Legal Issues

Facts of the Case
The infant plaintiffs in the case of Pelman v McDonalds Corp. have developed obesity and related heath disorders such as type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, coronary heart disease and elevated cholesterol intake. They aver that their ailments occurred because of frequently consuming the defendants products. The defendant failed to display nutritional information and refused to supply the same even on request. Consumers were not informed of the ingredients in the products or the level of the additives used to enhance the meals. The defendant did not warn consumers of the likely risks of consuming their product nor did they warn them that some products were addictive. An advert the defendant ran purported that consuming their products on a regular basis would lead to a healthier lifestyle.

Issues
The plaintiff accuses the defendant of four counts of violating the Consumer Protection Act. Count I alleges that the defendant failed to reveal the ingredients contained in the products andor warn consumers of the health consequences of eating foods with high levels of fat, salt  and cholesterol. They actively marketed their products as ideal food for healthier lifestyles without mentioning the health risks. Count II alleges that the defendant deliberately misled the public by asserting that eating McDonalds food everyday will lead to a healthier lifestyle. Count III alleges that the defendant devised advertising campaigns targeting minors with the knowledge that eating such foods leads to obesity and related health disorders. Count IV alleges that the defendant concealed information that some of their products had addictive properties and that prolonged consumption increased chances of the plaintiff developing health disorders.

The plaintiff also list four grounds of negligence that the defendant is liable. Count I alleges the defendant was negligent to inform consumers of the dangers in consuming their products  despite information revealing that foods with high cholesterol, fat and salt levels lead to obesity and related health disorders. Count II alleges that the defendant was negligent in withholding results that revealed their products had addictive properties and that consumption over prolonged periods increased the risk of obesity and heart disease. Count III holds the defendant negligent for running a campaign ad that alleged consuming their products on a daily basis led to a healthier lifestyle when they knew the claim to be false. Count IV accuses the defendant of negligence in failing to provide nutritional information about their products to assist consumers in making an informed choice.

The legal issues raised are whether McDonalds are liable for products liability and are in violation of the Consumer Protection Act. In their defense, they can argue that the plaintiff should reasonably have known that consuming large quantities of fast foods would lead to obesity and related health disorders. They can also claim that that the results of their tests concerning addictiveness were inconclusive which is why they did not release the findings to the public. McDonalds defense can argue that there was no proximate cause to the onset of obesity and other ailments as the plaintiffs did not eat all their meals at their outlets (Elsroth v. Johnson  Johnson, 1988)

Rules
To succeed in a claim for product liability, the plaintiff must prove that manufacturer has a liability touching either on the design, the finished products workmanship or that there was a failure to warn. The plaintiff must further establish that a duty to the plaintiff existed and that there was a breach of that duty. Such breach must have been the direct cause of the injuries suffered by the complainant.

Application
With regard to a breach of duty due to failure to display the ingredients or nutritional value of the food, the plaintiffs claims appear unjustified. It is impracticable to label everything that comes out of a kitchen due to the difficulty of establishing the correct measurement after cooking. As for the inherent dangers in the food, there was no evidence that the food from McDonalds was riskier than that produced from other fast-food outlets (Olliver v. Heavenly Bagels, Inc., 2001). The plaintiff should prove that the dangers in the food were unique and that the risk was unknown to other people.

While the Consumer Protection Act forbids deceptive advertising, the defendants advert does not encourage the consumers to over consume their products (Trevino v. Jamesway Corp., 1989). Had the advert proclaimed that every meal should be a McDonalds one, then the defendant would be liable for obesity and health claims provided the defendant ate all their meals from McDonalds.

Conclusion
The case against McDonalds should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to raise sufficient proof that the defendant breached their duty to the plaintiff by serving food without nutritional information. Secondly, the plaintiffs failed to prove thet their ailments were directly caused by eating food from the defendants outlets. Common sense should have informed the plaintiff of the possible risks of over consuming fast foods rich in cholesterol, fat and salt. Finally, the plaintiffs have a responsibility to take care of their health and should not abdicate this duty to the defendant. Such care would have ensured that the plaintiff ate healthy foods and exercised regularly.