<p>Aren’t there at least 2 questions here:</p>
<ol>
<li>Should the government prevent lawsuits?</li>
<li>Should the plaintiff prevail in a lawsuit?</li>
</ol>
<p>I’m opposed to number 1. I find it ironic that many people - not point at people here - argue for individual liberty but want to quash the right to sue businesses. </p>
<p>As to how a case should go, I have no idea. Seriously. No one does. A company can argue it complies with labeling standards but that doesn’t insulate it from liability. As the entire history of product liability shows, labels are not intended by the government to relieve companies from liability. </p>
<p>We could compare the history of other cases. A company can sell something safe that can be misused and be found liable for not taking steps to prevent misuse. That is why we have child safety locks on medicines: a dangerous thing sold legally can create liability if the maker and/or seller don’t take reasonable steps to prevent misuse. The same arguments about personal responsibility were made then.</p>
<p>I find the personal responsibility argument fascinating because of what is going in our society. We’re seeing a rapid movement toward the erosion of the reasonable man standard in favor of subjective belief, however irrational. The reasonable man standard was always in part a societal response to irrationality: you can say what is right and wrong by looking at what a reasonable person would do and that can be determined rationally by looking at basics like probability and by weighing available action versus consequences. But now people argue their irrational fears justify actions that have severe consequences, even killing, and that this is in a real sense a constitutional right. </p>
<p>In lawsuits about products, I could see using a reasonable man standard to say a company’s advertising about the deliciousness of its fast food is just advertising. I could also see a particular case in which an individual is sold harmful quantities of something like soda in cups because then there is a specific set of circumstances which says “you did x and this guy suffered”. But that would be tough with food because there is no nicotine in food. That was the issue with cigarettes: a reasonable man would become addicted to cigarettes and that would harm him. </p>
<p>A food case like I describe would, I think, be more of a dram shop case: you knew the guy was drunk but sold him liquor anyway. That could translate into you knew the guy was eating huge quantities of stuff that is bad for him and sold it to him anyway. How far could that go? I have trouble saying it would mean you don’t serve fat people because you don’t know as a specific place serving stuff what that person eats elsewhere or why he or she is fat. I tried to describe a very narrow case where personal responsibility issues are overwhelmed by the course of dealing. I don’t think it’s a great case because a drunk doesn’t know he or she shouldn’t drink, but it’s arguable. </p>
<p>I can’t see how the food industry would be held liable for making caloric, sugary stuff. That is a way of saying I don’t find the “addiction” argument compelling; there are too many other choices of food. A cigarette is a cigarette no matter the maker, but you can always buy beans and cook them.</p>