Moron burns ass on black bench and sues cowboys

Wait what, a black bench sitting in the sun is hot? Go base jump in to a volcano you whore.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/fan-sues-cowboys-burned-buttocks-235557660--nfl.html

The land of frivolous lawsuits..

And you would have to be sitting on that bench for a good while to get third degree burns unless it's like 350 degrees, which it's not. If it was so hot, why didn't she get off of it right away? oh yeah, because she wanted some money she didn't earn. :jay:

She can definitely prove in court how debilitating and crippling having a painfully swollen and scarred posterior can be to one's well-being and quality of life. The Cowboys themselves have been unmitigated failures for 15 years thanks to the irritating ass that's been running things.

Go USA!!!

Wasnt Britian the one where the burglar fell through the skylight of a house, got cut up on kitchen knives left out, and then sued the owner?

I always thought that one was just an urban legend.

clockbreaker wrote:Wasnt Britian the one where the burglar fell through the skylight of a house, got cut up on kitchen knives left out, and then sued the owner?

I dont live in Britain anymore :)

And it was the good old USA actually... http://overlawyered.com/2006/09/the-burglar-and-the-skylight-another-debunking-that-isnt/

You're still british though.

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

clockbreaker wrote:Wasnt Britian the one where the burglar fell through the skylight of a house, got cut up on kitchen knives left out, and then sued the owner?

I dont live in Britain anymore :)

And it was the good old USA actually... http://overlawyered.com/2006/09/the-burglar-and-the-skylight-another-debunking-that-isnt/

Alister McAlister
oh dear... sorry.
so it actually didn't happen. this is merely only a similar case.

To be completely honest, I'd rather live in a society where people are free to file ridiculous law suits (and ultimately lose their money /get laughed out of court), than a society where people aren't allowed free and liberal access to the justice system.

thewalrus wrote:To be completely honest, I'd rather live in a society where people are free to file ridiculous law suits (and ultimately lose their money /get laughed out of court), than a society where people aren't allowed free and liberal access to the justice system.

But you don't want to be on the receiving end of those ridiculous lawsuits and lose because the judge and/or jury are a bunch of retards.

SBF wrote:

thewalrus wrote:To be completely honest, I'd rather live in a society where people are free to file ridiculous law suits (and ultimately lose their money /get laughed out of court), than a society where people aren't allowed free and liberal access to the justice system.

But you don't want to be on the receiving end of those ridiculous lawsuits and lose because the judge and/or jury are a bunch of retards.

True - but that's pretty rare - especially with judges. The Common Law has a lot to say about frivolous lawsuits, and it's pretty strict in application. In the off chance you do get something even before a judge or jury in a trial situation, it's almost guaranteed to be shut down in short order.

And if something sneaks through there, and a bad judge or jury rules against you, the court of appeal will send them packing (with costs in your favor)... and if it doesn't, well, maybe the lawsuit wasn't so frivolous. I have faith in the system, what can I say?

thewalrus wrote:

SBF wrote:

thewalrus wrote:To be completely honest, I'd rather live in a society where people are free to file ridiculous law suits (and ultimately lose their money /get laughed out of court), than a society where people aren't allowed free and liberal access to the justice system.

But you don't want to be on the receiving end of those ridiculous lawsuits and lose because the judge and/or jury are a bunch of retards.

True - but that's pretty rare - especially with judges. The Common Law has a lot to say about frivolous lawsuits, and it's pretty strict in application. In the off chance you do get something even before a judge or jury in a trial situation, it's almost guaranteed to be shut down in short order.

And if something sneaks through there, and a bad judge or jury rules against you, the court of appeal will send them packing (with costs in your favor)... and if it doesn't, well, maybe the lawsuit wasn't so frivolous. I have faith in the system, what can I say?

so you think $600,000 for spilling hot coffee in your lap is completely justified

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

thewalrus wrote:

SBF wrote:

thewalrus wrote:To be completely honest, I'd rather live in a society where people are free to file ridiculous law suits (and ultimately lose their money /get laughed out of court), than a society where people aren't allowed free and liberal access to the justice system.

But you don't want to be on the receiving end of those ridiculous lawsuits and lose because the judge and/or jury are a bunch of retards.

True - but that's pretty rare - especially with judges. The Common Law has a lot to say about frivolous lawsuits, and it's pretty strict in application. In the off chance you do get something even before a judge or jury in a trial situation, it's almost guaranteed to be shut down in short order.

And if something sneaks through there, and a bad judge or jury rules against you, the court of appeal will send them packing (with costs in your favor)... and if it doesn't, well, maybe the lawsuit wasn't so frivolous. I have faith in the system, what can I say?

so you think $600,000 for spilling hot coffee in your lap is completely justified

Well maybe the system doesn't always produce perfect results...

I think if one wants to sue someone, he or she should have to pay the defense bills if/when he or she looses.

Meaning, you want to sue McDonalds for hot coffee and hope they settle because paying you $500,000 costs less than their lawyer fees? Fine, but if they win, YOU have to pay their lawyer fees. Companies/Corporations would be a lot more willing to fight this stuff with that monkey off their backs.

They do this like everywhere else in the world... probably would stop a lot of this stuff.

Like that guy who was suing the dry cleaners for like 40 million over a pair of pants and they pretty much went broke from lawyer fees from defending themselves from that douche.

Talon wrote:I think if one wants to sue someone, he or she should have to pay the defense bills if/when he or she looses.

Meaning, you want to sue McDonalds for hot coffee and hope they settle because paying you $500,000 costs less than their lawyer fees? Fine, but if they win, YOU have to pay their lawyer fees. Companies/Corporations would be a lot more willing to fight this stuff with that monkey off their backs.

They do this like everywhere else in the world... probably would stop a lot of this stuff.

They do that in Canada, and I'm pretty sure they do it in the US too. But I don't think it'd really stop too much - because you have to figure, McDonalds runs up a $500 000 legal bill, wins, and gets judgment for costs. OK. Now talk about getting blood from a stone when they turn around and try to collect from someone like the coffee lady. Might...get pennies on the dollar. If they're lucky.

I am thinking more along the lines of the white collar worker who has a 401k, retirement, or any other sort of collateral (cars, house, etc). John Doe would probably be less likely to sue Mars Company for a peanut M&M missing a peanut if he knew his 401k and house were on the line.

And where do they have that in the US? I’ve not heard of it, though I am not exactly a law expert by any means. I’ve just not heard of anyone having to pony up legal fees for someone else if he or she loses…

There’s a local morning show I listen to sometimes and the host has been sued a few time (it’s a shock-jock type of show), and he’s always ranting and raving about what I mentioned. He’ll fight it regardless, and he’s never lost but still complains about the six figures he has to shell out to pay his lawyers. If what you said is true, he should get that money back from whoever sued him (or some of it anyway). He would say on hte air if he did and preaches a counter-lawsuit for deformation of character just to pay said fees.

I don’t know. I just remember seeing one where a woman sued the city and the home-owner of the property because she tripped on the sidewalk. There was one in Yahoo news a couple days ago about a woman suing the city because she says the automated parking meters are bad for her health or some shit like that.

I bet these people wouldn’t pull this shit if they had any inclination they could very well be responsible for the defenses’ fees... even if it has to come out of their estate - garnished wages, lien on house, etc.

Some people probably would still sue, but if it stopped half of these frivolous lawsuits, that’s a good start.

Talon wrote:I am thinking more along the lines of the white collar worker who has a 401k, retirement, or any other sort of collateral (cars, house, etc). John Doe would probably be less likely to sue Mars Company for a peanut M&M missing a peanut if he knew his 401k and house were on the line.

And where do they have that in the US? I’ve not heard of it, though I am not exactly a law expert by any means. I’ve just not heard of anyone having to pony up legal fees for someone else if he or she loses…

There’s a local morning show I listen to sometimes and the host has been sued a few time (it’s a shock-jock type of show), and he’s always ranting and raving about what I mentioned. He’ll fight it regardless, and he’s never lost but still complains about the six figures he has to shell out to pay his lawyers. If what you said is true, he should get that money back from whoever sued him (or some of it anyway).

Ah, did a little digging - seems in the US, Court Costs are required to be paid by the loser - these could be somewhat extensive, but not hugely so. Legal fees and costs, however, are paid by each party. In Canada the winner can get those paid as well - it's up to the discretion of the judge to award costs. (though in practice people are rarely awarded full and complete costs - that's something I always told my clients. Sure, you'll 'win', but even if you get costs, you really end up getting 40 - 60% of your true out of pocket expenses back.)

Byut yeah, that should change. A large part of defending yourself is in retaining a lawyer.