NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?id=11899831&ps=1020

What has this country(N. America) come to when people can sue over stuff like that and win $45,000 dollars.

No, this is the most ridiculous case ever:
TYLER v. CARTER, 151 F.R.D. 537 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). (http://members.aol.com/schwenkler/wcc/tyler.htm)
(Persecuted cyborg-woman sues Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Ross Perot, IBM, BCCI, NASA and the Rockefellers for conspiring to re-institute slavery through the "Iron Mountain" plan, and for perpetrating "the American Holocaust" against black women in concentration camps. She also seeks justice for conspiratorially-inflicted whispering campaigns, loud rock music and having her dorm room strafed by planes and helicopters. Perhaps 5.6 billion is too little.)

http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?id=11899831&ps=1020

What has this country(N. America) come to when people can sue over stuff like that and win $45,000 dollars.

The cat deserved to die. A twelve year old cat is way to old.
Besides 2 girls were sued for giving their neighbor cookies and a kid sued school for giving him madatory summer homework (Which was required if they wished to enter the honors classes which he wanted to)

i dontthink she should have gotten money for the loss of the cat. but the chow had repeatedly gotten out. this time he went into the woman's backyard and killed her cat. next time it might be a small child. the people needed a smack upside the head for not keeping their dog under control. they got a $45k smack.

I seriously doubt that it went straight to court. The guy probably had to pay because he didn't express sufficent remorse initially.

Besides, if it was some child would you think it was unjustified? The dog escaped constantly, which means it could have potentially attacked a child if in that frame of mind.

If you can't look after your pets properly, it means you shouldn't have any.

No, this is the most ridiculous case ever:
TYLER v. CARTER, 151 F.R.D. 537 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). (http://members.aol.com/schwenkler/wcc/tyler.htm)
(Persecuted cyborg-woman sues Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Ross Perot, IBM, BCCI, NASA and the Rockefellers for conspiring to re-institute slavery through the "Iron Mountain" plan, and for perpetrating "the American Holocaust" against black women in concentration camps. She also seeks justice for conspiratorially-inflicted whispering campaigns, loud rock music and having her dorm room strafed by planes and helicopters. Perhaps 5.6 billion is too little.)
It's amazing how the judge kept a straight face though that opinion...

The cat deserved to die. A twelve year old cat is way to old.
Besides 2 girls were sued for giving their neighbor cookies and a kid sued school for giving him madatory summer homework (Which was required if they wished to enter the honors classes which he wanted to)
Most of which are dismissed. Honestly, you talk about cases that get dismissed like the judges are failing or something.

The cat deserved to die. A twelve year old cat is way to old.
Besides 2 girls were sued for giving their neighbor cookies and a kid sued school for giving him madatory summer homework (Which was required if they wished to enter the honors classes which he wanted to)
12 is not old for a cat.

My grandma had a cat that was 22.

http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?id=11899831&ps=1020

What has this country(N. America) come to when people can sue over stuff like that and win $45,000 dollars.

Hey hey hey hey hey... If you're going to either bash America or ask what it's coming to, you're gonna need to realize that dumber crap than that exists. Do you know that if a fast food restaurant doesn't label its coffee as "hot" then you can spill it on yourself and sue, and win? Or what if you're a burgler, and you enter someone's house and fall on a knife... yep, the homeowner is liable for that. Or, if you have a mystery disease who's existence is questionable called "multiple chemical sensitivity" then you, and the other co-workers who have the same illness can sue and sue the company you work for, until they have to build you a new BUILDING to accomodate you? It's all true too. And that's just the civil legal aspect. Don't look at America for too long. It's like looking into the sun - too much and your sense of logic and reason will be scorched and blinded away. ;)

Hey hey hey hey hey... If you're going to either bash America or ask what it's coming to, you're gonna need to realize that dumber crap than that exists. Do you know that if a fast food restaurant doesn't label its coffee as "hot" then you can spill it on yourself and sue, and win? Or what if you're a burgler, and you enter someone's house and fall on a knife... yep, the homeowner is liable for that. Or, if you have a mystery disease who's existence is questionable called "multiple chemical sensitivity" then you, and the other co-workers who have the same illness can sue and sue the company you work for, until they have to build you a new BUILDING to accomodate you? It's all true too. And that's just the civil legal aspect. Don't look at America for too long. It's like looking into the sun - too much and your sense of logic and reason will be scorched and blinded away. ;)

Unless they put up signs. Signs are the best thing in the american system, they solve all problems.

http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?id=11899831&ps=1020

What has this country(N. America) come to when people can sue over stuff like that and win $45,000 dollars.

Doesnt seem that ridiculous to me, there are much stupider ones I've heard about. $45,000 is way to much though, i've always thought the amounts were stupidly high, I think a couple of thousand is more than enough in this case.

It's amazing how the judge kept a straight face though that opinion...
There are some other gems on that page.
http://members.aol.com/schwenkler/wcc/index.htm

Kent © NORMAN v. Ronald REAGAN is pretty brilliant.
http://members.aol.com/schwenkler/wcc/index.htm#Norman%20v.%20Reagan

The most ridiculous lawsuit ever... still is the guy who left the driving cabin of his Winnebago set on cruise control and got a new one 'cause it didn't say so in the instructions.

Followed closely by the stupid hot coffee McDonald's lady - what would her law suit would have been if the coffee had been cold, I wonder?

Stupitidy should be punished - a German judge would revoke your driving license for life (and I, personally, would add a flogging on public television at prime time!)

It's not a frivolous lawsuit. It's destruction of "property" by the pet of a man who had failed repeatedly to keep it under control.

I'd have just shot his dog.

The most ridiculous lawsuit ever... still is the guy who left the driving cabin of his Winnebago set on cruise control and got a new one 'cause it didn't say so in the instructions.

Followed closely by the stupid hot coffee McDonald's lady - what would her law suit would have been if the coffee had been cold, I wonder?

Stupitidy should be punished - a German judge would revoke your driving license for life (and I, personally, would add a flogging on public television at prime time!)

I think the winnebago one was made up, but the McDonald's one is true.

I seriously doubt that it went straight to court. The guy probably had to pay because he didn't express sufficent remorse initially.

Besides, if it was some child would you think it was unjustified? The dog escaped constantly, which means it could have potentially attacked a child if in that frame of mind.

If you can't look after your pets properly, it means you shouldn't have any.

You beat me to it ;) . This is exactly right. What is trash to one person is treasure to another. If this had been a child, the dog would have been destroyed. It is similar to parents being responsible for their children until a certain age. It might be ridiculous, but you can not tell that to the person that lost.

I don't know that the exact verdict is just, but the guy does need to pay in some fashion. If it had been my cat, I don't know that I wouldn't have done even worse. Animals are like children to some people, and you can not place a value on them. I have seen frivilous lawsuits, but I don't think this is beyond expectation, considering the circumstances.

By the by, 12 is not old for a cat.

The most ridiculous lawsuit ever... still is the guy who left the driving cabin of his Winnebago set on cruise control and got a new one 'cause it didn't say so in the instructions.

Followed closely by the stupid hot coffee McDonald's lady - what would her law suit would have been if the coffee had been cold, I wonder?

Stupitidy should be punished - a German judge would revoke your driving license for life (and I, personally, would add a flogging on public television at prime time!)
McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

Besides, if it was some child would you think it was unjustified? The dog escaped constantly, which means it could have potentially attacked a child if in that frame of mind.

It's not a child! It's a cat! A cat that doesn't give two hoots about anyone, they grace the presence of those who feed them, if some one else feeds it, it joins them. Cat's are not people - get a new one if your that bothered - get the dog put down perhaps but this law case is ridiculous.

*waits for onslaught of animal rights activists*

The cat deserved to die. A twelve year old cat is way to old.


one of my cats passed away last November at the age of 20 - until the last 3 months of her life she played - hunted effectively and was glossy coated, sleek and fit

she was also an excellet foot warmer in the winter and had teh cutest squeaky purr ever

if she had died at 12 would have missed out on 8 years of wonderful memories with Clover the jungle cat (as my son used to call her)

cats aging chart below. I thought it was much Higher since I know that 10 is old for a dog. Anyway if the owner of the cat knew the dog periodically escaped then why not fix the fence or not put the cat in the back
1 year 15 years
2 years 24 years
5 years 36 years
7 years 45 years
12 years 64 years
15 years 76 years
18 years 88 years
21 years 100 years

It's not a child! It's a cat! A cat that doesn't give two hoots about anyone, they grace the presence of those who feed them, if some one else feeds it, it joins them. Cat's are not people - get a new one if your that bothered - get the dog put down perhaps but this law case is ridiculous.

*waits for onslaught of animal rights activists*

I am not an activist, however, like I said before, pets are considered to be children in the eyes of some people. Mine is, and I honestly would have sought after some compensation, not necessarily monetary. My cat is absolutely not replaceable. The man did nothing to maintain the safety of anyone or thing repeatedly. It COULD have been a child, and if it had been, everyone would have pulled their thumbs out of their asses and had plenty to say then. Just because you don't feel the same closeness, does not mean this person does not grieve.

CSW, that is interesting. I never knew all of that. Thanks for the info.

http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?id=11899831&ps=1020

What has this country(N. America) come to when people can sue over stuff like that and win $45,000 dollars.

That poor cat, but you know what they say. When you're chewing on lifes gristle, dont be sad! Just give a whistle! *Notes whistling*

I think the winnebago one was made up, but the McDonald's one is true.

I think the Winnebago one is true. I'm sure I've heard it somewhere else, anyway. Apparently the guy went into the back of the Winnebago and starting making a cup of coffee while it was on cruise control.

No, this is the most ridiculous case ever:
TYLER v. CARTER, 151 F.R.D. 537 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). (http://members.aol.com/schwenkler/wcc/tyler.htm)


OMFG!

Plaintiff also makes the following allegations against the defendants. Former President Jimmy Carter was the secret head of the Ku Klux Klan; Bill Clinton is the biological son of Jimmy Carter; President Clinton and Ross Perot have made fortunes in the death-hunting industry, and are responsible for the murder of at least 10 million black women in concentration camps, their bodies sold for meat and their skin turned into leather products. The defendants are also responsible for breeding farms, which turn out 2,000 black girls a year, who are then sold for recreational murder or as human pets. Additionally, the defendants utilize weather control and earthquake technology to threaten other countries that object to the Iron Mountain plan.

Aside from me bookmarking that site as quite possibly one of the funniest things I've ever read, dude, someone really needs to put this chick back on here anti-psych meds and fast! ><

Followed closely by the stupid hot coffee McDonald's lady - what would her law suit would have been if the coffee had been cold, I wonder?


Actually, that one's not that stupid. It wasn't that the coffee was "hot", it was that the coffee burned off her skin and gave her third degree scalding burns. It was far above any temperature that could be considered safe. She only wanted McDonald's to pay for her doctor's bill at first, they refused like the asshats they are, and she took them to court.

i was watching a program on tv here (UK) a while ago about the suing culture or whatever they called it, something along those lines anyway, and they obviously had that infamous coffee cup woman on it. But they also had some british cases (to show the move we are making towards this kind of culture...injury laywers for you anybody??) and one which i found worrying was of a taxi driver who had run over and killed a teenage boy, and then attempted to sue the family of the deceased for loss of earnings and trauma. i think after a huge long winded case he got several hundred pounds....

http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?id=11899831&ps=1020

What has this country(N. America) come to when people can sue over stuff like that and win $45,000 dollars.

First, North America is not a country. Second, I see no problem with this ruling. The dog was his, it was in her yard, it killed her cat. It doesn't matter if someone else was caring for the dog during the time of the attack. He chose the person, the responsibility lies with him. Perhaps the ruling is a bit harsh, but you could replace the cat with hamster/other dog/child and the case is clearly in the woman's favor.

I once read about a man who hit himself with a boomerang, sued himself, and won a settlement from his own insurance company. How's that for stupid?

McFacts...
And yet, if you're stupid enough to spill your coffee while driving a car it's not McDs fault but the drivers.

I can't sue the cigarette brand 'cause I dropped their cig while driving and while looking for it under my car-seat I rear-ended s.o.!

i dontthink she should have gotten money for the loss of the cat. but the chow had repeatedly gotten out. this time he went into the woman's backyard and killed her cat. next time it might be a small child. the people needed a smack upside the head for not keeping their dog under control. they got a $45k smack.

Speak for yourself. If someone was responsible for my cats death through that sort of negligince I'd want the hide as a rug. The owner's or the dog's, I'm flexible.

And yet, if you're stupid enough to spill your coffee while driving a car it's not McDs fault but the drivers.

I can't sue the cigarette brand 'cause I dropped their cig while driving and while looking for it under my car-seat I rear-ended s.o.!

Well maybe the tobacco companies will learn to put glue on those cigarettes so that they can't fall out of people's mouths.

I gave up on making sense of tobacco lawsuits when people who started smoking after they said "smoke these, they'll kill you," and they got money for it.

I once read about a man who hit himself with a boomerang, sued himself, and won a settlement from his own insurance company. How's that for stupid?

Stupid? That's genius! Way better than my writing checks to myself to improve my credit scam.

And yet, if you're stupid enough to spill your coffee while driving a car it's not McDs fault but the drivers.

she was in the passenger seat of a stopped car.

you should really check your facts on that sort of thing.

Stupid? That's genius! Way better than my writing checks to myself to improve my credit scam.

Well, I wasn't meaning he was stupid, just the court that was actually convinced that he should get the money...

Pretty ridiculous, but not even in the top 1000.

"Well, we were so sick and tired of killing black girls. We just had to put some variety back into our death-hunting industry. And they (Persians) are incredibly beautiful. The beauty of the face heightens the pleasure of the kill. I know of no higher pleasure than the gang-rape of exceedingly beautiful people."

-Richard Bruce Cheney

12 is not old for a cat.

My grandma had a cat that was 22.
I know. My cat will be 12 next month and she is healthy. Indoor cats live longer lives.

Yeah. My kitties are almost 8 or 9, and I thought that they wouldn't live much longer, even though they are indoor cats, if you consider a garage as indoors.

As for the lawsuit, man has history of neglect. The latest incident left another mammal dead. The mammal has a tendency to eat meat, like people do. The man should have gotten jail time. Anyone here about the tame foxes raised in Siberia? What a lawsuit that would have been. It would have involved the fox-hunting sane people, the fox-hunting nuts, that woman in that crazy lawsuit who is alleging severe civil rights and sex crimes against the US govenment(NASA is technicly part of the government, like the public schools). I mean, did the government do this before or after driving a viking boat to the moon to rape and torture ET? Mary Jane is not your friend, lady.

No, this is the most ridiculous case ever:
TYLER v. CARTER, 151 F.R.D. 537 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). (http://members.aol.com/schwenkler/wcc/tyler.htm)
(Persecuted cyborg-woman sues Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Ross Perot, IBM, BCCI, NASA and the Rockefellers for conspiring to re-institute slavery through the "Iron Mountain" plan, and for perpetrating "the American Holocaust" against black women in concentration camps. She also seeks justice for conspiratorially-inflicted whispering campaigns, loud rock music and having her dorm room strafed by planes and helicopters. Perhaps 5.6 billion is too little.)

I am now using this for my US government court case presentation.

No, this is the most ridiculous case ever:
TYLER v. CARTER, 151 F.R.D. 537 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). (http://members.aol.com/schwenkler/wcc/tyler.htm)
(Persecuted cyborg-woman sues Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Ross Perot, IBM, BCCI, NASA and the Rockefellers for conspiring to re-institute slavery through the "Iron Mountain" plan, and for perpetrating "the American Holocaust" against black women in concentration camps. She also seeks justice for conspiratorially-inflicted whispering campaigns, loud rock music and having her dorm room strafed by planes and helicopters. Perhaps 5.6 billion is too little.)


Strangest thing I have ever read...

Well, we were so sick and tired of killing black girls. We just had to put some variety back into our death-hunting industry. And they (Persians) are incredibly beautiful. The beauty of the face heightens the pleasure of the kill. I know of no higher pleasure than the gang-rape of exceedingly beautiful people.

she was in the passenger seat of a stopped car.

you should really check your facts on that sort of thing.
Then it's even more her fault for spilling. I mean if she were hit by someone else and the coffee spilled, or hit a pothole and the coffee spilled or some other "accident" caused the coffee to spill then I could understand some jury somewhere saying it wasn't her fault... but if she were sitting in a stopped car... who's fault was it that the coffee was spilled?

http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?id=11899831&ps=1020

What has this country(N. America) come to when people can sue over stuff like that and win $45,000 dollars.

WTF? Why is she sueing, if she intends to donate the money to animal control? CRAZY!!!!!!!!

Then it's even more her fault for spilling. I mean if she were hit by someone else and the coffee spilled, or hit a pothole and the coffee spilled or some other "accident" caused the coffee to spill then I could understand some jury somewhere saying it wasn't her fault... but if she were sitting in a stopped car... who's fault was it that the coffee was spilled?

Are you deliberately not following along?

The issue was not whose fault it was that the coffee spilled.

Let us review:

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was an articulate, 81-year-old former department store clerk who said under oath that she had never filed suit before. She was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonald's coffee in February 1992. Liebeck ordered coffee that was served in a Styrofoam cup at the drive-through window of a local McDonald's.


After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As Liebeck removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.


A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body.


Liebeck suffered severe burns on her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas.


She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting and debridement treatments (the surgical removal of tissue).


Liebeck sought to settle her claim for $20,000 --the cost of her medical bills --but McDonald's refused. McDonald's highest counter-offer was for $800.


During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard. McDonald's had secretly settled claims arising from scalding injuries -- some for more than $500,000 -- but had not changed its policies about the temperature of its coffee).


McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain "optimum taste."
Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures than McDonald's did.
Coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.


The quality assurance manager further testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that while burns would occur, McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.


Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids at 180 degrees will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds


Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.


McDonald's asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.


McDonald's also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way, but the company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee


The Wall Street Journal wrote (September 1, 1994), "The testimony of Mr. [Christopher] Appleton, the McDonald's executive, didn't help the company, jurors said later. He testified that McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but hadn't consulted burn experts about it. He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible. Finally, he testified that McDonald's didn't intend to change any of its coffee policies or procedures, saying, 'There are more serious dangers in restaurants.' "


At the beginning of the trial, jury foreman Jerry Goens told the Journal, he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle a coffee spill."


By the end of the trial, Betty Farnham told the Journal, "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company. They were not taking care of their customers."


Only days before the trial, the trial judge ordered both sides to attend a mediation session. The mediator, a retired judge, recommended that McDonald's settle for $225,000, saying a jury would be likely to award that amount. The company didn't follow his recommendation.


The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill.


The jury then found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the basis for punitive damages. The jury awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonald's coffee sales.


The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000—or three times compensatory damages—even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. After that, both parties agreed to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported to be much less than the judge's reduced award.



Any common consumer product which can cause third-degree burns (the worst kind) in two to seven seconds is seriously dangerous. A coffee spill is a common accident and not the fault of the restaraunt -- but the restaraunt can be liable for such spills causing far more damage than a consumer could foresee and would protect against. Who could have imagined this risk from a cup of coffee? But, McDonald's had ample evidence of it -- and deliberately ignored it and covered it up.

I think the Winnebago one is true. I'm sure I've heard it somewhere else, anyway. Apparently the guy went into the back of the Winnebago and starting making a cup of coffee while it was on cruise control.

Snopes: Cruse Control (http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp)

It's not true, it's just a widely spread urban legend.

No, this is the most ridiculous case ever:
TYLER v. CARTER, 151 F.R.D. 537 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). (http://members.aol.com/schwenkler/wcc/tyler.htm)
(Persecuted cyborg-woman sues Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Ross Perot, IBM, BCCI, NASA and the Rockefellers for conspiring to re-institute slavery through the "Iron Mountain" plan, and for perpetrating "the American Holocaust" against black women in concentration camps. She also seeks justice for conspiratorially-inflicted whispering campaigns, loud rock music and having her dorm room strafed by planes and helicopters. Perhaps 5.6 billion is too little.)

Hilarious.

But to clarify the point many have missed: the claim was dismissed as frivilous.

If she had not been a nutcase proceeding pro se, she would have been sanctioned. (She may have been in a seperate opinion, but my guess is the court took mercy).

WTF? Why is she sueing, if she intends to donate the money to animal control? CRAZY!!!!!!!!

Roemer said she doubted she would see any of the money but plans to donate anything she does collect to an animal protection group.

"I didn't go to court to get money," she said. "I could either burn his house down or I could go and shoot his dogs in front of him and shoot him, or I could shoot myself. So I decided to be rational and get a lawyer."

She doesn't expect he will pay up, but her motive was retribution. Seems fairly reasonable.

"Well, we were so sick and tired of killing black girls. We just had to put some variety back into our death-hunting industry. And they (Persians) are incredibly beautiful. The beauty of the face heightens the pleasure of the kill. I know of no higher pleasure than the gang-rape of exceedingly beautiful people."

-Richard Bruce Cheney

My god...

Couldnt be a decent debate without an English story and to the best of my knowledge this is TRUE.

A woman whilst shopping in Sainsburys tripped over a child and badly twisted her leg (cant remember if it was a knee or ankle) and sued the Supermarket AND WON!

Part 2: that makes it even better..... The child was HER OWN!


America... Here we come!!!! :p :p :p

she was in the passenger seat of a stopped car.

you should really check your facts on that sort of thing.
I knew she was in a parking lot but I don’t remember her being in the passenger seat :rolleyes:

I knew she was in a parking lot but I don’t remember her being in the passenger seat :rolleyes:

She was. :rolleyes:

She was. :rolleyes:
Wow ... lol though really does not change THAT much from my perspective on the case (I already knew she was parked not moving)

It's not that ridiculous a case. The dog owner needed to take full responsibility of his pet. It said in the report that he had been warned several times for letting it run loose.
Maybe this will finally get into his thick skull that if he wants a dog, he needs to look after it.

Also, it's not confined to the USA. Here in HK a few weeks back, a couple sued their neighbour because the neighbours dog had attacked and killed their dog. They both claimed that they were suffering from post-tramatic stress disorder, even though only one of them had seen the attack. The other came down in sympathy apparently. As a result of their PTSD, they claimed their work had suffered and so were sueing their neighbour for several million HK$. Can't remember exactly how much, but I think it would have been around $600 000US mark.


I can't remember where I saw it, but I recall coming across a crackpot website ages ago, where the author was sueing the US (or possibly the 'World') government for $100 trillion. It was probably dismissed as frivilous though.

Refering to the boomerang case, the urban legend courst cases I like most is the one about the man who insured his cigars against fire, then smoked them and claimed the insurance. It went to court and he won, but as soon as he stepped foot outside the courtroom, the insurance company had him arrested for arson.

And cheers to Cat-Tribe for putting all that effort into (yet again) dispelling the McDs coffee court case. Saved me having to do it.