So, it's come to this: we need warning labels of milk cartons.
We are rapidly approaching that time of year when people gather with family and friends to celebrate holidays, complete with extravagant meals that may leave some participants feeling just a bit queasy. Perhaps, some lawyers might wonder in between bites, more food warning labels are needed for the day after such festive occasions?
That thought may not be as farfetched as it seems. Only last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided an appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against nine sellers of milk. The class was defined as consisting of individuals who consumed milk before becoming aware that they were lactose intolerant. As a result, the lawsuit alleged, they experienced stomach discomfort and flatulence. The class action sought, among other things, to have the sellers put warning labels on milk containers to warn consumers that some may experience these symptoms.
The case was dismissed for a lot of legalistic reasons, but the nut graf is here:
In affirming the trial court's dismissal of the case, the D.C. Circuit ruling relied solely on the second of these two bases in dismissing the suit. According to the appellate court, "we hold as a matter of law that a reasonable consumer today would be well aware that milk may adversely affect some people." The appellate court concluded its rejection of the plaintiffs' tort claim under D.C. law by stating: "the risk that milk will cause temporary gas and stomach discomfort to lactose-intolerant individuals who do not yet know of their condition cannot support a failure-to-warn tort claim under D.C. tort law."
Ahh, yes. We have to warn people they could be lactose intolerant because not warning them is a tort. Or, at least, our litigious society has brought us to this point.
This case made me think of David Harsanyi's new book Nanny State, which discusses the do-gooders in our society hellbent on saving us from ourselves.
I was prepared to love and embrace Nanny State; after all, as a conservative, I'm against most government intervention into the lives of its citizens. The problem is that Harsanyi doesn't focus on the sorts of laws that make conservatives crosseyed; he spends only about 1/4 of the book discussing stupid laws about ridiculous warning labels or the Consumer Products Safety Commission, which essentially thinks everything is dangerous.
Nanny State spends a huge amount of time railing against anti-smoking measures and alcohol limitations. I suppose from a true libertarian viewpoint, this is a good place to start, but for the average person, drunk driving laws and nonsmoking workplaces are a good thing.
There are, of course, excesses, even in these good things. For example, a "zero tolerance" law regarding alcohol is ridiculous and preventing people from smoking in their own homes is absurd. But this seems to me to be more of a matter of degree rather than kind. A .08 alcohol level isn't snot-slinging drunk, but it lets people know that society doesn't tolerate public drunkeness and the dangers that go with it.
Harsanyi saves his greatest wrath for seatbelt laws, which he seems to absolutely loathe as the granddaddy of our nanny state woes. But this is where he and I part company; I think government has the duty to its citizens to demand reasonable safety measures in public places. This includes health inspections of restaurants, safety restrictions for professionals and behavior requirements for drivers. Harsanyi doesn't rail against speed limit laws, but he might as well; the argument would be the same. Why should the government tell anyone what to do?
I think the premise is simplistic. Citizens expect a certain degree of regulation from government regarding the safety of certain situations. We want clean drinking water and we like to know what is in the food we eat. Many of us dislike smoking and are concerned about its effects both for firsthand and secondhand users. We know that certain promotions (such as 3-in-1 drinks, which were legal until the mid-1980s) encourage irresponsibility and can harm a sizable amount of society. These are the sorts of restrictions most people consider to be reasonable regulations of behavior.
It would have been more convincing had Harsanyi spent more time on the "do not eat" labels on obviously inedible products or excessive warning labels and the reasons for these things. The reason, of course, is that, just like the class action wanting warning labels on milk, too many people are sue-happy, looking for an easy buck from a bleeding-heart judge who might give it to them. In other words, we need a warning label on our court system.
|