Before dismissing the predictions in this column, I should remind you of a previous Rusty Saber prediction.
It was in the midst of the enormous judgments courts were handing out like Halloween candy to plaintiffs who claimed they didn’t know smoking was harmful to their health. Forget the warnings on cigarette packages that pretty much say cigarettes can kill you. The blame for people smoking fell, not on smokers, but on the tobacco companies.
At the time, I didn’t describe the tobacco sellers as angels or evildoers. They were selling an offensive, yet legal, product that some people wanted badly enough to ignore the health warnings.
Many readers scoffed when the Rusty Saber predicted that the fast food industry would become a similar legal target, one responsible for America’s appetite for junk food, and ultimately, obesity.
Well, there have been lawsuits filed against fast food companies. Thus far, no large judgments have been awarded. But the early tobacco suits also were unsuccessful.
As was the case with “Big Tobacco” awards, it is only a matter of time before a jury will decide that some junk food eater was duped by “Big Grease” into a steady diet of triple-patty hamburgers, fries and milkshakes. Once the fast food blame game begins, the dam will burst and the flood will follow.
Looking into the Rusty Saber crystal ball of future lawsuits aimed at deep pocket defendants, I see litigation brought by people who work evenings, time periods television labels as “prime-time viewing.”
Those whose jobs prevent them from watching prime time reality shows, situation comedies and dramas will someday sue TV networks and local affiliates. You see, scheduling shows at a time when an entire category of people cannot watch discriminates against them.
Before declaring me to be a certifiable loony, think about the civil liberties ramifications. Because of their jobs, some citizens are not free to watch TV programs others can watch. The harm: these “victims” are deprived of knowing who was voted off the island or who was forced to eat a bucket of live worms.
Even worse, the viewers are unaware of the plots of hit comedy and drama shows. They are so out of the loop that they have nothing to talk about when they gather with their friends.
The point could be made in court that these uninformed victims of “Big Media” will be shunned, never to be invited to social gatherings. The judgments received by litigants will no doubt allow them to quit their evening jobs and watch prime-time TV in the lap of luxury.
Another category of lawsuits waiting to be filed can be found on beaches, lakes, on pleasure boats and around swimming pools. If you have visited any of these, you may have noticed that men and women wear various forms of bathing suits. Some are very skimpy, some aren’t.
It doesn’t take a MENSA member to figure out that only certain types of men and women have any business wearing skimpy bathing suits. It is the young, reasonably slender ones who receive admiring glances from onlookers. Truth be told, admiring glances are motivation for wearing tiny swimsuits.
People who shouldn’t wear revealing swimsuits are potential litigants. They look fine in bathing suits that cover up what needs to be covered up. I predict that eventually some who lack skimpy swimsuit bodies but wear them anyway, upon seeing photos of themselves looking like 50 pounds of potatoes stuffed into 25 pound bags, will sue swimsuit manufacturers and retailers. The suffering and ridicule will be the fault of the sellers, not the buyers.
You may think such cases would be laughed out of court. If it turns out that my predictions are wrong, sue me.
Joe McAdoo is former chairman of the communication department at Drury University.
