Stupid lawsuits

[Snake Plissken]

Welcome to the world of frivolous lawsuits. In this day and age, it amazes me what people will do for money and what extremes they will go to get it. Read some of these interesting lawsuits. The scary thing is that most of these people won their lawsuits.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In California, a woman sued a grocery store because a 6-pack of beer drooped on her foot. Nothing was broken, but "it hurt". She won the case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PHILADELPHIA, Pa. - A woman is suing the pharmacy that sold her a popular contraceptive jelly - because she ate the stuff on toast and got pregnant anyway.

And, incredibly, many legal experts are saying she's got an excellent chance of collecting!

"The woman is a complete idiot," said one attorney who asked that we not use his name. "How bright can you be if you think eating a vaginal gel will prevent conception?

"But certain aspects of the case involve truth in labeling and false advertising issues. She may not collect but she'll make a lot of noise and trouble. People are down on lawyers anyway. They think we waste time and money on frivolous lawsuits. This isn't going to help our public relations any."

A spokesman for the unnamed mom-and-pop drugstore says he's shocked and angry that such a case could ever be taken seriously. "All she has to do is open the box and read the directions," says the spokesman. "Next thing you know someone will come after us because they couldn't stick things together with their toothpaste.

"I can just imagine some moron saying: 'It's paste, isn't it? Why can't I glue these papers onto my bulletin board?'"

But attorneys for Mrs. Chyton say she was swindled and lied to by implication and they intend to make the pharmacy pay $500,000 for the hardship the woman will have to endure.

"It says right on it 'jelly,'" says Mrs. Chyton, a former model who was once a cheerleader for a popular professional basketball team.

"And they kept it on the shelf just two aisles from the food section. I know, now, that the directions say it should be used vaginally with a condom.

"But who has time to sit around reading directions these days - especially when you're sexually aroused?

"The company should call it something else and the pharmacy shouldn't sell it without telling each and every customer who buys it that eating it won't prevent you from getting pregnant."

As bizarre as it sounds, the pharmacy could wind up losing the lawsuit.

"It's hard for businesses to avoid troublesome lawsuits," said another attorney.

"With the courts bending over backwards to please consumer groups, the temper of the times is perfect for these crackpots to bring legal action against businesses - even a moronic legal action like this."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A robber sued the bank, the manufacturer, the city, the police, and the hospital after a "Security Pac" hidden in the stolen loot released tear gas and red dye.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A minister and his wife sued a guide-dog school when a blind man stepped on the wife's toes in a shopping mall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A San Diego man sued the city for emotional trauma during a concert when he saw women using the men's rest room.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Patternseeker]

yea, snake, it's truly bizarre.

almost like the twilight zone. always blaming someone else, and seeing it as an opportunity to get some cash.

 

[Bama6895]

I am so happy that I am going into tax law so that I do not have to fool with these entirely stupid cases.


My first day in law school in my torts class, I learned this: There are plenty of accidents and injuries, but that does not mean that someone else will be at fault for what you did. Things happen but that does not mean you have a right to bring a suit.

I think that these lawyers forgot this principle and sure did not tell it to their clients. :nono:

 

[taoist]

Bama, the more law suits the better.... we're in the business of protecting the "little man" on the totem pole.... Ethics cannons demand that you represent your client to the best of your ability!

...talk to me, man...talk to loophole.

p.s. Get my e-mail from Jack if you'd rather not discuss in the forum....

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Taoist: I agree with you to an extent,however a total degenerate can stage a fall,have attorney sue business and they have nothing to lose and a shot at big bucks,yet the business could be totally innocent and is out of pocket big bucks for their defense.
Nowi f you really want to cut frivolous lawsuits just implement one simple rule.
If you sue and lose you are obligated to pay cost of defendents legal bill,but then again that would be too logical and fair and would cut the tort claims by 50% minimum so you know it will never happen.

 

[Eddie Haskell]

I'm so glad the media, insurance industry and the rest of you right wing blockheads have you so brainwashed that you will take a snipet from a newspaper to blow your tort reform horn. You know nothing of the facts of that case, McDonalds coffee case, or the other high profile cases you choose to read about in the papers. You sound like talk radio. Unless your in the court room and hear the facts, I think your republican, big business comments are less than factual and aimed at sensationalism. It's real cool now adays to attack lawyers and lawsuits by singling out cases that appear on the surface to defy reason.

You don't know the facts. You know its kinda funny, I live int he middle of bible belt middle america and the common mantra from all my republican clients is every one elses lawsuit is frivolous except mine. Your post feeds into that frenzy. I can hardly wait for your reply attack on lawyers.

Eddie

 

[Sports Junkie]

This is not meant to be an attack on attorneys, as my wife is one. It is just a personal observation on this topic. My first hand experience in dealing with cases like this is one of the reasons I got out of the commercial and G/L insurance business. For every 10 cases I dealt with I would say 2 or 3 actually had merit and were the defendant's fault. Sure it is not representative of every single case in the US, I am talking about my personal experience in the business. Often it was an average Joe or Jane looking to make a couple of extra bucks at the insurance companies or self-insured's expense from a minimal or exaggerated injury that generally was at least partially their own fault. In talking to plaintiff's counsel about these cases I often found that they perpetuated the idea that there was an extra buck to be made. I finally got sick of the "game" between carriers and plaintiff's attorneys.

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Sports Junkie:

I am a plaintiffs attorney. I acknowledge the crap on my side of the fence (late night tv advertisers i.e. "Injured....need money...", ambulance chasers on the back of the yellow pages, etc.) as long as you acknowledge the crap on your side (Allstate, etc.). Look, I don't like chiropractors, pain management clinics and the like and try, to the extent that I can, to steer my clients far away from them.

My point is this constant bashing of lawyers, lawsuits and how its bankrupting the insurance industry is a well orchestrated, and organized attempt by your former employers to bring about tort reform where the legitimately injured client pays the price. I dont agree or disagree with your ratios. However, I know that my PI clients suffer because of the brainwashed juries I have to face who want to over compensate for the Mc Donalds case by screwing my client.

When I go into a courtroom representing the Plaintiff, the field is by far from level. I voir dire juries about the McDonalds case all the time. They generally think that I and my clients are the scum of the earth. I'm going against preconceived ideas placed in the heads of jurors just like the author of this thread posted. Many legitimate people who are injured are compensated far less than they deserve due to the concentrated efforts of the insurnace industry. Yet we are the ambulance chasing scumballs like Jackie Childs.

The insurance companies made a lot of money off the McDonalds case at the expense of many injured plaintiffs. Its too bad we dont have a multi-billion dollar industry backing the individuals injured on a daily basis. I'd love to exchange a few Allstate stories with ya. Answer this, what will you read, a story about a lady making hundreds of thousands off of spilling coffee in her lap or a story about an injured person who doesn't get a sufficent award from a jury due to preconceived ideas jurors have as a result of a multi-million dollar campaign paid for by the insurance industry and the chamber of commerce.

Eddie

 

[taoist]

...however a total degenerate can stage a fall,have attorney sue business and they have nothing to lose...

...attorneys get paid by their time...just like handicappers like fletcher and others that make their living doing this sort of thing. Attorneys have to screen their clients because they put time and $$ into every lawsuit. They can't take every "total degenerate" that walks in the door or they would starve to death.... Most attorneys in PI suits don't get paid by the hour - they get paid 1/3 of the adjudicated claim.... Believe me, they have PLENTY TO LOSE!!! (...especially in a small town where the first thing to go is your reputation.)

p.s. (Afterthought) Who can least afford to pay an attorney to defend them? The "little man" or the "big company"?

 

[taoist]

...Nowi f you really want to cut frivolous lawsuits just implement one simple rule. If you sue and lose you are obligated to pay cost of defendents legal bill,but then again that would be too logical and fair and would cut the tort claims by 50% minimum so you know it will never happen.

...ask most any attorney - it's called the "American Rule" - it means that each party is responsible for their own attorney's fees.... that's why in PI cases, the "attorney's fee" comes directly out of the clients damage award. :nooo:

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Why the english rule (loser pays other sides atty fees) doesn't work. Example. case where both sides share liability. plaintiff doesn't want to risk losing because then she's responsible for defendant counsel fees. won't bring action.

insurance company with all the money in the world has nothing to lose in such situation other than plaintiffs one-third contingency fee. Big deal if it loses. This is what allstate is doing now. Taking everything to trial, when an excess judgment comes in, they pay it cause they know they will lose bad faith lawsuit.

Once again, victim loses, insurance company wins.

Eddie

 

[Sports Junkie]

I certainly am not against folks who are legitimately injured through no fault of their own (or whatever the State liability laws are) getting a fair settlement or award. My main frustration was avoiding trial all together. Insurers often settle cases that have little merit or value to avoid the continued expense of preparing for and going to trial. These types of settlements "might" drive insurance costs up slightly, but I doubt it, and certainly not as much as the insurance lobby would want folks to believe I would guess. It is also these type of settlements that I think encourage (for lack of a better word) frivolous suits. Your statement about a less than level field in the courtroom also depends on the jurisdiction I think. A conservative county would make all the difference in the jury pool for sure. Not that you are admitted there I would guess, but if you were to try a case in DC, or Bronx, Kings or even Queens Co. NY, you would feel a lot differently.

Yes, it is the sensationalized cases that get the publicity and the public outcry, but I think the cases listed in this thread are probably from a whole list of out of the ordinary suits with no details at all. There are details about that McDonalds case that are not widely known, like the fact that there were over 500 cases similar to that one prior to that incident, and that McDonalds as a rule served their coffee at about 30-50 degrees hotter than necessary. The award was also reduced significantly after the verdict.

I have had my dealings with Allstate as well when they insured co-defendants. Their NY office would not touch a litigated case until a trial date had been set.

It is interesting to hear a variation on "they're a big company, they can afford it." I am used to hearing those type of statements from plaintiffs re: settlement, not carriers taking their chances at trial.

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Sports Junkie:

I agree with your assesment of various jurisdictions. I happen to live in Cincinnati which is conservative central. If I tried cases in Cook County, Illinois or Cuyahoga County, Ohio (Cleveland) maybe I wouldn't feel so abused.

My take is that jurors in most jurisdictions other than your sampling, side more with the civil suit defendant and not the victim. They generally stand for the proposition of "..what if I'm sued..." as opposed to "..what if I was hurt...".

Who is legitmatly hurt? We have defense whores in Cincinnati who find nothing wrong with anyone. One doc was forced to admit that he made $600,000.00 in 2000 from defense medical exams. Are there plaintiff whores, of course.

You seem like a decent guy (although jaded) and I wouldn't have minded trying to resolve some cases with you. I'm just bummed at the litigation climate of today but, not for the reasons of the author of this thread.

There are no clear cut answers. But I'm trying to let people know that this isn't a situation where you file a complaint and the insurance company throws money at you for nuisance value. Allstate tries every case, legitimate or not.

For the victimes who are injured, trying a lawsuit can be very expensive Doctors depo fees, expert witnesses. To tag onto that loser pays fees, you kill legitimate claims. It has been my observation that most insurance companies are trying the cases and not settling for nuisance value.

Eddie

 

[SixFive]

I guess I need to change my name to right wing blockhead. Eddie, you are not in the Bible belt either. Ohio folks are yankees. :moon: I would also argue that the media is liberally biased and that the brainwashing is done in that direction.

 

[yyz]

"You seem like a decent guy (although jaded)"---Eddie Haskell

I think you're the flip side of that stone, Edward.

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Six Five:

TNot in the Bible Belt? Try telling that to my jurors who carry their own bibles into the courtroom. They might not talk funny like you guys in southern Kentucky but, they sure vote like ya.

YYZ: Good point. I am jaded. Aren't we all to our beliefs. I used to do defense work for insurance companies and voted for Ronnie Raygun, twice. See I too have made errors in my life. However, I have seen the light. I am trying to get through to you blockheads the truth.

SixFive: I'm sure you can pick him up on WLW, Bill Cunningham, any other talk radio host. Rush, Fox News, O'Reilly etc. Yeah, I know the NY Times, Rather, CNN. Your telling me the media doesn't jump on tort reform and McDonalds? Gimme a break!

As you can see I have been reborn. I am now on the side of truth and justice (as long as they don't outlaw contingency fees).


Eddie

 

[yyz]

I used to do defense work for insurance companies and voted for Ronnie Raygun, twice. See I too have made errors in my life. However, I have seen the light. I am trying to get through to you blockheads the truth.

Like most people who "preach the truth", you have lost touch as to what it even is. As long as your "truth" serves you, fine. Other than that, or if someone doesn't share that rose colored view, they are a blockhead. Bravo, counselor! That may fly in the courtrooms you ply your trade in, (doubtful) but not with me.


As you can see I have been reborn. I am now on the side of truth and justice (as long as they don't outlaw contingency fees).

Reborn? Well, mama must have been taking double hits on the crack pipe when it got to her. (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and place the blame on a "Raygun" welfare reform plan.)

You make it sound like there are no frivolous lawsuits out there! I seriously doubt that the average member of our society thinks that "all lawsuits and lawyers" area joke.

However, I know that my PI clients suffer because of the brainwashed juries I have to face who want to over compensate for the Mc Donalds case by screwing my client.

Does the courtroom proccess not allow you to pick/screen potential jurors? So, I have to question your ability to properly represent your clients, if this simple proccess eludes your skills.

When I go into a courtroom representing the Plaintiff, the field is by far from level. I voir dire juries about the McDonalds case all the time. They generally think that I and my clients are the scum of the earth. I'm going against preconceived ideas placed in the heads of jurors just like the author of this thread posted. Many legitimate people who are injured are compensated far less than they deserve due to the concentrated efforts of the insurnace industry. Yet we are the ambulance chasing scumballs like Jackie Childs.

So, the "author" of this post, and others, like myself, can't differentiate between some dumbass putting vaginal jelly on toast, and someone who gets hit by the Pepsi truck that runs a red light? I think you need to be "reborn" another time...........sooner or later, your creator will get it right.

I would love to add more, but I am late for my "30 somethings for Reagan" weekly rally at the city government center. (Held in the right wing, of course!)

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Eddie I think you misinterpretted me. I am a firm believer in good attorney's and its a damn shame so many get a bad name for the actions of few, but being in the insurance business for 20 plus years ( speaking of bad names for the actions of few) I know just a tad about it.Now as far as badmouthing insurance companies do you have any clue what insurance fraud cost the people in the USA. Now who is profiting from this at the country's expense?

Per your quote.

."..ask most any attorney - it's called the "American Rule" - it means that each party is responsible for their own attorney's fees.... that's why in PI cases, the "attorney's fee" comes directly out of the clients damage award"

Don't think you'd make it on the right wing "no spin zone"
and I wouldn't classify it as an"American Rule"

The defendent is out $$$ win or lose.The paintiff has everything to win and nothing to lose.And would you wager a quess on who can lose and still make money. Correct the attorney for the defendent.

Now who do you really think made that rule?No spin please

I think Mark Twain said it best. If a town has only one attorney he will starve to death,however if another moves in they will both thrive.LOL


Forgive me Loop I couldn't help but gig him a bit

 

[Eddie Haskell]

YYZ:

What an arrogant, pompous reply. 3,775 posts in less than 2 years. You sir, have a bit too much time on your hands. Lets see if I can acurately portray your holier than thou view of the world.


Obviously, republican or is it torrie up north. Burr headed hair cut, works as either a banker or for an insurance company. Flag waiving kinda guy. Believes eveything US (or is it Canada) does is great. Some middle level corporate minion who drinks white wine and believes totally in corporate America (or is it Canada).

Never would dare to challenge authority. Believes in the death penalty as a deterrent. Despises welfare but won't talk about Enron and the Bush/Cheney relationship. Hates, and I mean hates, Clinton. Has no problem with Reagan lying under oath regarding Iran Contra.

Although you accuse me of calling those who hold views different than mine blockheads, you post a reply that reeks of a superior, correct view of the world much like our current president. I guess that was my texas whoopin huh.

You are a young arrogant prick. Maybe one day in your 50's when the Bank of Toronto decides that you make to much money and find some nice reason to let you go find employment elsewhere you may understand a little bit what others go through.

Based upon the quality of your posts ( and number), I doubt if you have the capacity to have a unique idea. Some free legal advice from this unqualified lawyer, stay of the websites and read a few books, watch a little pbs, and read a few newspapers other the the National Review.

Blockhead does fit you. By the way, as an aside, what do you do for a living other than surf websites.

Eddie

Dogs that Bark:

First of all that wasn't my quote. You are right, insurance defense counsel makes money, win or lose. However, you are wrong in saying that the plaintiff has nothing to lose. In a standard PI case, one doctors deposition in this area costs between $1,500.00 and $2,000.00. Multiply that by the number of treating doctors and you can get into some significant numbers.

Seriously though, juries in my part of the country are generally made up of people who have similar views as this YYZ idiot. We only have three preemptory challenges to bump them off juries so clients can get a fair trial. Unfortunately theres quite a few Hitler youth out there there like that moron. Simple minded individuals who are easily swayed by whatever talk radio host they are listening too.

With reference to the insurance fraud comment, its my position that most of the fraud is commited by the health care providers and not Joe Whiplash. I'm interested in your position on the insurance companies practicing medicine re denying diagnostic tests, etc.

Look forward to your reply. YYZ you don't have to respond, just practice that goose step in front of the mirror while tying #3776.

I remain,

Eddie

 

[yyz]

I'm pleased that I could touch a nerve in that dense fog of yours, mein fruend! You must have a hell of a court trial record, if you lose your cool so easily!

By the way........when did Wisconsin get annexed by Canada? Arrogant and pompous. Well, I fight fire with fire. By the way, what does any of your last post have to do with your original thoughts on this topic? Absolutely nothing. I have sucked you in. You are a weak competitor, and this is not even a challenge anymore. I often hope for a good sparring partner, and you have failed to meet that need. (Thank god, that I have so much time to surf other sites, and find worthy matches!)

You are about as wrong about me, as one person can be.

I have no political affiliation, whatsoever. I side with what I feel. I won't limit myself to only siding with the thoughts of a certain camp.

I have no college education, and am just anaverage blue collar Joe.

I do not agree with many of the policies of my government, and at times am ashamed of their views. Still, I feel the United States is better than any alternitive.

I do favor (note: not favour) the death penalty. It is a great deterrent to the person getting "offed"! "Oh, to be in Texas, when the lights go dim!"

I don't drink white wine. I don't drink any alca-maholic beverages of any kind.......Never have. Don't smoke, and never did drugs. Don't believe in a "higher power" watching over me, to make sure that I have a "better place to go" when my days are no more. I don't tell people who smoke that they shouldn't. I don't tell people who drink, to stop. (I am strongly against drinking and driving, though, and have no pitty on people who go to prison for killing someone while driving blitzed.)

I think the Enron deal was exactly what it was......A crime. Those people should go straight to fucking jail, without the benefit of people like you making money defending them.

I believe that there oughtta be a constitutional amendment outlawing astro-turf and the designated hitter, I believe in the "sweet spot", voting every election, soft core pornography, chocolate chip cookies, opening your presents on Christmas morning rather than Christmas eve, and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last for 7 days.

Uh, wait......that's not me, that's Crash Davis.

Where was I? Oh, yeah.....young, arrogant, prick. Well, I'm 38, so that aint too young, ain't to old. Arrogant? Well, once again, if the coach calls for it, I'll bring it on! I like to call it confidence. Confidence in knowing I don't let people sway my point of view. I give them their say, and agree, or don't. If they have a good arguement, I will listen. If they're full of shit, as you are, I let them know it. In most casses, such as this one, they get flustered, and fall off track of what their original line of thinking was, and spin into the abyss of their mediocrity.

Maybe one day in your 50's when the Bank of Toronto decides that you make to much money and find some nice reason to let you go find employment elsewhere you may understand a little bit what others go through.

....and what does this have to do with PI claims?


Based upon the quality of your posts ( and number), I doubt if you have the capacity to have a unique idea. Some free legal advice from this unqualified lawyer, stay of the websites and read a few books, watch a little pbs, and read a few newspapers other the the National Review.

You must not read too many of my posts. As for reading books, what do you recommend? I often find books to be quite dull. I don't much care to read the thoughts of other people, as I would rather engage in debate. You can't interact with a book. PBS? Again, kinda boring, for the most part. Too many stuffed shirts for my taste. I do watch Austin City Limits, though! Some damned fine concerts here, and there.


Seriously though, juries in my part of the country are generally made up of people who have similar views as this YYZ idiot. Unfortunately theres quite a few Hitler youth out there there like that moron. Simple minded individuals who are easily swayed by whatever talk radio host they are listening too.

I don't listen to talk radio, and most people can tell I don't get swayed by anyone.....I have my beliefs, right or wrong, and don't need the support of others to make my stance. By the way......what are my views? What makes me a "Hitler youth"?

If I recall correctly, and I most certainly do, What I've stated here, is that there are:

1. Bogus claims made in court rooms.
2. More people than you claim, who can differentiate between a
frivolous case, and a solid one.

and

3. That you are fairly clueless.

Look forward to your reply. YYZ you don't have to respond, just practice that goose step in front of the mirror while tying #3776.

Of course you didn't want to hear from me, because you have no ground to stand on! You just thought that by posting a few big words, and sounding like you knew something, that no one would question you! Well, you are as wrong as can be. Now, call me a few more names, and write some more of that unfounded diatribe, and wonder how you got mixed up in this shit in the first place.

Oh, and it's yyz, not YYZ. All upper case would be arrogant and pompous.

Now, fuck off! I need to consult with Rush Limbaugh on tomorrow's show.