Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tort Reform Obesity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves bill limiting obesity-related lawsuits, critics warn of future costs
Summary
The Utah House passed a bill barring certain obesity-related lawsuits against food providers, 47-17, after extended debate about individual responsibility, public-health costs and potential effects on state Medicaid recoveries.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House on its final day of the general session approved legislation that would bar many lawsuits against food providers for obesity-related harms, a proposal supporters called a clarification of personal responsibility and opponents said could limit legal recourse and complicate future state cost recovery.
Representative Hutchings, the bill sponsor, told colleagues the measure — discussed in the House as the Common Sense Consumption Act — is narrowly aimed at claims arising from an individual’s long-term, voluntary overeating and does not apply to injuries from defective or adulterated products. “If you eat until you’re obese, it’s kind of your own fault,” Hutchings said on the floor, adding the bill exempts cases involving tobacco, alcohol, vitamins, illegal drugs and prescription medicines.
Opponents pressed whether the change could hamper the state’s ability to recover Medicaid or other public costs if a future court treated long-term consumption as an injury. Representative Hansen asked, “Do you think this type of a lawsuit could hinder the state if we needed to recoup money for Medicaid?” Hutchings acknowledged the question but said past high-profile suits (he referenced dismissals of lawsuits such as a New York case against a fast-food chain) suggest such claims are unlikely to succeed.
Other critics said the bill may preempt courts from deciding novel fact patterns. Representative Morgan said established defenses already protect manufacturers when hazards are “open and obvious,” and called the new statute unnecessary. Representative Daniels called it “a pretty harmless bill” in a different vein, while Representative Litvak questioned the legislative review note and any possible unresolved case law relevant to the bill.
After extended questions and back-and-forth on constitutional implications and precedent, the House voted to approve the first-substitute bill, 47 in favor and 17 opposed. Supporters framed the measure as reducing frivolous litigation and unnecessary burdens on businesses; opponents warned the change could reduce legal accountability or complicate future public-cost recovery.
The bill now returns to the Senate for further consideration.
The House made no changes to the bill’s exemption list recorded on the floor. The next procedural step is transmission to the Senate for concurrence or further action.
