|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 14, 2015 23:09:52 GMT
Since we seem to have a lot of stories on these in both the "World of Weird News" and "How Stupid Can You Be?" threads, I thought it would be a good idea to make a seperate thread for weird, stupid and malicious lawsuits of any and every kind.
This will no doubt be dominated by American news stories, so there might be a chance for some of us Europeans who don't really get why everything in 'Murica seems to be a lawsuit waiting to happen to get some insight.
NOTE FOR THE MODS: I suggest we leave this here for now and see if there's any interest, or if people just keep posting these stories to the two threads mentioned. If this thing takes off, I suggest we move it to the "Mended Drum" section.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 16, 2015 8:30:04 GMT
Here is a list of the type of stuff I think Oziris is after.... Dumb Lawsuits www.dumb-lawsuits.com/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1159086/Council-worker-sick-leave-sacked-taking-66-mile-endurance-bike-race.html?Dumbass[quoteA sacked civil servant yesterday lost his case for unfair dismissal after taking part in a 66-mile endurance bike race while on sick leave with a chest infection. Andrew Hamlyn, 54, took 92 days off work from his IT job at Teignbridge Council after being signed off with the viral infection and a stress-related illness in October 2007. But three weeks into his time off he took part in the Dartmoor Devil Endurance Event, which winds through the hilly Devon countryside. He was photographed in the saddle of his racing bike. [/quote] Just a flavour of some of the "Ya think your expecting too much???..." lawsuits that are out there. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 16, 2015 8:35:34 GMT
By the way, I personally think this is more suited for mended drum, as I am keeping hold of a couple that are not PG13 rated.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 16, 2015 8:38:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 16, 2015 8:41:51 GMT
1funny.com/top-10-stupid-lawsuits/These I believe are the sort of cases we need... and we will see them...... I am sure.... I dont need to bet on that, I just know they will arrive.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 16, 2015 14:41:28 GMT
1funny.com/top-10-stupid-lawsuits/These I believe are the sort of cases we need... and we will see them...... I am sure.... I dont need to bet on that, I just know they will arrive. and #2 is why grocery store baggers will never put more than 1 item into a bag, and will put anything that weighs more than three ounces or has corners into double bags. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 16, 2015 20:17:16 GMT
If you wanted to present any of those cases to a lawyer over here, good luck finding one that wouldn't laugh at you before telling you to leave and throwing his stapler at the back of your head as you turned to open the door.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 17, 2015 4:40:13 GMT
If you wanted to present any of those cases to a lawyer over here, good luck finding one that wouldn't laugh at you before telling you to leave and throwing his stapler at the back of your head as you turned to open the door. would he take the suit against the stapler manufacturer for the injury from the stapler? |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Oct 17, 2015 7:05:28 GMT
The thing about case number one is that the victim proved his case and won compensation.
Many of us here watch Top Gear, Richard Hammond has been fairly vocal about the personality changes he has had after his brain injury. Yes his was much serious but it would only take small damage in the right place to affect someone, look at strokes.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 17, 2015 9:56:37 GMT
The thing about case number one is that the victim proved his case and won compensation. Many of us here watch Top Gear, Richard Hammond has been fairly vocal about the personality changes he has had after his brain injury. Yes his was much serious but it would only take small damage in the right place to affect someone, look at strokes. Hamster has said that its a day by day, and even today, he is still "Recovering". PTSD?.. I suspect yes, and that can take a whole life to recover from. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 17, 2015 10:07:37 GMT
I suspect that the general idea of this thread is that all entries should be "Genuine"... I have followed links. (Many many links....) As Far As I know, and that is open to correction if anyone has it, and that is welcome.... I have chased links on anything I have posted, and to the best of intention, all I have posted is/will be genuine reported law suits. Including the "Legend" that was the Mc-Nopes coffee case, in that I have posted as far as I can find the "Follow up" that the lady in question DID try to sue them. I am believing, at this time, it was "Settled out of court", and NOT for "Millions". However, it is "Reported" so many times with differing endings?... Being that most of these post-settlement endings differ, I am to presume that the final ending was a "Full and final" settlement including a gagging order that as it has been settled the lady should not engage the press in any more comments that may be detrimental to the settlement.... As in, if you talk to anyone, and say anything unfavourable about this, we want our money back. Which is why I posted that version of the story. Example... I can not say if this is genuine.... www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2008/1125/p04s01-woeu.htmlBut I have found that it is reported in several places. (Inc. here....http://list25.com/25-astoundingly-ridiculous-lawsuits/ ) However, they may be about 70 years out of date with the suit?... So is it genuine?... I dont know. I dont trust the source. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 17, 2015 10:40:49 GMT
Similarly, there is a story that Ray Croc's McNopes restaurant chain tried to sue a mom & pop's McNopes diner for using their name - and the judge reviewed all the legal records and asked Mr & Mrs McNope if they wanted to make Ray Croc rename all the branches that were using a name they had the prior claim to. the story has it they declined.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 17, 2015 11:12:05 GMT
If you wanted to present any of those cases to a lawyer over here, good luck finding one that wouldn't laugh at you before telling you to leave and throwing his stapler at the back of your head as you turned to open the door. would he take the suit against the stapler manufacturer for the injury from the stapler? Nope. The thought that any accident that happens to me or any silly mistake I make from not thinking clearly is somehow someone else's fault and they have to pay for it, that just isn't part of our way of thinking over here. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 17, 2015 11:17:51 GMT
would he take the suit against the stapler manufacturer for the injury from the stapler? Nope. The thought that any accident that happens to me or any silly mistake I make from not thinking clearly is somehow someone else's fault and they have to pay for it, that just isn't part of our way of thinking over here. there is a derogatory term, here, which some say is also racist: "Ghetto Lottery" refers to someone suing for some minor incident in an attempt to get rich off of their misfortune. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 17, 2015 11:33:00 GMT
Nope. The thought that any accident that happens to me or any silly mistake I make from not thinking clearly is somehow someone else's fault and they have to pay for it, that just isn't part of our way of thinking over here. there is a derogatory term, here, which some say is also racist: "Ghetto Lottery" refers to someone suing for some minor incident in an attempt to get rich off of their misfortune. And we have laws preventing that, because we don't want to waste the courts' time by having some idiot claim that using a particular brand of tooth pick made him go bald. But it's both good and bad. In some instances it would be nice if we had the option to sue someone for more than what we can now. Especially when it comes to doctors, because we have a nasty tendency developing where doctors can mess up to the point of killing patients and the chances of them even losing their right to practice medicine are slim to none. Even if you DO win in court, the compensation you get is ridiculous. There was a case not that long ago where a single father of two young children came in for some kind of routine procedure and ended up paralyzed from the waste down. The doctor was found guilty of malpractice, but he didn't lose his license. The father was 35 years old and had his own one man masonry business, which he would now have to either sell or close. He was in so much constant pain from his waste to his neck that there was no chance of him reschooling to do something else. He was literally spaced out on morphine 24/7, so there was no shot at him getting a business degree and an office job or something like that. He was permanently disabled and would eventually be bankrupted, but was given a measly $200,000 in compensation. Meanwhile, the doctor keeps practicing medicine and still makes around $300,000 a year. It's great that we can't sue and bleed someone dry over something silly and trivial, but when one man loses his livelihood because of another man's arrogant mistake and it affects both his own and his childrens' quality of life, while the one at fault gets off more or less scott free, something's terribly wrong with that setup! |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 17, 2015 12:40:59 GMT
there is a derogatory term, here, which some say is also racist: "Ghetto Lottery" refers to someone suing for some minor incident in an attempt to get rich off of their misfortune. And we have laws preventing that, because we don't want to waste the courts' time by having some idiot claim that using a particular brand of tooth pick made him go bald. But it's both good and bad. In some instances it would be nice if we had the option to sue someone for more than what we can now. Especially when it comes to doctors, because we have a nasty tendency developing where doctors can mess up to the point of killing patients and the chances of them even losing their right to practice medicine are slim to none. Even if you DO win in court, the compensation you get is ridiculous. There was a case not that long ago where a single father of two young children came in for some kind of routine procedure and ended up paralyzed from the waste down. The doctor was found guilty of malpractice, but he didn't lose his license. The father was 35 years old and had his own one man masonry business, which he would now have to either sell or close. He was in so much constant pain from his waste to his neck that there was no chance of him reschooling to do something else. He was literally spaced out on morphine 24/7, so there was no shot at him getting a business degree and an office job or something like that. He was permanently disabled and would eventually be bankrupted, but was given a measly $200,000 in compensation. Meanwhile, the doctor keeps practicing medicine and still makes around $300,000 a year. It's great that we can't sue and bleed someone dry over something silly and trivial, but when one man loses his livelihood because of another man's arrogant mistake and it affects both his own and his childrens' quality of life, while the one at fault gets off more or less scott free, something's terribly wrong with that setup! true, there needs to be balance. here, the suit divides into two parts: economic losses, which relate to expenses and loss of income caused by the incident; and punitive damages, which is where ghetto lottery comes in. for example, say a defective airbag in a car breaks my arms and makes me unable to work for a month: I could sue for the healthcare costs, and my loss of income for that month. I could also sue for future loss of income from losing customers, but then I could also claim punitive damages, which are, as they say, to punish the airbag maker for their negligence but make me profit on the lawsuit. that's where the average "ghetto Lottery" player buys into the urban myth of getting rich off of the incident. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Oct 17, 2015 16:04:18 GMT
The thing about case number one is that the victim proved his case and won compensation. Many of us here watch Top Gear, Richard Hammond has been fairly vocal about the personality changes he has had after his brain injury. Yes his was much serious but it would only take small damage in the right place to affect someone, look at strokes. Hamster has said that its a day by day, and even today, he is still "Recovering". PTSD?.. I suspect yes, and that can take a whole life to recover from. PTSD to an extent but also physical changes to his brain caused by the accident have also caused changes. |
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Oct 23, 2015 19:31:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 23, 2015 22:15:04 GMT
Well, on one hand the ex-wife (and maybe the kids as well) just seems greedy and those kids should be more than capable of taking care of themselves by now, so it's not like he just cut them off out of spite and left them to rot in a gutter somewhere. On the other hand, he did sign a written agreement... What baffles me most about this is that a written agreement was needed to begin with. Why not just tell your kids you'll support them financially for as long as they'll need it and when they don't need it anymore, they're on their own? That's what I'd do, but then again, I'm old fashioned. When it comes to keeping my word to someone, it's a matter of honor for me. Not many people still feel like that. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 29, 2015 8:54:57 GMT
Reminds me of a case where the "wife" decided to divorce.
No fault of the man, she was just a (beep).....
Anyways, his Mum had been doing babysitting duty.
Shared custody was agreed...
Then it came to his Mum...
Yes she was willing to babysit kids when Son is at work and he has the custody.
No she isnt willing to even be in the same post-code as that (beep) of an Ex Daughter-in-law who has upset her deeply....
Ex-Wife then gets all upset that the Mother of someone she hurt deeply hasnt "Forgiven" her and wont help her in any way at all...
So the question is, can a court "Force" a parent to support a child, can the then force a Grandma to babysit for a ex-wife-of-her-son who she now loathes.
Sensibility says no.
"Julie" is getting financial support from an "In-Law" that she has no right to "expect" at all...
There is no legal right to "Expect" anything from your parents either.
There is no legal precedent that I know of that can agree an ongoing "present" of cash to continue past its sell-by date, or even enforce those payments to continue.
She didnt, end of agreement.
In Truth, if I ever had serious problems, I know I could approach members of my "In law" family and ask for help.... much easier than my own dis-arranged family.
My In-Laws?.. help?.. They probably would.
And not just financially either.... in fact, If I said my car was broke and I needed to buy a new one, I can think of more than one who would offer me "the spare" they have tucked away for use "As long as you can get out of it"... that has happened one, I used that car until another family member fixed the broke on (engine transplant... oil line let go at 70, two or three miles later, engine seized...)
But if any of us was that stupid as to "Demand" that they continue giving.....
Not one of us is as shallow and crass as to even consider that as appropriate, they are real nice people, I just couldnt do that anyway, the idea grosses me out?.. even thinking about it?..
I dont think its even possible to contemplate that thought train in the family.
And I suspect anyone who did would be shown the exits with a helpful "here's the door or pick a windae... "
|
|
