In the case of something you don't have to use (alcohol, fast food, tobacco etc.) it is that indivuals own choice, and therefore their own fault.

Good point J

I agree.

The company didn't FORCE the individual to buy the item. It's the consumer's choice to but that item. Yes the company should have recalled the item from shops but yet it it still the ultimate decision of the buyer.

If a condition arises due to a component of the product (the red dye used in some instant noodles until recently is an e.g.) then maybe. For something like smoking of drinking then certainly not. If i end up with liver failure in years to come it'll be my fault not Guinness Breweries.

I can't wait to get lung cancer so I can sue my cigarette company. =D

Depends. If, in the case of cigarettes, there are warnings on the product about how harmful it is, well then no. They were warned, they still took the risk. But, if these risks were unknown to the consumer, they have a right to sue.

...like the woman who sued McDonalds because her coffee was too hot, duckey? ;)

I think the ability to take legal action is an important one in a free or relatively free society. Restricting the rights to legal action for the intent of diminishing perceived "frivolous lawsuits" will just result in excluding some people from legal process.

Note that the question (and my answer) does not say anything about the resolution of such suits. While I think a settlement for someone who scalds themselves with coffee while driving is ridiculous, I will fight fiercely for someone's right to open such a suit. Now, I realize that scalding hardly qualifies as a "medical condition" per the original question, but it was mentioned by others in the comments, so I used it as an extreme example.

In addition to the right to litigate, I think more should be made of the stigma associated with litigation. People tend to focus on the positive aspects of such litigation "He settled for sixty million dollars!" rather than the negative ones "No employer will ever hire him again!" "Everybody thinks he's a jerk!" "He has to pay forty million dollars in legal fees!" If people paid more attention to the negative aspects of the legal process, there might be two desirable results:

* positive legal reform
* less inclination to file a suit at the drop of a hat

As it is, I think people hear so many stories of people filing suits and getting huge settlements that they disparage the legal system normally, and then when they experience some trauma, they leap to filing their own suits. I think a genuine respect and fear of the legal process would be a lot more healthy for society as a whole.

edited for emphasis

It may be the individual's own choice, but it's not like anyone would expect a toothbrush to make them violently ill or have any possible sickness. I see it as the company's responsibility for their products to be helpful and beneficial. If it's the exact opposite for buyers, the company has to have some fault with this.

But I also have to agree with duckey94's statement. If there are warnings present with the item, and the customer ignores it, it's fully the customer's own fault.

With this one, it really depends. If someone is doing something, for instance smoking, it's their decision, no one's holding a gun to their head and making them, and they shouldn't get to sue the company over their own stupid decisions. While the company shouldn't be making the product in the first place and could be sued for that, that's a different matter.

If someone didn't know what the company product was going to do to them, they should be able to sue, but if someone is doing stupid things with full awareness of their actions, then they have no right to sue the company.

Depends. When it's something that's obviously going to harm them (drinking something that's steaming, smoking, eating foods that obviously have something their allergic to) then, no. The consumer knew what would happen and they still did what they did. That's not the company's fault and there was nothing they could do.

But if it's something not obvious (a mislabel, improper handling) then yes. That was something the company was supposed to handle/warn the customer about.

I find this question was worded strangely. You should have the ability to sue in all situations if you so desire to, but I hope to hell that you would get laughed out of the courtroom in these kind of cases. You are the consumer, you chose to consume. Shut up and go home now.