A dog bite victim can bring a claim against a dog owner based upon the foregoing statute. Additionally, a victim can reach owners and other potential defendants, such as the custodian of the dog, on the ground of negligence or negligence per se. Click hereClick here to read the Illinois statutes, entitled be "Animal Control Act." Click here to download the official jury instruction and its annotations, which provide an excellent, comprehensive brief of the elements of the cause of action, as well as the defenses to it. See Legal Rights of Dog Bite Victims in the USA for an overview of the available causes of action.Click hereLegal Rights of Dog Bite Victims in the USA

23. Overview Texas follows the ancient and outdated "one bite rule." This means that legal liability for a dog bite is based on one of the following circumstances: (a) the owner knew that the dog had bitten someone previously or had the dangerous propensity to bite a person, (b) the accident was cause by the negligence of the person handling the dog, (c) the accident was caused by a violation of a leash law, prohibition against dogs trespassing or running at large, or a similar animal control law, or (d) the injury was caused intentionally by the person handling the dog.one bite rule When it is not possible to prove that the dog owner was aware of its dangerous tendency to bite people, the victim can base his claim on negligence. For a short but complete discussion of negligence, see Legal Rights of a Dog Bite Victim. An example of negligence would be keeping a dog such as a pit bull or Rottweiler in a day care center; the owner of the day care center will be held liable if the dog bites a child.Legal Rights of a Dog Bite Victim