Why People Hate Lawyers

People really don’t need to hate lawyers, but crapweasley little law professors like this deserve our scorn and a good flogging.

Richard Daynard, a Massachusetts law professor who made his name working as a consultant on class actions against tobacco companies, is part of a broad effort by both private attorneys and nonprofit groups to sue Atlanta-based Coca-Cola and other soft drink companies for selling high-calorie drinks in schools.

Attorneys expect to file their first suit as soon as next month. The plaintiffs will be parents of schoolchildren. Part of the strategy is to claim that soft drink companies use caffeine, a mildly addictive substance, to hook children on a product that is dangerous because of its empty calories.

8 comments

  1. macongop says:

    Once Pandora’s Box was opened on the Tobacco Companies, everybody became a free target. Just wait till the lawyer in New Orleans gets done with the insurance companies about the flooding. He had experiance with and winning against the Tobacco companies, everybodies insurance will be going up. ( I do not know his name , but watched a news piece on him.)

  2. buzzbrockway says:

    One of the arguments used against Big Tobacco could be used against almost everything: “we need to recover the money taxpayers are spending in health care costs because of your product.” That argument could be used against Coke and we’ll see if it’s successful. Personal responsibility is dead in America so I imagine a jury somewhere will relish the opportunity to stick it to Big Soda.

  3. GAWire says:

    Is there such as thing as “high-class ambulance chasers” or is that an oxymoron?

    Macongop brings up a good point about the attorney in N.O. There are a couple of those guys out there that are looking to cash in on cases from the floods.

    These are the types of folks that if an asteroid hit, they would try to sue NASA for sending shuttles and satellites up and “disrupting space.”

  4. ddreyer says:

    I am all for personal responsibility. However, the tobacco companies lost because the litigation revealed many, many documents from the tobacco companies establishing that:

    a. The tobacco companies intentionally made their cigarettes more addictive.

    b. The tobacco companies lied about how harmful their products were.

    They deserved to pay. The argument that the tobacco companies should be liable for the increased health care costs only came up in the damages phase of the litigation. At that stage, it had already been determined that the tobacco companies actions were unlawful.

    I will agree that the soda argument seems frivilous, but I thought that about the tobacco litigation before the most egregious documents surfaced.

  5. Bill Simon says:

    Someone is going to have to develop a legal theory on what “empty calories” really means. Calories are calories…they are just units of energy, so, it should be difficult for any plaintiff’s attorney to try and use the term “empty calories” as a basis for a lawsuit.

  6. rickday says:

    Personally, I have, (since 1976), felt that the weak arguments for the prohibition of marijuana should equally apply to tobacco, alcohol and caffeine.

    After all, being ‘drug free’ (like Sen. Walker) allows us to ‘maximize our potentials’. (He told me that two years ago when he explained why he would never support decrim of even small amouts of God’s herb).

    Sue them all, I say. If for anything, for the sake of obliterating hypocracy in the war on (some) drugs.

Comments are closed.