Michigan woman files lawsuit because Starburst candy is “Dangerously Chewy”!!!

Published on July 1st, 2007

Posted by SN in General

Victoria McArthur

Fox News – June 27, 2007 via Overlawyered.com:

Starburst Fruit Chews are exactly as their name would indicate: chewy. But one Michigan woman says the candies are so chewy, they should come with a warning label.

Victoria McArthur, of Romero, Mich., is suing Starbursts’ parent company, Mars Inc., for more than $25,000 for “permanent personal injuries” she claims she sustained after biting into one of their yellow candy in 2005.

“I don’t know, maybe about 3 chews and it literally locked my jaw … and it just literally pulled my jaw out of joint,” she told MyFoxDetroit.com.

McArthur’s lawyer, Brian Muawad, says the candies caused her to develop a condition known as temporal mandibular joint dysfunction. McArthur says she has had trouble chewing, talking and sleeping since the incident.

46 users responded in " Michigan woman files lawsuit because Starburst candy is “Dangerously Chewy”!!! "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Mike said, on July 1st, 2007 at 3:35 am

What an idiot! This and $54 million pants are why this country is going to hell in a handbasket!

# 2 RTaylor said, on July 1st, 2007 at 4:09 am

Not much of an attorney taking on just a $25K personal injury case. Even at 45% contingency that’s less than $12K. Remember all court costs, including witness fees comes out the plaintiffs share. Also any additional cost of recovery is incurred by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is responsible for costs, even if they lose. Compare this with the law firm(s) Mars Inc. will field.

# 3 Kevin said, on July 1st, 2007 at 4:31 am

First the guy getting arrested for using WiFi, now this! Bah! Makes me proud I’m from Michigan!

# 4 Getor said, on July 1st, 2007 at 4:35 am

Only in Amrica…..!

# 5 pedro said, on July 1st, 2007 at 5:29 am

She wrote & sent the lawsuit to her lawyer in her iphone. Apple: Yeah, we own ya!

# 6 BertDawg said, on July 1st, 2007 at 6:06 am

…waitin’ for bobbo to jump in here and furtherly assert that lawyers aren’t public enemy number one…

# 7 knights_templar700 said, on July 1st, 2007 at 6:30 am

The American system is purposely set up for litigation. This woman is smart for using an opportunity that was granted to her. Corporations are not dumb. They have money set aside for cases such as this. She really needs the money. She found a way to get some. It’s all legal therefore it is not unlawful.

# 8 Jägermeister said, on July 1st, 2007 at 6:37 am

Victoria McArthur, if you ever Google your name and find this post… I just want to let you know that you’re an idiot.

# 9 Peter said, on July 1st, 2007 at 6:38 am

I wonder if she doesn’t have health insurance, so she needs to sue someone to help pay for treatment. If you don’t have health insurance, you can either cope or find someone to pay for your medical bills. Would be interesting to find out.

# 10 pedro said, on July 1st, 2007 at 7:08 am

#7 nice exercize on cynicism. Kudos!

# 11 JimR said, on July 1st, 2007 at 7:27 am

She’s a parasite living in the short and curlies of America. If Mars get bit, everyone else will feel the pain.

# 12 Lauren the Ghoti said, on July 1st, 2007 at 9:15 am

#7 – knights_templar700

“It’s all legal therefore it is not unlawful.”

Guess again, my conspiratist amigo. ‘Legal’ and ‘lawful’ do not mean the same thing.

# 13 Micah said, on July 1st, 2007 at 9:23 am

“McArthur says she has had trouble chewing, talking and sleeping since the incident.”

Trouble talking, except to the press or anyone else that will listen to her story.

# 14 bobbo said, on July 1st, 2007 at 9:51 am

6—Dawg, I don’t need no invitation, but thanks.

I could say, I’m just damn glad Ann Coulter didn’t bring this lawsuit? Then go sit in a cave and wait for the man joke analysis.

But “seriously” this is just another example of what is firmly established in our society==ENTERPRISE LIABILITY. Lets understand what is fairly obvious, or take it as a given for discussion==this lady was injured by the candy. Now who should pay for it? We have 3 choices

1. The lady
2. The entity that makes a profit from selling it
3. We the taxpayers.

Doesn’t matter what YOU think. The answer No 2. is well established in our legal system which is why for instance drugs are so expensive to develop.

Only safeguard in this case is whether the jurors of judge will use common sense and kick her out of court. About 50/50 I would say.

# 15 bobbo said, on July 1st, 2007 at 9:53 am

12—I’m honestly curious. What fine distinction exists?

# 16 bobbo said, on July 1st, 2007 at 9:56 am

6===Oh, and by the way “lawyers aren’t public enemy No 1.” Its Congress and the bribe taking congrsspeople who populate its corridors. Not a single one looking out for our interests. Vote them all out.!!!!!!!!!

# 17 hhopper said, on July 1st, 2007 at 10:18 am

A very fine distinction indeed.

legal – deriving authority from or founded on law
lawful – being in harmony with the law

# 18 Lauren the Ghoti said, on July 1st, 2007 at 10:18 am

Question for bobbo:

Just how many members of the United States Congress are not lawyers? Hint: you won’t need more than one hand to count them…

# 19 Jason said, on July 1st, 2007 at 10:22 am

Well I did once pull out a filling in a Starburst, but I consider that my own fault. It’s not like I didn’t know they were sticky like that.

# 20 ECA said, on July 1st, 2007 at 10:29 am

1.
So many of us/we people have gotten out of HELPING or city/country/state/feds that Anyone can run for office, of some sort, and probably WIN.
2. sence most dont understand the ABOVE point, think about the easyest way for a Lawyer to Find a job, and get a Background in Politics.
3. Just Cause a Lawyer gets a job, in politics DONT mean he knows HOW to count.
4. I would suggest that Many of you should look up the Life history and where ALOT of your politicians WERE BORN. Many didnt Live very near, until one of the parties Ran for office and needed a goat.

# 21 bobbo said, on July 1st, 2007 at 10:38 am

17–A distinction without a difference is no distinction. Yes, different words can be used to define anything==but I can think of no situation where legal and lawful are not fully interchangeable. That means they are exactly the same. I have to remember this because “normally” two different words do have some shade of difference. I’m challenging you and Lauren because I’d like to knowl.

18–I’ll use a fine distinction. Members of Congress are lawyers at all “while in Congress.” Yes, most have legal degrees and practiced lawyer before and will after their stints. So why not blame legal degrees, or for that matter, higher education for the evil?

While most in congress are lawyer (sic) ALL are POLITICIANS (IE–power seekers, greedy corrupt souless cretins) put in a position to weild power. I’ll go with a universal attribute over a partial attribute when looking for the coincidences of corruption.

# 22 bobbo said, on July 1st, 2007 at 10:41 am

21–re #18 first line, Most sorry–did proof it, missed it still “NOT lawyers at all”

# 23 hhopper said, on July 1st, 2007 at 11:03 am

Lawful/legal. When you look up the definitions, each uses the other. I was just trying to find a very slight distinction.

C’mon Lauren, let’s hear your distinction.

# 24 bobbo said, on July 1st, 2007 at 11:13 am

23—In the etiology of the english language many words and concepts derive from English, French, and Latin Roots. English is further divided into anglo-saxon and norman roots. That is why English is one of the most complex, precise, communicative languages on earth, if not the Most.

So–often we have 2-3-4-5 (more) words almost meaning the same thing as a result of their root words. Because we think with words, the area of “psycho-linguistics” is a fascinting study.

# 25 Angel H. Wong said, on July 1st, 2007 at 11:29 am

From the mileage seen on her face I’d say she’s been sucking way to many fat penises in her lifetime.

# 26 bobbo said, on July 1st, 2007 at 11:36 am

25—All this ganging up on lawyers is just getting stupid. Not all lawyers have fat penises. Puuleease!

# 27 Frank IBC said, on July 1st, 2007 at 12:05 pm

Bobbo -

C’mon, you don’t seriously believe that you can get TMJ from chewing Starburst three times, do you?

# 28 Lauren the Ghoti said, on July 1st, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Illegal means ‘in violation of statute law, a constitution or precedent.’

Unlawful means ‘not in accordance with law’. Usually applied to acts or entities that fail to comply with the requirements of a regulatory definition, but do not constitute an actual violation of statutory or constitutional law.

Illegal is also unlawful, but unlawful does not necessarily mean illegal.

It’s the difference between doing something the law says you may not do, and not doing something in the exact way the law says it should be done, if it is done.

Semantics is a very subtle and tricky business, which, incidentally, is why it’s not possible to have “laws in plain, simple English” – because that’s how loopholes come into being, by using insufficiently precise language.

bobbo – our laws are screwed. The laws are created by our legislators, who are almost all lawyers. This is not a coïncidence, take my word for it. The ones who don’t draft bad laws out of incompetence and stupidity (e.g. declaring π = 3.0) do so out of pecuniary self-interest, i.e. corruption and greed; neither motive is acceptable.

# 29 Lauren the Ghoti said, on July 1st, 2007 at 12:50 pm

#26 – bobbo

“All this ganging up on lawyers is just getting stupid. Not all lawyers have fat penises.”

How true. In fact, not all lawyers have penises of any size. Take Ann Coulter.

Oops, bad example.

# 30 bobbo said, on July 1st, 2007 at 1:16 pm

27–Very seriously==if by you you mean “me”–no, I could not get TMJ that way. and by implication, I take it YOU could not either, and maybe 99.999 percent of people could not. The issue for the trial in this case of ENTERPRISE LIABILITY is whether or not this particular person did. Issues of foreseeability and contributory negligence are defenses here not present in other liability cases as present in all other economic activities. Again, and seriously, this case is good evidence why we don’t have better school innoculation programs. Same theory, different subject matter, thats all.

28—you were asked about the distinction between legal and lawful but indeed as there is a difference between their oppossites, the subtlety must exist in their counterparts. Your understanding is confirmed here:

http://tinyurl.com/yrjyus

which confirms that when discussing legal terms, standard use dictionaries are no authority. If I had thought of their oppossites, the distinction might have come to me, maybe not.

Now, even more to the point, the terms have more overlap than distinction and the issue arose by stating “It’s all legal therefore it is not unlawful.” Isn’t that true in all cases and therefore your comment while accurate was completely irrelevant? Again, I’m asking because I’d like to know? ((Actually if i can think of why, I will post again.))

As to bad laws, is the solution to attack “lawyers”–ie, add some courses in ethics in law school or to their licensing requirements, or to identify the problem as congresspeople , lawyers and non-lawyers alike, who are wholly corrupt? The distinction is not subtle, not semantics. Keep your eye on the ball. Looking at Bush, Cheney, Frist, Delay==maybe it would be worse if they weren’t lawyers???

# 31 bobbo said, on July 1st, 2007 at 1:20 pm

29—Most excellent. A quadruple entendre if such exist. If not, you should copywrite the term with that example. What was that joke about penises and lawyers==something about a stiff neck, but I don’t recall.

# 32 Mr. Fusion said, on July 1st, 2007 at 6:02 pm

Other then bashing lawyers because you don’t have anything intelligent to pass on, what the eff does this have to do with lawyers?

The woman must convince a Judge that she has enough evidence that Starburst injured her. If she can not present some evidence that
1) she was injured
2)it was by eating a Starburst
3)Starburst knowingly sold a dangerous or defective product (or should have known)
then she doesn’t have a case. In many cases like this, if she can not produce minimal evidence then the case is tossed as frivolous, often with costs to the plaintiff for bringing a frivolous suit.

Her lawyer either feels she has a very good case or would have advised her to forget about it.

My personal take is she most likely already had TMJ. Chewing the candy should not have exerted enough force for her muscles to pull the jaw out of the joint.

# 33 Lauren the Ghoti said, on July 1st, 2007 at 7:25 pm

Dorkmeister, in your sheltered life, you apparently have never encountered the extremely commonplace phenomenon of a greedy / amoral / unethical / desperate lawyer taking a totally bullshit case.

“Her lawyer either feels she has a very good case or would have advised her to forget about it.”

‘A very good case,’ my hairy yellow ass. The lawyer in question thinks he can convince a jury of 6 or 12 dimwits like you that that mean, nasty company recklessly ruined this innocent woman’s life and should be made to cough up big bucks, of which he, surprisingly enough, will get 30 or 40%.

Scumbag lawyers like this one don’t give two fucks whether the case is any good or not. The only criterion is this: Is it winnable?

And you compound your idiocy by suggesting that anyone in their right mind would try this piece of shit case before a judge. Only juries are stupid enough to actually take claims like hers seriously. And people like you, of course. You’re a PI lawyer’s dream.

Dork.

# 34 brucemlloyd said, on July 1st, 2007 at 7:58 pm

temporal mandibular joint dysfunction

“Temporal”? Like some kind of freaky Star Trek:TNG temporal distortion kind of thing? Her jaw achieved the 4th dimension?

# 35 bobbo said, on July 1st, 2007 at 8:24 pm

33—Sorry to be repetitious, but what is the difference between “whether the case is good or not” and “winnable?” Once again, exactly the same thing?

Fusion makes a good point. Most likely a pre-existing condition that the Defendant wont be able to prove?

Its like craps. A good roll is one you win.

34–No. Its long been the name of the bone involved. Now why it is named that I don’t know, but it was named 1763.811.034 years before warp drive was discovered.

# 36 Lauren the Ghoti said, on July 1st, 2007 at 9:12 pm

Temporal, medically speaking, means related to the temple…

- – - – - – -

As to whether this case is ‘good’ – well, her mouthpiece would say it’s good, because it’s a possible big payday for very little work or expense. If it doesn’t fly, he’s not out much. But that doesn’t mean he’s on solid legal ground.

But the theory he’s offering is based on a rather shaky interpretation of the applicable liability laws, and doesn’t have much in the way of precedent going for it, either. Even if he wins, the likelihood of his prevailing on appeal is slim. That sort of thing is not a ‘good’ case – although ultimately, as is so often the situation, one would have to say it’s a matter of opinion… One man’s meat, & cetera.

# 37 Cursor_ said, on July 2nd, 2007 at 1:49 am

OK where the fuck is the Wacky Michigan tag for this??????

If this was Florida it would get a wacky FL tag.

We could have a wacky for most stories.

How about some even handedness?

Cursor_

[The tag is "Wacky News" from FL, not "Wacky FL." - .ed]

# 38 Mr. Fusion said, on July 2nd, 2007 at 6:30 am

#33, Lauren,

Dorkmeister, in your sheltered life, you apparently have never encountered the extremely commonplace phenomenon of a greedy / amoral / unethical / desperate lawyer taking a totally bullshit case.

In case your drug addled mind didn’t grasp the idea, THE LAWYER HAS TO PROVE HIS CASE, first to a Judge that there is a case and then to a jury. He will be the one paying to file the complaint. He will pay for the expert affidavits. He will pay for the stenographer to take depositions. All before the suit ever makes it to trial. If he loses the trial and even if it is tossed as frivolous, the Judge has the option of making him pay for the Defenses expenses too.

Now those are FACTS. Nothing emotional. Nothing wildly claimed. Nothing insulting. No wild accusations.

40% of $25,000 doesn’t sound like he is being greedy / amoral / unethical or desperate. Especially when he stands a good chance of losing. Geeze, you really hate being wrong.

# 39 pedro said, on July 2nd, 2007 at 7:47 am

Yawn.

Damn, there goes my TMJ. Who do I sue for getting TMJ syndrome after yawning?

# 40 Mr. Fusion said, on July 2nd, 2007 at 8:47 am

#39, Try that Venezuelan poster that bores everyone so much.

# 41 bobbo said, on July 2nd, 2007 at 10:38 am

39—What caused you to yawn? Most directly some of my positing?? Sorry, you lose, everyone knows I am boring. You assumed that risk. Read the fineprint when you log onto this site.

36–Your argument sounds good when applied to candy, but all the same concepts apply directly to immunization programs and that is AFTER the pharmco’s do everything they can (supposedly) to make their drugs safe. So, their is a bit more meat to this case that warrents more than an immediate dismissal. As #38 counsels==she got past a lawyer and gets to make an argument in court.

36–Still, you got my motor running. Why are so many in Congress lawyers? Were they corrupt people who went to law school to learn how the system works–ie, corrupt to begin with, nothing to do with the law, or as you suggest is going to law school a corrupting enfluence. Anyhoo, I’m going to spend some time to research a bit. Some sociologist must have looked at this some time?? Let me know if you have anything, as will I.

# 42 jz said, on July 2nd, 2007 at 11:26 am

Another court case that should be decided in small claims. Yeesh.

What gets me is this is the old, “There should be a warning label” bullshit.

Right, as if this whale is even going to bother to read the label say “I may get TMJ” and not eat it.

I could literally list potentially 100 medical conditions associated with the chewing of one starburst.

# 43 hhopper said, on July 2nd, 2007 at 12:57 pm

” ‘A very good case,’ my hairy yellow ass.”

Lauren – Really?!

I can’t believe Angel didn’t comment on this.

# 44 Lauren the Ghoti said, on July 2nd, 2007 at 10:57 pm

Nah. Angel got bored and tuned out when lawyers were mentioned…

# 45 Brandon said, on July 11th, 2007 at 5:17 am

Victoria McArthur; It’s called cock suckers cramp.

# 46 reaggaannnn said, on May 5th, 2008 at 9:02 am

youuuurr stupid.

its a starburts, you hick!

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!