A federal judge in the District of Columbia has dismissed a lawsuit against dairy manufacturers filed by the animal-rights group that calls itself the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). The lawsuit claimed that it was legally wrongful for producers not to label dairy products to warn of the risk of lactose intolerance (“District Court Dismisses Anti-Dairy Lawsuit”, USAgNet/Wisconsin Ag Connection, Sept. 5). Ted covered the suit Jun. 21, 2005; see also May 28, 2004. Bill Childs comments on the dismissal (Aug. 23) and also has details of a ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court (over two dissents) that a hair oil manufacturer did not have to warn of the dangers of ingesting its product.
Update: anti-milk suit dismissed
A federal judge in the District of Columbia has dismissed a lawsuit against dairy manufacturers filed by the animal-rights group that calls itself the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). The lawsuit claimed that it was legally wrongful for producers not to label dairy products to warn of the risk of lactose intolerance (“District Court […]
2 Comments
The Michigan hair oil ruling is interesting in light of Ted’s favorite case, the McDonalds coffee case. One of the common ATLA talking points regarding Stella Liebeck is that, although the risk of burns from coffee might be obvious, the risk of severe burns, of the nature she suffered, is not. The Michigan Court held, logically, that this makes no difference. If the risk of injury is obvious enough not to require a warning, then there is also no duty to warn of the worst possible injury.
Milk has milk sugar (lactose) in it! Whodathunk?