The Counsellor's Corner
WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Did you think that the Oprah Winfrey
trial was ridiculous? Did you think
that her comments about beef called for her to be found civilly liable and to
pay millions of dollars to cattlemen? Fortunately,
the jury did its job in what I would deem to be an appropriate fashion, however, this is not the last of the
burgeoning field of food lawsuits.
The emu is the next animal that is
to be the subject of a jury trial.
That's right, the emu. Again we
are in Texas where ranchers are now suing Honda, yes, Honda, for having had the
nerve to air a television commercial showing a man driving a Honda Civic from
one off-beat job to another. "Fowl
Technology," an emu ranch in Amarillo, Texas, was one of the wacky job
locations to which the Honda Civic driver drove. The commercial featured the owner of the emu ranch telling the
Honda Civic driver that emus were the pork of the future.
Texan John Hamby, one of ten
plaintiffs suing Honda, complains that Honda "made people stop and look at
emu meat, emu products, and the emu business as a joke." Hamby and the other ranchers complained that
emus are much more healthy than pork in that while they are a red meat, they
are low-fat. Honda is being sued for
$750,000.00; $75,000.00 per plaintiff.
In the Oprah Winfrey case, her
comments about mad cow disease were alleged to have impacted the sales of beef
and the Texas jury decided that the cattlemen had not met their burden of
proof. Those who are viewing the emu
case feel that the emu ranchers are headed for the same fate. In order to succeed at trial, the libel laws
require that a defendant makes a knowingly false and defamatory statement about
the product. All Oprah did was
acknowledge a fear of mad cow disease which had become a regularly discussed
topic in this country in 1996. What was
Honda's crime? They ran an ad during
which they poked fun at emu ranchers.
Where is this litigation coming from
and where is it going? It's starting to
become very risky to speak in a public context. In our nation's capital, Ken Starr issues subpoenas for those who
disparage him or members of his staff and now in Texas one comments about food
at one's own risk.
While I was no big fan of George
Bush, I miss the days, not so long ago when then-President Bush could indicate
that he didn't like broccoli, and other than some hurt feelings in the broccoli camp, that was that. I wonder what would happen if George Bush
made his broccoli comments today?
President Bush's Vice President Quayle apparently picked a societally
appropriate time to spell potato with an "e"; I wouldn't advise it in
the current litigious climate with respect to food.
I believe that this country which
has been overly litigious for some time now is using the judicial system in a
totally inappropriate manner. Speech
yields consequences, however, these consequences need not all be redressed in
court. This might be a good time for
everyone to lighten up a little. A
television commercial that pokes fun at emu ranchers should not put Honda in a
position where it stands to lose $750,000.00, not to mention the dollars spent
defending itself in this case. I do
believe there are times when inappropriate speech should be dealt with in
court; however, it would be nice if a realistic appraisal of what was said and
whether or not litigation is the appropriate response started to take over from
the "let's sue first, and ask questions later" point of view which
seems to permeate society at present.
And who really listens to Oprah and
Honda anyway regarding food? If Oprah
Winfrey makes a statement about beef, it's not going to cause me to stop eating
beef. I might spend a little more time
reading the newspaper the next day with respect to the status of beef in this
country, however, Oprah talking about mad cow disease is not going to affect my
eating habits. Neither is a commercial
from Honda joking about emu beef. The
last time I checked, Honda sold cars, not beef.
If you'll excuse me, I'm about to go
have a nice thick steak with a couple of emu burgers on the side.
*
* * * *
Charlie Unger is a criminal defense
attorney in the Glendale law firm of Flanagan, Booth & Unger. Mr.Unger has obtained his doctorate in
psychology and writes a bi-monthly column on legal and psychological issues.
nuspress\articles\article.11
771 words