A burglar sues the owners of home he was trying to break into after he falls through their skylight and wins. In California a customer sues a grocery store after a 6 pack of beer drop on to her foot and even thou no injury accord and she won the case. In another case an ex –cheerleader and model is suing the pharmacy that sold her a popular contraceptive jelly. It an act of idiocy, she apparently spread the jelly on a piece of toast and ate it and got pregnant anyway and many legal experts are saying she has an excellent case. Finally lets not forget Stella Liebeck who received a whopping $640,000 from McDonalds after spilling a cup of coffee she was balancing between her knees in a moving car.
What do all these incidents have in common, besides the obvious need for tort reform? It is that in America it pays to be stupid. If your too busy and or careless and don’t read the instructions of some product and somehow you misuse that same product, then you probably hit the jackpot or lotto. Take the case of a man who won a little of over ten dollars on lotto scratch off ticket and did not cash it for over a year. When he finally tried to cash the ticket, he was told it had expired. Even thou the rules were clearly printed on back of the ticket he sued and won several thousands of dollars.
Now who is to blame these frivolous and idiotic? Many people tend to blame the lawyers who take these suits others blame the courts who don’t dismiss them. However I tend to believe that it is the mind set that society has created of no personal accountability. It starts from a parent not disciplining their child for misbehaving and instead blames the schools, television and anybody else but themselves and their children. In turn the undeveloped minds of these future adults gain the idea that you personally are not responsible for anything and that it is always someone else’s fault. Now this may be a very simplistic view, but it is at the heart of the reason why no one wants to take responsibility for his or her own actions. I truly believe if parents taught their children accountability at a young age we would easily loose a lot of these bogus and frivolous lawsuits. So until we obtain some one with personal accountability in the White and Congress, I hope you or anyone you know is not unfortunate enought to meet one of these walking lawsuits waiting to happen.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 21
TY for posting it.
Here in Japan, frivolous lawsuits are nil as Japanese society isn't one inclined to take matters to court. This is good and bad. Good because there aren't the silly and insane things we hear about like in the US. Bad because there are many times companies SHOULD be taken to court, and simply are not.
That's not to say Japan is a perfect place. In fact, I would say, on the whole, American children have better manners and common sense than Japanese children. After nearly a decade of working with Japanese children, I see a lack of expectation from their parents. Many times they have no manners or common sense whatsoever. Especially in boys. Their parents' reply: Boys will be boys.
Sad. Truly sad. Perhaps that's what the parents of this young man are now saying to the police. Perhaps it will help them consul themselves over the loss of their daughter.
http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20070105p2a00m0na019000c.html (read first)
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20070106TDY02009.htm (read second)
If the guy hadn'r been breaking into the guys house he wouldn't have got shot.
go figure.lol.
What percentage of messages claiming about frivolous lawsuits are frivolous messages making exaggerated claims way out of proportion to actual problems?
Just wondering if anybody has some actual facts and statistics rather than isolated examples trotted out to make an RC (rightiously correct, mirror image of politically correct) point?
the mcdonalds one in particular is interesting...you might want to look at the actual facts in that case
this whole 'tort reform' nonsense is only an attempt to diminish the rights of citizens by denying them the use of the courts to seek redress
There are no comparable statistics that will tell you exactly what percentage of lawsuits filed are valid and what percentage are frivolous. That information comes from reports of the facts of cases that are not settled because those facts are public record. To determine anything else, one would need a team of lawyers to review each case and decide which was valid and which was frivolous. You need a team rather than a single lawyer because different lawyers will determine that different cases are frivolous. There is unlikely to be a consensus on most cases.
So much as I would like to give you accurate stats, it is not possible. On the other hand, with two degrees in law, I can read the facts and tell you what I think is frivolous.
Any case filed makes a claim out of proportion to actual damages because you always file a case requesting more damages than you are entitled to. You always want to push the envelope and increase the value of a particular injury for the next guy around. And juries in many jurisdictions may make an award in excess of the amounts claimed. They do this when they want to make a point.
this whole "tort reform" thing is just an attempt to limit the right of individuals to use the court system. note that in all these examples there is never one about the frivolous lawsuits brought by the business community.
a little more info.....
Tall tales of outrageous jury awards have helped bolster business-led campaigns to overhaul the civil justice system.
By Myron Levin, Times Staff Writer
Merv Grazinski set his Winnebago on cruise control, slid away from the wheel and went back to fix a cup of coffee.
You can guess what happened next: The rudderless, driverless Winnebago crashed.
Grazinski blamed the manufacturer for not warning against such a maneuver in the owner's manual. He sued and won $1.75 million.
His jackpot would seem to erase any doubt that the legal system has lost its mind. Indeed, the Grazinski case has been cited often as evidence of the need to limit lawsuits and jury awards.
There's just one problem: The story is a complete fabrication.
It is one of the more comical tales in an anthology of legal urban legends that have circulated widely on the Internet, regaling millions with examples of cluelessness and greed being richly rewarded by the courts. These fables have also been widely disseminated by columnists and pundits who, in their haste to expose the gullibility of juries, did not verify the stories and were taken in themselves.
Although the origins of the tales are unknown, some observers, including George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, say their wide acceptance has helped to rally public opinion behind business-led campaigns to overhaul the civil justice system by restricting some types of lawsuits and capping damage awards.
"I am astonished how successful these urban legends have been in influencing policy," Turley said. "The people that created these stories did so with remarkable skill."
The tales are making the rounds at a time when business lobbyists and conservative politicians seem to have gained the upper hand in their drive to rein in lawsuits — a campaign that they call tort reform but that trial lawyers and consumer groups say is an assault on the legal rights of ordinary people.
According to the American Tort Reform Assn. — which is backed by insurance, drug, auto and other major industries — 49 states have enacted at least one measure on the group's wish list over the last two decades, including limits on punitive damages and caps on awards for pain and suffering in medical malpractice claims.
In February, President Bush signed a federal law that will make it harder to bring class-action suits in state courts.
And some polls suggest that there is public support for further change.
For example, a survey conducted for the American Tort Reform Assn. in 2003 found that by a ratio of 2 to 1, respondents believed that lawsuits were harming the economy and stifling job creation. In a survey released in June by Common Good, a conservative legal reform group, 83% of respondents said it was too easy to file invalid lawsuits, and 55% agreed with the statement that "many people use the justice system almost like a lottery — they start lawsuits to see if they can win millions."
Such fears, fanned by anecdotes like the Grazinski tale, have no empirical basis, said Joanne Doroshow, executive director of the Center for Justice and Democracy, a consumer group that opposes the agenda of the business groups. "The data tends not to support the allegation that there is an out-of-control crisis with the legal system," she said.
She and others point to surveys by the National Center for State Courts and the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics showing an apparent decline in personal injury suits and in the size of jury awards to successful plaintiffs.
But advocates of reining in lawsuits say there is no need to invent fictitious examples of legal abuse. "All false stories should be exposed," said Victor Schwartz, general counsel of the tort reform association. But "you don't have to go to the surreal" to find dubious verdicts, he added.
The group's website includes a link to what it says are real but "Looney Lawsuits," including a recent case in which a Portland, Ore., jury awarded $1.6 million to a woman who was seriously disfigured in a botched liposuction surgery. The jury imposed the judgment on the publisher of a phone directory after concluding that the company had knowingly allowed a dermatologist to falsely advertise himself as a board certified plastic surgeon.
Whether it's the rich detail of the phony yarns that resonates or the fact that people are prepared to think the worst of the legal system, the bogus tales have attracted crowds of believers.
The first time he heard of the Grazinski case, Cornell University law professor Theodore Eisenberg was a guest on a Rochester, N.Y., radio talk show. Annoyed by Eisenberg's defense of the justice system, a caller flung the Winnebago windfall in his face.
"You're saying the system's not crazy," Eisenberg recalled the man saying, "but what about this case?"
Besides the Grazinski saga, there's the mythical case of Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pa., who got into an argument with her boyfriend in a restaurant, threw a drink at him and then broke her tailbone when she slipped on the wet spot on the floor. Naturally, Carson sued — and won $113,500.
Then there's Kara Walton, a Delaware woman so eager to avoid a $3.50 cover charge that she tried sneaking into a nightclub through a bathroom window but fell and lost a couple of teeth. Walton sued and won $12,000 plus payment of dental bills.
A database search shows the Grazinski, Carson and Walton tales have been cited as true by a wide range of media outlets, including CNN; U.S. News & World Report; the American Spectator; the Oakland Tribune; the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram; the Deseret News of Salt Lake City; the Akron Beacon-Journal; the Greensboro, N.C., News & Record; and the Augusta, Ga., Chronicle.
Some later issued corrections. Chuck Thomas, a columnist for the Ventura County Star, offered a mea culpa in a follow-up column, anointing himself winner of the "Chucklehead Award."
Wide acceptance of the myths has been an eye-opener for Sheila Davis, public relations manager for Winnebago Industries in Forest City, Iowa. Davis says she has repeatedly had to explain that, no, there was no Grazinski lawsuit, and, no, the company did not have to change the owner's manual to avoid a swarm of copycat claims.
"Unfortunately, we do have some people who write about it and don't call us," Davis said.
The cases are often listed together on Internet postings as winners of the "Stella Awards," — supposedly a dubious achievement list of the nation's most outrageous and ridiculous lawsuits. Although entirely fictitious, the Stellas take their name from the real-life case of 79-year-old Stella Liebeck, whose hot-coffee case against McDonald's became the poster child for frivolous claims.
According to popular accounts of the lawsuit, Liebeck coaxed nearly $3 million from an Albuquerque jury in 1994 after being scalded by McDonald's coffee she spilled on herself while riding in a car. These are the story's best-known elements, but filling in the missing facts puts the case in a different light.
Trial testimony showed that at 180 to 190 degrees, McDonald's coffee was much hotter than that served by other restaurants or by people in their homes. The fast-food chain had received at least 700 complaints about hot coffee in the previous decade and had paid more than half a million dollars in settlements, according to trial testimony cited by the Wall Street Journal.
Liebeck's injuries were hardly minor. She suffered third-degree burns on her thighs and groin area, was hospitalized for a week and had to undergo painful skin grafts. Before filing a lawsuit, she wrote McDonald's requesting that it lower the temperature of its coffee and cover her uninsured medical bills and incidental costs of about $20,000. McDonald's offered $800.
Later, as the case neared trial, a mediator recommended that McDonald's pay a settlement of $225,000. The company refused.
Jurors ultimately awarded Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and about $2.7 million in punitive damages. "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company," one of the jurors told the Journal. "Their callous disregard was very upsetting," another said.
Soon after the verdict, the trial judge slashed the punitive damages by more than 80% to $480,000. Then the case settled for an undisclosed amount.
"The irony about the McDonald's case is that it actually, in my view, was a meaningful and worthy lawsuit," George Washington University's Turley said. Yet advocates and pundits have "made it synonymous with court abuse."
Unlike the popular version of the McDonald's case, the Stella Awards push mythmaking past mere exaggeration.
Barbara Mikkelson of Agoura Hills, who with her husband, David, operates a website dedicated to debunking urban legends (www.snopes.com), says the Stellas have sometimes appeared with an e-mail chain letter in which the mythical law firm of Hogelman, Hogelman & Thomas exhorts people to "assist our law offices in a tort reform program" by publicizing "insane jury awards." Mikkelson noted that with the way information travels on the Internet, it would be impossible to determine the original authors.
Randy Cassingham, a Colorado resident who also debunks the Stellas on his website http://www.stellaawards.com , says he is angry about the tales — not only because they are false but also because they divert attention from what he believe are real abuses in the legal system.
According to Cassingham, the Stellas allow trial lawyers to say, "See, there is no problem with frivolous lawsuits. Our opponents have to make up cases to make a point."
Although business groups are obvious beneficiaries of the fables, Schwartz of the tort reform association said his group had had nothing to do with them and was careful to verify all of its claims. "We try to be absolutely accurate in anything we're presenting," including examples of outrageous suits, Schwartz said.
In fact, Schwartz said, over-the-top self-promotion by some trial lawyers have made the best case for the need for change. "Their ads making things seem as if it's just free money" have done "more to convince the American public that we have jackpot justice than anything put out by any tort reform organization — including the 'looney lawsuits' stories," he said.
not to belabor the point but this is not about getting individuals to act responsibly, but to insulate the business community from being held accountable for their responsibilities
Full disclosure: my wife and I were involved in a fairly large law suit a number of years ago. Although on the surface, it might be taken as a "flaky" case, our motive was to put a wrench into an on-going activity that struck us as involving fraudulent activity masquerading as an environmental cause.
This was an unusual case, so not typical of anything. And you have only my word for what I claim.
I'm just very skeptical of some of these claims--not so much that they didn't occur, but they represent more than a small fraction of lawsuit activities.
Of course they are! After all, you are an honorable person and I would never take facts over the word of an honorable person. But still, the bottom line is, we don't need tort reform! If there is a problem, it is not in the lawsuits being file as this was the intent of our Court system, that all persons would have access to the courts to seek a redressing of wrongs.
And it really isn't up to the Attorneys as they don't have "Judge" in front of their names. It is primarily up to the Juries who make any ridiculous awards as that is their job. Fortunately, most of the really ridiculous awards are appealed and lowered by competent judges.
Finally, it is also a matter of false judgment. Just because you have read something in a news paper or magazine or worse yet, on the internet, does not mean that the suit was without merit. I've yet to see an entire transcript of a trial printed in the paper and if you don't have all the facts you are not in any position to state you know the facts and that they are frivolous. If you sat on the jury, then I'll accept your judgment on the worthiness of the suit, till then it's just all talk with little intellectual investment.
these stories are myths
the contraceptive jelly story started as a joke
http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/jelly.htm
the burglar and the skylight story has been around more then 20 years and has appeared in numerous variations. in fact the story was one of reagan's staples along with his welfare queen story. it is generally thought that this myth was grew out of the bodine case in CA, except that bodine wasn't a burglar, it wasn't a house, the case never went to trial, and thus he didn't win.
as for the sixpack story, i don't think i've heard that one before, but i'm sure it has the a non-factual origin.