We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
I ate too much, I'm suing you!
iRun4wine
Posts: 5,126
Just wondering if anyone saw this article? Thought it was interesting and well written- talks about taking responsibility for ourselves, nutritionally. Of course, that would be easier if restaurants were *required* to provide nutrition information. Common sense helps (restaurant food usually = high sodium, high calories, high fat, huge portions) but I think we deserve and require some cold hard data regarding nutrition, too!
Here's the article:
On July 23, 2009, the Center for Science in the Public Interest issued a press release informing us of their support of a class action lawsuit brought against the Denny's restaurant chain by Nick DeBenedetto in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Middlesex County. Apparently the 48 year old DeBenedetto suffers from high blood pressure and takes prescription medication to treat it. He also doesn't cook with salt at home or use the salt shaker. He is, however, a regular patron of Denny's, and his favorite meal goes by the ridiculous and off-putting moniker "Moons over my Hammy". This is an egg, ham and cheese sandwich which comes with a choice of hash browns or grits. The sandwich alone has 2,580 mg of sodium. Slap some grits on there, and it tops out at 3,240 mg. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the average person should consume no more than 1,500 mg of sodium in a day.
Here's a quote from the plaintiff, "I was astonished...I mean literally floored...to find that these simple sandwiches have more salt than someone in my condition should have in a whole day." Is this guy serious? He was eating at Denny's on a regular basis. I find it hard to believe that someone who uses no salt when at home can't ascertain that his sandwich is the culinary equivalent of a salt lick. Besides, did he really believe that Denny's and other restaurants of that ilk are truly concerned about people with hypertension and high blood pressure? Just thinking about this lawsuit gives me hypertension. Perhaps I should sue him for raising my blood pressure.
To be sure, Denny's has been grossly irresponsible when formulating the recipes for that collection of wordplays they call a menu, and the CSPI has done some valuable work in helping bring to the light of day corporate irresponsibility when it comes to food labeling, marketing and product formulation. But to assist in a class action lawsuit because someone failed to take seriously his own responsibility for his personal health seems to me to be more enabling of this type of behavior than it is assistance in helping people stop from acting like fools. Sure, they may succeed in getting Denny's to reduce the amount of sodium in their food, but what about the millions of other folks who are busy shoving fast food down their throats and getting their oversized butts caught in revolving doors? Perhaps they should sue the door manufacturers while they are at it.
This whole thing reminds of the recent ruling in the Wisconsin Supreme Court that threw out a lawsuit brought by a man who backed his riding lawnmower over his son severing his legs. He tried to blame John Deere for the accident since they provided a lawnmower with a reverse gear. He didn't seem to think that he needed to exercise caution or provide proper parental supervision of his child. He thought he should get paid for maiming his son, in the same way this guy wants to get paid for eating too many ham sandwiches.
My wife and I recently returned from a trip to New York City. While there, we decided one day to walk across the Brooklyn Bridge. I had driven across it many times, but I really wanted experience it up close. It's kind of an American tradition akin to going to Mount Rushmore. We had planned to catch a bus up to Green Pointe because we wanted to visit a restaurant there called Marlowe&Sons. My sense of direction and navigational skills being what they are, I put us on the wrong bus, and we ended up in Park Slope. Making lemonade out of lemons, we stopped at a little French bistro and had charcuterie and cheese which I washed down with some good Belgian Ale. Later that evening, we dined at the Spotted Pig in Manhattan's Meatpacking District. I started with a fried pig ear salad followed by an incredibly rich dish of braised rabbit with fennel. They make some amazing pommes frites there which they fry with fresh rosemary and shaved garlic. We just had to get an order of those. I followed all of that with a coupe of mugs of proprietary cask bitter ale. To say that I was ill the rest of the night and into the early morning hours is a gross understatement of how I was feeling. I don't normally eat that way, and my body cannot absorb that much fat. Did I call the restaurants and complain to them claiming that they poisoned me with their food? Of course I didn't. I was the dummy who threw caution to the wind simply because I was on vacation and feeling invincible. It was my own fault, and I paid the price for my folly.
My friend and fellow chef, Stewart Woodman, recently took note of this same story and made mention of it on his blog (http://shefzilla.com). He would like to see a surcharge or tax applied to food that is deemed unhealthful. As he put it, "Why am I paying to subsidize someones (sic) burger fixation?" Well Stew, you better be careful what you wish for. Who gets to determine what's healthful and what isn't and for whom? What about that confit we make that's cured in salt and cooked in rendered duck fat? How about that bacon we cure and smoke, and what about that head cheese I just put up in my cooler? What do you think about that fried pig ear salad at the Spotted Pig? No thank you. I think we have just about enough people telling what to do and how to live our lives.
At Heartland, we have a standard procedure when we take a reservation. We always ask the question, "Do you have any dietary concerns or constraints that we need to be aware of?" We need to know if someone is lactose intolerant or has a nut allergy or, for that matter, is on a sodium restricted diet. Why do we do this? We do it because we care about the health and well being of our guests, and we make a concerted effort to respect their food choices. Does anyone for one minute expect to hear that question at the hamburger joint drive thru? And how practical is it for Denny's, where half of the food comes out of a box or a bag, to accommodate special diets?
If someone is that concerned about his or her health then he or she shouldn't be eating at Denny's in the first place. That person should be eating at a place like Heidi's or Heartland or cooking at home where all of the ingredients are at one's fingertips. It doesn't take a lot of common sense to understand that. Perhaps the CSPI feels that the only way to get companies like Denny's to be more responsible is to hit them where it hurts, which is in their pocketbooks. I, on the other hand, maintain it would be better and more effective if consumers just didn't patronize those places in the first place. I guarantee it wouldn't take long for the Denny's of this world to take notice. In the meantime, how do we feel about less litigation and more emphasis on personal responsibility?
Here's the article:
On July 23, 2009, the Center for Science in the Public Interest issued a press release informing us of their support of a class action lawsuit brought against the Denny's restaurant chain by Nick DeBenedetto in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Middlesex County. Apparently the 48 year old DeBenedetto suffers from high blood pressure and takes prescription medication to treat it. He also doesn't cook with salt at home or use the salt shaker. He is, however, a regular patron of Denny's, and his favorite meal goes by the ridiculous and off-putting moniker "Moons over my Hammy". This is an egg, ham and cheese sandwich which comes with a choice of hash browns or grits. The sandwich alone has 2,580 mg of sodium. Slap some grits on there, and it tops out at 3,240 mg. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the average person should consume no more than 1,500 mg of sodium in a day.
Here's a quote from the plaintiff, "I was astonished...I mean literally floored...to find that these simple sandwiches have more salt than someone in my condition should have in a whole day." Is this guy serious? He was eating at Denny's on a regular basis. I find it hard to believe that someone who uses no salt when at home can't ascertain that his sandwich is the culinary equivalent of a salt lick. Besides, did he really believe that Denny's and other restaurants of that ilk are truly concerned about people with hypertension and high blood pressure? Just thinking about this lawsuit gives me hypertension. Perhaps I should sue him for raising my blood pressure.
To be sure, Denny's has been grossly irresponsible when formulating the recipes for that collection of wordplays they call a menu, and the CSPI has done some valuable work in helping bring to the light of day corporate irresponsibility when it comes to food labeling, marketing and product formulation. But to assist in a class action lawsuit because someone failed to take seriously his own responsibility for his personal health seems to me to be more enabling of this type of behavior than it is assistance in helping people stop from acting like fools. Sure, they may succeed in getting Denny's to reduce the amount of sodium in their food, but what about the millions of other folks who are busy shoving fast food down their throats and getting their oversized butts caught in revolving doors? Perhaps they should sue the door manufacturers while they are at it.
This whole thing reminds of the recent ruling in the Wisconsin Supreme Court that threw out a lawsuit brought by a man who backed his riding lawnmower over his son severing his legs. He tried to blame John Deere for the accident since they provided a lawnmower with a reverse gear. He didn't seem to think that he needed to exercise caution or provide proper parental supervision of his child. He thought he should get paid for maiming his son, in the same way this guy wants to get paid for eating too many ham sandwiches.
My wife and I recently returned from a trip to New York City. While there, we decided one day to walk across the Brooklyn Bridge. I had driven across it many times, but I really wanted experience it up close. It's kind of an American tradition akin to going to Mount Rushmore. We had planned to catch a bus up to Green Pointe because we wanted to visit a restaurant there called Marlowe&Sons. My sense of direction and navigational skills being what they are, I put us on the wrong bus, and we ended up in Park Slope. Making lemonade out of lemons, we stopped at a little French bistro and had charcuterie and cheese which I washed down with some good Belgian Ale. Later that evening, we dined at the Spotted Pig in Manhattan's Meatpacking District. I started with a fried pig ear salad followed by an incredibly rich dish of braised rabbit with fennel. They make some amazing pommes frites there which they fry with fresh rosemary and shaved garlic. We just had to get an order of those. I followed all of that with a coupe of mugs of proprietary cask bitter ale. To say that I was ill the rest of the night and into the early morning hours is a gross understatement of how I was feeling. I don't normally eat that way, and my body cannot absorb that much fat. Did I call the restaurants and complain to them claiming that they poisoned me with their food? Of course I didn't. I was the dummy who threw caution to the wind simply because I was on vacation and feeling invincible. It was my own fault, and I paid the price for my folly.
My friend and fellow chef, Stewart Woodman, recently took note of this same story and made mention of it on his blog (http://shefzilla.com). He would like to see a surcharge or tax applied to food that is deemed unhealthful. As he put it, "Why am I paying to subsidize someones (sic) burger fixation?" Well Stew, you better be careful what you wish for. Who gets to determine what's healthful and what isn't and for whom? What about that confit we make that's cured in salt and cooked in rendered duck fat? How about that bacon we cure and smoke, and what about that head cheese I just put up in my cooler? What do you think about that fried pig ear salad at the Spotted Pig? No thank you. I think we have just about enough people telling what to do and how to live our lives.
At Heartland, we have a standard procedure when we take a reservation. We always ask the question, "Do you have any dietary concerns or constraints that we need to be aware of?" We need to know if someone is lactose intolerant or has a nut allergy or, for that matter, is on a sodium restricted diet. Why do we do this? We do it because we care about the health and well being of our guests, and we make a concerted effort to respect their food choices. Does anyone for one minute expect to hear that question at the hamburger joint drive thru? And how practical is it for Denny's, where half of the food comes out of a box or a bag, to accommodate special diets?
If someone is that concerned about his or her health then he or she shouldn't be eating at Denny's in the first place. That person should be eating at a place like Heidi's or Heartland or cooking at home where all of the ingredients are at one's fingertips. It doesn't take a lot of common sense to understand that. Perhaps the CSPI feels that the only way to get companies like Denny's to be more responsible is to hit them where it hurts, which is in their pocketbooks. I, on the other hand, maintain it would be better and more effective if consumers just didn't patronize those places in the first place. I guarantee it wouldn't take long for the Denny's of this world to take notice. In the meantime, how do we feel about less litigation and more emphasis on personal responsibility?
0
Replies
-
Good story !!! I agree, "we" are the only ones who can take care of our health, not somebody in a chain restaurant! That is like someone buying, lighting up cigarettes 20 plus times a day and then suing because they have cancer, NO one FORCED them to smoke the things, they voluntarily did it over and over!!!! Makes ya shake your head in wonder huh???
vhuber0 -
Yes, I agree. I'm sick and tired of these stupid lawsuits that just need to be thrown out of court. The people that file the senseless lawsuits should be jailed for ignorance and greed and then lectured on the need to be responsible for their own actions! :explode:0
-
Amen! People are way too sue-happy. Take responsibility, people! :mad:Yes, I agree. I'm sick and tired of these stupid lawsuits that just need to be thrown out of court. The people that file the senseless lawsuits should be jailed for ignorance and greed and then lectured on the need to be responsible for their own actions! :explode:0 -
Beautifully written. We are a society of blame finders, no one wears their own choices because we sue others for not making them for us. My daughters are teachers and there are more parents that never even look to see if their child has home work or has accomplished it, but they all by and large complain that the teachers are not doing their job!
This reminds me of the guy who sued Mc Donalds because he burned himself on hot coffee, he put between his own legs in a drive thru! And He won, because the coffee, was too hot! How many people get coffee and tell the server, make sure it is just barely warm!
When courts refuse to hear these stupid cases and juries refuse to reward people for their own stupid choices this will stop. Most people want the reason why something happens to ameliorate their own part in something. It is like suing the vodka company because you got a DUI . They no more put the keys in your hands and no one funneled the alcohol down your throat, but it must be someone else's fault! Surely not the person who got tanked and decided to drive anyway.
California has a Drunk driver responsibility law now. If you serve someone alcohol in your home and allow them to leave intoxicated it is your fault if they kill someone on the way home! Let me tell you after 7 years married to an alcoholic, when you say give me your keys they seldom listen! Dumb laws, for dumber people! Thanks for allowing me to rant! Vote with your money, don't go to places that serve toxic food! Don't blame the ice cream store when you get fat eating their frozen fat! Take a good hard look in the mirror! There will be the answer when you say who should I blame!0 -
It is so much easier to blame someone else than to look in the mirror.0
-
I agree that the lawsuit is pushing it but I think restaurants should have to post their nutritional information so that people can make informed decisions. The same dish could range so much depending on restaurant. At one it might be 400 calories, 750 at another, and 1500 at another.0
-
Ahem.
I agree with the points of view expressed in the food article. We are responsible for our own food choices and shouldn't be able to sue over it.
However, a little background info on the infamous McDonald's story my darling Mother brought up:
McD's was keeping their coffeepots turned up to 200 degrees. That's just 20 degrees under boiling. Your shower, even if you like it really hot, is probably about 110.
Several people had been burned by the coffee and had complained about it. Hadn't sued, but had lodged complaints with McD's. Nothing changed.
The woman in the lawsuit had been burned when she set the coffee cup between her legs in the drivethrough, and the lid came off and burned her inner thighs and genital area. THIRD degree burns resulted. (In case you were wondering, First degree burns are reddening of the skin. Second degree burns are blistering. Third degree burns include open wounds and destruction of the flesh.)
Her burns were so severe she had to have skin grafting surgery to repair it.
She complained the McD's and in her original suit, asked only that her medical bills be covered. McD's flatly refused. Even though the earlier complaints had been lodged, and this woman had been disfigured, they still told her to get bent. AND refused to change the temperature setting for their coffeepots. Something that could easily have been done to prevent any other injuries.
If a judge feels a company has misbehaved badly, he can impose punitive damages. This is meant to be a punishment for bad behavior and a financial incentive not to do it again.
She was awarded her medical bills and the amount of money that McD's gets in ONE day from its coffee sales. About ten million dollars, altogether. McD's acted badly and was punished in a sum the judge felt was appropriate.
There is no comparison between these two cases.
Thank you all for listening to my rant. (exits soapbox)0 -
Lucky- glad you posted this. Sometimes we judge too quickly without knowing the facts. Thanks.0
-
Ahem.
I agree with the points of view expressed in the food article. We are responsible for our own food choices and shouldn't be able to sue over it.
However, a little background info on the infamous McDonald's story my darling Mother brought up:
McD's was keeping their coffeepots turned up to 200 degrees. That's just 20 degrees under boiling. Your shower, even if you like it really hot, is probably about 110.
Several people had been burned by the coffee and had complained about it. Hadn't sued, but had lodged complaints with McD's. Nothing changed.
The woman in the lawsuit had been burned when she set the coffee cup between her legs in the drivethrough, and the lid came off and burned her inner thighs and genital area. THIRD degree burns resulted. (In case you were wondering, First degree burns are reddening of the skin. Second degree burns are blistering. Third degree burns include open wounds and destruction of the flesh.)
Her burns were so severe she had to have skin grafting surgery to repair it.
She complained the McD's and in her original suit, asked only that her medical bills be covered. McD's flatly refused. Even though the earlier complaints had been lodged, and this woman had been disfigured, they still told her to get bent. AND refused to change the temperature setting for their coffeepots. Something that could easily have been done to prevent any other injuries.
If a judge feels a company has misbehaved badly, he can impose punitive damages. This is meant to be a punishment for bad behavior and a financial incentive not to do it again.
She was awarded her medical bills and the amount of money that McD's gets in ONE day from its coffee sales. About ten million dollars, altogether. McD's acted badly and was punished in a sum the judge felt was appropriate.
There is no comparison between these two cases.
Thank you all for listening to my rant. (exits soapbox)
And that is why I always hesitate to rush to judgment based on the bare facts of a story like this reported in the news. In many cases, the details of a "frivolous" lawsuit reveals a pattern of negligent behavior. It also helps to remember that most of these awards are decided by juries who listen to all the evidence.
That being said, I agree that it is not the responsibility of a restaurant to control my eating habits. To me, this is one area where market dynamics work pretty well, if given a chance. We have seen a number of changes over the past 10 years--introduction of salads, elimination of trans-fats, introduction of KFC grilled chicken, etc--that have been positive and have been supported by changing consumer habits. There are probably more good fast-food choices than ever (although still not enough).
In this case I think the best role for government, health authorities and organizations like CSPI is education and disclosure so that we can make informed choices. While nutrition information is available for many fast-food chains, it is not always easily available--that could be improved and IMO, that would be a good use of regulation.0 -
ok, who on this website does not know that ham itself is very salty. Sodium = salt, salt = sodium. DUH. How can you honestly say you had no idea the sandwich had that much sodium in it? Ridiculous.:noway:0
-
Ugh... the stupid CSPI.
I saw that and stopped reading the article to be honest.0 -
In regard to the McDonald's coffee case. She only ended up getting $600,000 after McDonald's appealed the ruling and the parties settled out of court for that amount. One has to figure after attorney's fees, she got far less.
If people eat fried foods and other unhealthy foods, I don't understand how they can figure that it is the restaurant's fault for them being obese or other health problems. No one forced them to eat it. Also, there are so many websites out there that list the nutritional value of the meal. The Grand Slam at Denny's is the equivalent of a day or two of sodium, fat and calories. It is just easier to blame others than actually admit that you are the one at fault. What bothers me most is that there is an actual attorney who is willing to take the case. Being an attorney, it annoys me.0 -
I am still annoyed at the Mc Donalds case, yep the coffee was scalding hot! but no where in my anatomy is there a sign pointing to my crotch that says cup holder! And I have never heard anyone tell a server or a fast food clerk, could you make sure my coffee is just lukewarm!0
-
I know if I eat out, there is a chance that I will be over calories, salt and fat. I can always ask how something is cooked or ask for them to change what is going into my meal. After all I am paying to eat there.
If this person eats a ham, egg, whatever sandwich regularly....what the heck did he think was in it?
Obviously he wasn't on MFP:laugh:0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.3K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 442 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions