By DAVID STOUT


New York Times News Service


NEW YORK -- A federal judge in Manhattan on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit brought against the McDonald's Corp. by two obese teenagers, declaring as he did so that people are responsible for what they eat and that the teenagers' complaints could spawn thousands of "McLawsuits" if they were upheld.


"This opinion is guided by the principle 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," Judge Robert W. Sweet wrote.

In dismissing the suit, the judge said the plaintiffs had failed to show that McDonald's engaged in deceptive practices and that consumers had inadequate access to information about McDonald's products.

The ruling was good news for the fast-food chain, which has endured several months of disappointing earnings. McDonald's shares were up 5 cents in afternoon trading, at $15.39.

It was a defeat, though not a total one, for the teenagers, Jazlyn Bradley and Ashley Pelman, who had contended that they became obese while frequenting two McDonald's outlets in the Bronx.

At the time their suit was filed last fall, Bradley was 19, stood 5 foot 6 and weighed 270 pounds, and Pelman was 14, stood 4 foot 10 and weighed 170 pounds.

While the case has occasioned snickers in some quarters, it has been no laughing matter to McDonald's and thousands of other restaurant businesses. "It has gotten everyone's attention," Steven C. Anderson, president of the National Restaurant Association, said after the suit was filed.

Several other suits have been filed against McDonald's, though the one dismissed Wednesday had made it further into the court system than any other.


In their complaint, Bradley and Pelman asserted that McDonald's did not provide sufficient information about the health risks linked to its meals -- accusations that the burger-and-fries titan forcefully denied and that the judge largely rejected.

At 80, Sweet is old enough to recall a time when Golden Arches were not part of the American landscape. Nevertheless, he leavened his legal language with allusions drawn from the McDonald's culture and understandable to nonlawyers.


"Nobody is forced to eat at McDonald's," the judge declared. "Except, perhaps, parents of small children who desire McDonald's food, toy promotions or playgrounds and demand their parents' accompaniment."


"Chicken McNuggets," he wrote at one point, "are a McFrankenstein creation of various elements not utilized by the home cook."

At another point, Sweet rejected the plaintiffs' argument that they had a valid claim against local McDonald's businesses. "Clearly, what is at issue in this lawsuit is the national menu and national policy," the judge found, "and the plaintiffs' real beef is with McDonald's Corp."

McDonald's has maintained throughout that it makes good, nourishing food and provides nutritional information about it, including postings on its Web site.


"Common sense has prevailed," the corporation said in a statement. "We said from the beginning that this was a frivolous lawsuit."

On the contrary, said Samuel Hirsch, the Manhattan lawyer who represents the plaintiffs. Hirsch noted that Sweet said the two teenagers were not barred from filing an amended complaint, and Hirsch promised to do just that, asserting that he still had a "credible and viable lawsuit."

No matter what happens next, the ruling is probably not the last word -- not with more and more Americans losing the fight with the scale and spending some $110 billion a year on fast food.

NYT-01-22-03 1551EST

Finally something done right. There is still common sense in the U.S

"Nobody is forced to eat at McDonald's," the judge declared. "Except, perhaps, parents of small children who desire McDonald's food, toy promotions or playgrounds and demand their parents' accompaniment."


"Chicken McNuggets," he wrote at one point, "are a McFrankenstein creation of various elements not utilized by the home cook."

a-the phuc-men.

Excellent news!

"Chicken McNuggets," he wrote at one point, "are a McFrankenstein creation of various elements not utilized by the home cook."

There's some scary stuff in those nuggets, but I still...can't...stop...myself...from eating them.
Mmmm...donuts. Now the judge should drop his gavel on the parents' heads for letting their kids get fat.

still Mc Donalds is no better than a cigarette company...yeah you do have a choice but truth in advertisement...they pray on "minorities" and creat an image that society needs them

I guess that 2the9s will have to drop his lawsuit now.

Does that mean I can't sue my mom
for forcing me to eat loads of
powdered donut pancake surprise
& chicken pot pie?

YEEEHAW

EricCartman said:

ROFL...

So glad this got tossed...

McDonalds should not be allowed to have the word "nutritious" anywhere in its advertisements.
While everyone has a choice, I don't think that the average american person realizes that an innocent cheeseburger, small fries and a coke has close to 1000 calories and more than the amount of fat that should be consumed in an entire day, much less in one meal!!!

YAY!!! this is good news

purplelu said:

The average American would be an idiot to think any fast food has any real nutritious value and not a ton of calories, fat, and salt.
You can't blame the commercials...I've never seen one-except maybe Subway- describing their food as nutritious, well balanced, or full of vitamins.
[This message was edited Thu Jan 23 9:06:27 PST 2003 by XNY]

I remember when this lawsuit first hit the news. It was around the time I took the bar exam, and during the lunch break on one of the test days, some friends and I talked it over. Ironically, I think we were eating McDonald's food at the time, since there was one right by the convention center where we took the exam.

At first we started discussing it in legal terms, such as the tort law doctrine of "assumption of the risk," but pretty soon, we gave up and just concluded that it was a stupid lawsuit.

[Matt's standard disclaimer: While I am licensed to practice law in Indiana, this post is for discussion purposes only, is not legal advice, and creates no attorney-client relationship.]

XNY said:

McDonald's has way too much salt in their food. You can watch the employees just dumping large amounts of salt into the fryers when they take the fries out.

In the cafeteria at the company where I work, the cook fries up all kinds of food in the same grease. He dunks fish filets, french fries, and onion rings all into the same vat of hot grease.

bkw said:

No, beer boy, that's not me. I have a separate though similar lawsuit going against Burger King. I'm suing them for a lifetime supply of Whoppers because I got so fat off their fries.

See what a diet of fries can do to you?

NikkiDarling said:

In your cafeteria's defense, (beside and the fat calories) there is no harm in frying different foods in the same fryer. I've worked in restaurants for about 10 yrs, the heat of the oil kills everything. That's why it's common for people to tell you to eated fried foods if you're travelling overseas.
But I know what you mean, there's a lot of salt, fat, sugar, and caffeine--the new Four Food Groups--in fast food.

2the9s said:

HEY ASS, NICE FREAKING AVATAR!