Declining to hear an appeal by airlines: “Obese people have the right to two seats for the price of one on flights within Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Thursday.” (Reuters, Nov. 20; CBC). We’ve covered the issue for years, including, e.g., here, here, here (U.S.), here, and here. More thoughts: Scott Greenfield, Ann Althouse.
At American.com, Sara Wexler casts a critical eye at the redlining of new fast-food restaurants out of certain Los Angeles neighborhoods. I hadn’t previously noticed that LA was justifying the ban in part on the claim that South LA’s obese residents are “plac[ing] enormous costs on the California state Medicare system”–as a good an example of the future dangers to freedom of government-run health-care as any.
Governor Schwarzenegger has signed into law the first statewide ban on the use of the maligned ingredient by restaurants and food service facilities. (Samantha Sondag, “Gov. signs nation’s first statewide ban on trans fats in restaurants”, San Francisco Chronicle, Jul. 25).
P.S. Speaking of the nanny state in California, Los Angeles is moving to ban new fast food restaurants from poorer sections of South Central L.A. on the explicitly paternalistic grounds that it knows better than local residents what they should be eating. Prof. Bainbridge has more.
Updates:
What I find so amusing about Dahlia Lithwick’s suggestion of a lengthy warning for Christmas parties isn’t so much the warning itself (others have done that funnier, not to mention the real-life examples), but that Lithwick doesn’t recognize that she’s part of the culture that encourages such ludicrous warnings: in 2003, Lithwick pooh-poohed as “extreme” the need for legislative intervention to prevent courts from going after food providers in obesity lawsuits because, after all, Big Food could survive by “posting warnings.”
The infamous class action litigation seeking to blame McDonald’s for the obesity of putative class members is going forward, having survived a third motion to dismiss. (Mark Hamblett, “N.Y. Judge Rebuffs McDonald’s Motion to Dismiss Deceptive Ad Claims”, New York Law Journal, Sep. 22). Judge Sweet’s opinion will be posted to the AEI Liability Project Documents in the News page later today. I discuss the Pelman case in my Taxonomy of Obesity Litigation paper. The failure of the motion means that, unless McDonald’s can persuade Judge Sweet to bifurcate discovery to resolve class certification issues first, the plaintiffs will be able to impose millions, and perhaps tens of millions, of dollars of litigation expenses on McDonald’s if they dare to defend themselves instead of buying off the class. Copycat litigation is likely.
Ironically, yesterday was the day that the folks at the Bizarro-Overlawyered site chose to attack pending legislation shutting down such ludicrous suits as “pure hype” because there supposedly were no such suits. (The House already passed the bill in a bipartisan 306-120 vote.) It’s a mystery to me why the special interest group of the litigation lobby is devoting so many resources trying to shut down legislation that they claim makes no difference. Earlier at Overlawyered: Apr. 20, 2005; Jan. 27, 2005; Sep. 4, 2003. Cross-posted at Point of Law.
A Little Rock friend of mine had an emergency gap in his law review, and solicited me to write about the fast-food litigation. I’m not a big fan of the eight-footnotes-a-page-style that law reviews like, but I think the piece is a good overview of what has happened to date. The article, 28 UALR L. Rev. 427 (2006), can be downloaded at SSRN (help me catch up with Bainbridge!) or at the AEI Liability Project website. (cross-posted at Point of Law)
I worry that events have outstripped me; one sentence in the article, “Why is selling soda [to 17-year-olds] an attractive nuisance, but selling … Internet connectivity is not?” predates the MySpace litigation.
Tom Zeller, writing on the MySpace lawsuit, quotes observers who unanimously condemn the species of nanny-state lawsuit, and quotes blogger Ken Chan:
“I recognize that there’s a certain part of the population who don’t know a steady fried chicken diet is bad for them. I feel bad for these people,” Mr. Chan wrote. “However, these are probably the same people who don’t put on their seatbelts and who suck down endless coffee during the day and Coors at night. So let’s be honest with ourselves here. You’re not going to save these people. You’re just screwing up the chicken for the rest of us.”
Zeller probably didn’t get the memo from the Times editors about the “benefits” of such lawsuits, but we’ll no doubt see some plaintiffs’ attorney defending the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit in the letters section. (Tom Zeller Jr., “A Lesson for Parents on ‘MySpace Madness’”, New York Times, Jun. 26). Mildly related, and encouraging for what it says about people starting to be annoyed by the food police: Fluffernutter controversy in Massachusetts.
Updating Wisconsin’s tempest in a cable box (see Jan. 7): “A man who blamed a cable TV company for his television addiction and his wife’s 50-pound weight gain said Thursday he won’t follow through with a threat to sue the cable operator. In an unusual news conference held in the basement of his West Bend home,” Timothy Dumouchel insisted that cable TV provider Charter was to blame for his family’s addiction to its televised fare, because it had failed to cut off service as requested, but said most of his dealings with the company had been pleasant and that he would not pursue legal action. Dumouchel also “said he never claimed his three children — ages 30, 23 and 16 — were lazy. He also said he knows people are snickering about him, and that his wife was angry about his statements on her weight gain.” (Lauria Lynch-German, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Jan. 9; “Man won?t sue over TV addiction”, AP/Appleton Post-Crescent, Jan. 9).
Parody, or just the next logical step? Timothy Dumouchel of West Bend, Wis. says he plans to sue cable TV provider Charter “because his cable connection remained intact four years after he tried to get it canceled. The result was that he and his family got free cable from August of 1999 to Dec. 23, 2003. ‘I believe that the reason I smoke and drink every day and my wife is overweight is because we watched TV every day for the last four years,’ Dumouchel stated in a written complaint against the company, included in a Fond du Lac police report.” (Lee Reinsch, “Man says he’s addicted to cable; wants to sue Charter”, Fond du Lac Reporter, Jan. 7) Update Jan. 13: he says he won’t sue.
Point of Law Volokh