패스트 푸드로 인한 비만관련 질병에 대한 손해배상책임

Throughout most of human history, humanity faced a threat not from obesity but from a clear and present danger of starvation. But for the past several years lawsuits brought against fast-food chains by plaintiffs suffering from obesity-related illnesses have been the subject of considerable discussion in the popular press and of more discussion by legal commentators. The tort system can compensate for the lack of individual knowledge by modifying corporate behavior in legislative ways and nonlegislative ways. In Pelman case we considered whether McDonald's marketing behavior was fraudulent and deceptive business practicesa and was negligent in failing to warn consumers of obesity-related illnesses hazard. We found that advertisements urging consumers to eat the products are mere puffery. The open and obvious danger defense has also been rejected where risk-utility tests are applicable. Under risk- utility test, consumer knowledge and expectation wil be at most one factor in the court's analysis. The risk-utility test is the better theory for fast-food plaintiffs faced with an open-obvious danger defense as in Pelman. A Product is defective in design when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not safe. A broad range offactors may be considered in determining whether an alternative design is reasonable and whether its omission renders a product not resonably safe. Reduction in fat, in particular harmful fats, could be accomplished in several ways. For example manufactors produce fast-food with a change in cooking oils and in smaller portion sizes. Fast-food product may be found defective in design, so as to subject a manufacturer to strict liability for resulting injures, if the plaintiff demonstrates that the product's design proximately caused his injury and the defendent fails to establish, in light of the relevant factors, that, on balance, the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design.