Though I Did Something Stupid, It's Your Fault....(or I is suing you)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Got this list out of my Inbox, this morning. Are people truly this insane, or just broke?: 1) A tourist, who got tickets to see "The Tonight Show", was hit by a souvenir T-shirt that the warm-up comedian launched into the crowd. He filed suit claiming the Tonight Show and Leno committed "battery by making harmful and offensive contact with him." 2) A California man is suing two Las Vegas casinos claiming that they were negligent in allowing him to gamble away more than $1 million while he was intoxicated. 3) A programmer, who was paid for his work in stock (which is now worthless), is suing his broker for not properly explaining to him what diversification means. 4) A Southern California golfer with a serious hook shot, sued a Long Beach golf course after his ball ricocheted off a sign and hit his buddy in the eye. 5) A Los Angeles lawyer and self avowed "deadhead" sued a fellow lawyer in his office for intentional infliction of emotional distress for joking about the death of Grateful Dead band leader Jerry Garcia. 6) An Ohio man is suing for half a million dollars because he got hurt when he unexpectedly got a plain M&M amongst his peanut M&Ms. He claims he bit his lip and cut right through the skin and had to be treated at the hospital. He is suing both M&M and the Family Dollar Store in Cleveland where he bought the bag for failing to inspect the candy and then selling what he calls defective and mislabeled merchandise. 7) A Canadian tourist has sued the Starbucks for $1.5 million alleging that a highly "personal" part of his anatomy was crushed when it got caught between the toilet seat and bowl. Skwarek was reportedly in a seated position on the commode. When he turned to retrieve the toilet paper, the seat shifted. His wife is also demanding $500,000 as compensation for depravation of his husbandly services. 8)An Ohio inmate sued for being denied possession of soap on a rope.

9) A San Quentin death row inmate sued California because his packages were sent via UPS rather than the U.S. Postal Service. 10) A 9-year-old girl sued the makers of Cracker Jacks because her box contained no prize.

No wonder the lawyers are rolling in it;>

― Nichole Graham, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Damn, the server didn't space it properly.

Oops...;>

― Nichole Graham, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Conclusion: yes, the world (er, sorry, America) is stupid. Oh well.

― Ally C, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Not to spoil the fun, but how many of these lawsuits were immediately tossed out by the judge as frivolous? No one can stop you from filing a suit for anything whatsoever. That is as it should be. But no one can force the court to take it seriously, either.

― Little Nipper, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Snopes (of course) has an insightful piece on an e-mail just like this one.

― Michael Daddino, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Japanese artist Yoshitomo Nara is approached by Japanese drinks manufacturer Asahi to draw one of his trademark frowning little girls for a new drink they're launching for sale in vending machines. He declines, and Asahi commission a Naralike, an obvious rip-off. Nara doesn't sue them, but complains on a website, posting a photo of the Asahi drink next to his own work to show the similarity. Asahi then sues him for alleging impropriety on their part.

Sometimes failing to sue people who wrong you just encourages them to wrong you more.

― Momus, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Its strange to think that if you behaved as people often do in TV and movies and punched someone you didn't like, you could be sued and maybe even go to jail. In TVland you are a total hero!

― mike hanle y, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Oopsie. Let me repeat that Snopes link again.

― Michael Daddino, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The thing is, you don't have to sue in half of those instances to get something out of the company. A lot of those people are going to get NOTHING and have SPENT MONEY filing a suit when simple customer complaints could've gotten them somewhere. I kind of understand the Starbucks guy, I mean they had a faulty toilet and it injured him - if Starbucks had faulty lighting and it crashed from the ceiling onto someone, no one would be having a laugh at the lawsuit. It's the same thing. But the M&Ms guy? He coulda gotten free M&Ms for like a year by just complaining to the company. Oh, and if the Vegas guy has some proof that he was outrageously intoxicated, the casino could get into trouble - there's a law that they have to refuse service to "visibly drunk" people so if he plays with that law, he's technically in the right, no matter how asinine the claim actually is (I mean, dude, what the hell).

More people should just complain to management tho instead of this suing thing. You get more out of it. I'm currently in huge dispute with Delta Airlines and Time Warner, in both cases I'm 100% right and in both cases I actually have legal actions I can take against both companies and would have a very solid defense for myself (not going into the stories, Delta can be in serious trouble though if they don't shut me up pretty quickly with my complaint), but why the hell would I spend all that time and money when just writing letters and just vaguely threatening to report them is going to get me a free vacation and a month of free cable? I mean, dude, free M&Ms.

― Ally, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

2 7 & 8 also seem to have degrees of legitimacy especially if you accept the punitive character of lawsuits & 10 deserves a boxful of toys.

― Sterling Clover, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Aly, your mind can blaze open the minds.

― mike hanle y, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I was thinking about the Damilola trial yesterday. The defense attorney when examining the key prosecution witness said something like, " you knew there was money it it, so you lied! you lied! didn't you?". It would have been great if the witness had had the wit to retort, "Isn't that exactly what you are doing as a defense attorney?"

Ah well. I'd like to see some instances of witnesses shutting the lawyers up in court.

― marianna, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Though from what I've read about the case it sounds to me like she was lying. Though I wasn't there etc. etc.

― Emma, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Are defence lawyers lying though.It is not their job to get people off of criminal cases, it is their job to test the veracity of the prosecutions case against their innocent clients. As in a court of law, the accused are innocent right until the very end of the trial if they have been proven guilty.

Bromley was a very dodgy witness and while there is possibly some truth in the defence badgering her the CPS should never have put her on the stand if her they thought her testimony was going to be in doubt.

― Pete, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

yeah but there was that classic moment when she said "Blimey this is out of order! I'm not taking any more of your lip matey I'm off home," and stalked out of the court, and the judge had to shut up shop for the day. If there were all these intimidated witnesses not coming forward, seems to me she was pretty bold up there whether or not she was lying. I liked her.

― mark s, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think I'd be bold too if I was under police protection & someone promised me £50,000 at the end of it all. I have no sympathy for her at all.

― Emma, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Is it true So Solid are doing a song for the Damilola fund? So I'm told.

― Ronan, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

DeprAvation of his husbandly services? An interesting side- effect...

― Archel, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

i didn't say sympathy, i said i liked her: she massively cheeked the court, and in the light of the outcome her cheek was pretty justified, i'd say (and it's hardly her fault the police failed to convince other witnesses they would protect them)

all the professionals are behaving as if the main causes of the collapse of the case only just occurred to them now with hindsight — Peckham is a NoGo Area!! No one came forward!! These kids are "cute to the criminal justice system" — and how dare they be subject to such uneven playing field conditions: but the only thing that's even plausibly new here (eg that they aren't paid to take account of) is the "cuteness" of yoof towards the system, and even that is mainly only news if you're a reporter (and an idiot)

― mark s, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

www.overlawyered.com

― Stuart, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

protection my ass. you need protection if you are testifying against real criminals, not mythical "urban" monsters planted by 12-ft lizard people to undermine the vitality and moral integrity of humanity.

― Sterling Clover, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Precisely, Ally. I fully believe in speaking up if I don't like something, but nothing says I must put $$ in someone else's pocket to make my point.

Hope you win your suits, BTW. But then, arlines usually will do nearly anything to keep from being hauled into court (free air tickets, vouchers, etc.)

― Nichole Graham, Monday, 29 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.