Michigan Woman Claims Starburst Candies Are Dangerously Chewy in Lawsuit

[Rooster]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286855,00.html

People like this trash are the reason America's society is in a downward spiral. People like her need to be eliminated from the planet

[Dirtydawg]

For what it's worth, I can sympathize with this woman. Vette has that condition where your jaw becomes unhinged it it opens too wide or is put in stress. In fact, I had to bring her to the emergency room 2 weeks ago to have them put her jaw back in socket. I can see where someone with that condition could have problems with some types of candies like that. I wonder if the woman had had a Starburst before or if this was her first time. They can be pretty chewy and I know I've had some problems with them at times, enough so that if Vette had tried to chew on them, she probably would have had some problems. I'll say this though, I'm not saying Starburst is at fault for this problem, however, it would probably behoove them to put some sort of disclaimer on their packaging from now on.

[qng001]

Starburst are a bit chewy and sometimes hard...it's best when eating one thats been in your hot car for awhile, it gets a little softer. Same thing with Now or Later. Just don't try it with chocolate!

The most ridiculous case I've heard is the $54 mil (originally $67 mil) lawsuit against a couple who owned a dry cleaner that lost his pants. Roy L. Pearson, an administrative law judge, lost the case. I felt bad for the couple, this lawsuit went on since 2005.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/..._million_pants

[9701Dawg]

The most ridiculous case I've heard is the $54 mil (originally $67 mil) lawsuit against a couple who owned a dry cleaner that lost his pants. Roy L. Pearson, an administrative law judge, lost the case. I felt bad for the couple, this lawsuit went on since 2005.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/..._million_pants

That happened here in DC. This case was all over the talk radio here for over a month, and almost half of the callers here were sympathetic with the judge.

[olddog75]

That happened here in DC. This case was all over the talk radio here for over a month, and almost half of the callers here were sympathetic with the judge.

Remember you are in DC where everyone lives on hands outs from the real world.

[RougeDawg]

Remember you are in DC where everyone lives on hands outs from the real world.

Next thing you know they will be electing mayors that smoke crack. :bigcry:

I'm about ready to call the time of death on America.

[JuBru]

Mars Inc. shouldn't get any blame... I understand about the condition, but I can't seem to wrap my mind around how eating something, like a starburst, would be any different than chewing gum or eating green beans, ice cream, cooked carrots, and many other regular foods.

[Dirtydawg]

Mars Inc. shouldn't get any blame... I understand about the condition, but I can't seem to wrap my mind around how eating something, like a starburst, would be any different than chewing gum or eating green beans, ice cream, cooked carrots, and many other regular foods.

Big, huge difference. In fact, Vette doesn't even eat starburst, now and laters or any other excessively chewy candy for that specific reason. I'll tell you what. Go buy some starbursts and eat them and then eat some ice cream, cooked carrots, green beans and other regular foods and tell me you can't tell the difference.

[StrayDawg]

In fact, Vette doesn't even eat starburst, now and laters or any other excessively chewy candy for that specific reason.

I think that's the whole point. Vette realizes the issue and avoids it for her own good. This lady thinks that she should be entitled to Starburst candy regardless of her natural condition and sues the company.

That Vette is pretty sharp. Her taste in husbands is another story.

[Dirtydawg]

I think that's the whole point. Vette realizes the issue and avoids it for her own good. This lady thinks that she should be entitled to Starburst candy regardless of her natural condition and sues the company.

That Vette is pretty sharp. Her taste in husbands is another story.

Do we know whether or not that was the first time the woman had ever had a Starburst? If not, then I agree with you. If she had never had one before, then how should she know to avoid them?

[marketdawg]

McArthur says she just wants to make sure nobody else meets the same end she did when she decided to indulge her sweetooth.
"I don't want to see anybody else have to go through what I have gone through from eating a piece of candy that was supposed to be soft chew," she said.

BS! If that's all she wanted then why sue for the $? I'm sick of idiot warnings on items..I got a new smoker (grill) the other day and it had at least 10 warnings on it such as "Caution: Surfaces hot when in use"....."Caution: Sharp edges may cause injury" .."Caution: This (obviously huge, round, steel barrel with heavy duty attachments) unit is heavy. Do not lift alone". REAAALLLY!! Thank goodness I had these warnings in English and Spanish or I might not have survived the whole process. I wish I had this lady's address, I would send her a free case of Now and Laters for her pain and suffering.

[StrayDawg]

Do we know whether or not that was the first time the woman had ever had a Starburst? If not, then I agree with you. If she had never had one before, then how should she know to avoid them?

That's a fair point, but here is another way to look at it:

I have never drunk a glass of Clorox bleach, but if I chose to do so, I would quickly figure out that the product could cause harm to me and I would spit out the bleach before it did permanent damage to my tongue. If this were her first Starburst, then when she bit into it and realized how "chewy" it was, she should have spit it out to avoid hurting her jaw.

In my case, I would be using the Clorox inappropriately, so my case would probably not go far. In her case, she is not misusing the product, so the court is hearing her case. However, in both cases, common sense could solve the problem without any attorneys.

[Tech77]

Do we know whether or not that was the first time the woman had ever had a Starburst? If not, then I agree with you. If she had never had one before, then how should she know to avoid them?

How many chews did she make before she had the problem? Did it happen on the first chew? Because after one chew she should have know the darn thing is "chewy."

She might also have gotten the message that the thing is "chewy" by looking at the label:

http://www.candydirect.com/movie/Sta...ews-72-oz.html

We need to start building courtrooms with trap doors in the floor. You bring in a ridiculous claim, you and your lawyer get dropped into a moat.

[JuBru]

Big, huge difference. In fact, Vette doesn't even eat starburst, now and laters or any other excessively chewy candy for that specific reason. I'll tell you what. Go buy some starbursts and eat them and then eat some ice cream, cooked carrots, green beans and other regular foods and tell me you can't tell the difference.

Not saying it there isn't a difference, just that I don't see it. To me, it's all motion... My jaw does the same motion with starburt as it does food and everything else... Guess I'm just weird.

[Dirtydawg]

Not saying it there isn't a difference, just that I don't see it. To me, it's all motion... My jaw does the same motion with starburt as it does food and everything else... Guess I'm just weird.

I understand what you're saying, but seriously, get you a starburst and a bowl of ice cream. Sit down at the table and take a bite of the ice cream. Then put a starburst in your mouth and give it a good hard bite and then come back here and honestly say that you can't see the difference in taking a bite of ice cream and biting down on a starburst-and I'm not talking about starburst that's been in the heat of the car all day either.