The British Court of Appeal has cut libel damages awarded to McDonald’s, the

游客2024-10-08 36

问题 The British Court of Appeal has cut libel damages awarded to McDonald’s, the world’s largest fast—food chain, against two penniless environment campaigners.
   In 1997, the High Court in London found that environmental campaigners Helen Steel, aged 34, and Dave Morris, 44, were guilty of distributing a pamphlet containing allegations against McDonald’s and their fast food and its preparation. The trial lasted three years and brought to light much evidence about the way McDonald’s hamburger chain workers prepared, handled and served food, and the treatment of these workers by the American-owned company. The High Court in London awarded McDonald’s damages of 60,000 pounds (RMB 780,000) against the two penniless campaigners.
   But in 1999, three Appeal Court Judges in London decided that the two defendants found guilty of libel against McDonald’s in 1997 would have the damages they have to pay to McDonald’s reduced to 40,000 pounds (RMB 520,000).
   While upholding the libel ruling, the judges backed the defendants’ claim the food carries health risks and said allegations McDonald’s workers suffer poor pay and conditions are "fair comment". The judges also backed a claim by the defendants that eating the company’s hamburgers can cause heart disease.
   The claim that "if one eats enough McDonald’s food, one’s diet may well become high in fat..., with the very real risk of heart disease, is justified," said Lord Justice Pill, who was sitting in the Court of Appeal with Lord Justice May and Justice Keene.
   The appeal decision is likely to be a further embarrassment to McDonald’s, whose three-year action against environmental campaigners Helen Steel and Dave Morris generated extensive negative publicity.
   Peter Backman, chief executive of Food Service Intelligence, a research group, said: " McDonald’s is very conscious of what people say about them. They have got where they have by listening to consumers. I think their strategy will be to downplay the ruling, refute the comments, and thirdly, to do something about it." McDonald’s said it welcomed the Court of Appeal decision to uphold the 1997 libel ruling.
   The company faces another $200,000 legal bill for the 23-day appeal hearing. Steel and Morris were to take the case to the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights to appeal against the damages awarded against them. They present much of their cases themselves and any lawyer’s fees are largely paid for by donations. The pair have yet to win court backing for claims that McDonald’s damages the environment, or that there are links between its hamburgers, cancer and food poisoning.
   The fast-food chain has not yet recovered a penny of its original libel award from the defendants, who are refusing to hand over any money. [br] What can be inferred from the passage?

选项 A、The two defendants will win the case in the end.
B、People are sympathetic with the two defendants.
C、McDonald’s food will inevitably lead to heart disease.
D、People will refuse to eat McDonald’s food.

答案 B

解析推断题。文章第8段第3句指出两个被告打官司的钱“主要靠捐款支付”，也就表明肓很多人同情并支持被告，故可推出B选项正确。

转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3792115.html

相关试题推荐

随机试题

最新回复(0)

The British Court of Appeal has cut libel damages awarded to McDonald’s, the

ConservationistsonTuesdayappealedtocountriestourgentlyaddressnewth

ConservationistsonTuesdayappealedtocountriestourgentlyaddressnewth

WhendidtheIndia’sBritishrulersopentalksonIndia’sindependence?[origina

HowmanysoldiershavebeenstationedinAfghanistan?[originaltext]British

TheGeorgeCrossisadecorationthatisbestowed______Britishciviliansforact