I was watching TV the other day and a commercial for Fear Factor came on. The people were squishing earth worms and drinking the extracted slime. This commercial made me physically ill. Is there any way, perhaps through a class action lawsuit, we can get these disgusting commercials off the air?
I have an idea for you. If you don’t like the commercials, why not switch channel when they come on instead of watching them untill you’re physically sick?
Better yet, close your eyes.
And a class action suit isn’t going to happen unless there is financial or physical damage done to you. Making you sick doesn’t count, and I doubt you could find enough people to make up a class to file the suit. Even if you could, it’d probably get thrown out of court on the basis of the previous post.
Why not write a letter to NBC and ask them to stop? They take such complaints seriously, because they assume (correctly) that anyone who is motivated to write a letter represents many more people who feel the same way and, while they may not be motivated to write, are motivated enough to change the channel.
–Cliffy
P.S. RealityChuck, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of class actions. They are filed by one or a few people on behalf of a larger group – there’s no need to sign the class up beforehand.
Are class actions the answer to everything these days?
A better class action would be against the producers of “Whoopi.”
Seriously, though, if you don’t like it, don’t watch it. If eventually enough people do this, the show will cease to exist on its own.
I don’t watch the show because it has zero entertainment value for me. Used to be when TV was going to show some violent or disgusting acts it would warn you first. I will endeavor to keep my eyes closed and plug my ears anytime TV commercials are shown from now on.
I am no great authority on the world of civil law.
But I’m pretty sure that for a class action lawsuit, you need to show: 1) The group is so large that it would be impossible for each member to actively participate as a plaintiff; 2) The common questions must predominate – in other words, each individual’s claims must substantially be the same, so that a resolution for one person would mean the same result was almost certain for others; 3) The claims of the named plaintiff must be typical of the claims of the class; 4) The named plaintiff must fairly represent the interests of the class.
I agree the group is large. It’s unclear to me, though, what the common question might be – which is a very roundabout way of saying it’s unclear to me what case a single plaintiff might have. I’m also not sure the OP satisfies the third prong.
I happily accept corrections to the above class action synopsis, since I’m relying on dim memory at best!
- Rick
Can anyone explain if a class action would be better than just a normal suit, in this case?
Predominance is only needed for a so-called “Rule 23(b)(3)” class. 23(b)(3) classes are the most numerous because if you want damages (i.e., payment in recompense) you pretty much need to go this route. If all you want is an injunction preventing NBC from showing similar commercials, however, that might qualiy under one of the other types of class actions listed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b), which don’t necessarily require predominance. (They do still require numerosity, commonality, adequacy, and typicality.)
–Cliffy
Strength in numbers - like labor unions. Spreading legal costs, too, I’d imagine.
In addition to what jjimm said, there’s also validation. One person who thinks TV is inflicted on them by some uncontrollable outside force is a crank, but if they can find a few thousand others who want to cash in on their lack of personal responsibility, they feel safer from ridicule.
You MUST be joking!
I find it UN-F’ing-believeable at how litigious your society is. I’m proud to say that’s one thing that keeps us different. Get the hell over it. It’s a commercial. It shows you a preview of the show. JUST DON’T WATCH THE SHOW! If Nielson calls you to survey your viewing habits, make a point of telling them! But for the love of all that is good in this world, A LAWSUIT?
After the war with Iraq began, in chatrooms especially, I have been INUNDATED with comments on how America is the best country in the world, the richest country in the world, the best military in the world, the best educated in the world.
THEN HOW ARE YOU THE MOST THIN-SKINNED IN THE WORLD?
F’ing hell I’ve seen it all, I swear to G-d.
I’ll give you an example … I was shopping at Walmart, with my friend in Vegas (she’s a transplanted Canadian). There was some spilled milk on the floor that I didn’t notice. I slipped in it and had to do some major contorsion so as not to land flat on my tuches. And that was quite a scene, if I do say so myself.
She replied, “If you were American, you would have let yourself fall. And your house would be paid off, MINIMUM.”
Well bloody hell, I’m Canadian and my mind doesn’t work like that. I’ll pay for my mortgage until it’s paid. I’ll tell the cashier at WalMart that there’s a mess in aisle 9. I’ll deal with the pain and aggravation of a bit of a sprain in my back for a few days.
LIFE GOES ON!
If you allow me to take the collective stupidity of the Fear Factor’s viewing audience to the bank, you can ridicule me all you want. I believe class actions lawsuits are taken on pro bono.
As I’ve noted above, class actions don’t actually involve extra plaintiffs. One or a few people prosecute a suit on behalf of the class, and if they win, any proceeds are shared with the class members, but the members of the class do not participate in the suit, do not subsidize the suit, and do not have to be recruited beforehand.
–Cliffy
Two pieces of advice, CM23. 1) Take a few deep breaths. You’ll feel better when that vein in your forehead goes down a little. 2) Don’t believe everything you friend tells you, because she doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about.
ccwaterback, while some class actions are taken pro bono, the majority are taken on a contingency basis. That is, the lawyers get a percentage of any judgment or settlement which results from the suit – typically around a third. As a class action plaintiff, you wouldn’t be entitiled to receive more in damaged than you would has you sued individually.
–Cliffy
I stand corrected.
First, I don’t think most Americans’ minds are so geared that, as they are slipping and falling on spilled liquids in a store, they are thinking “I will let myself fall and sue the store and pay off my mortgage.” Your claim of Canadian superiority in this regard is IMHO without foundation.
Second, I’m sure you are very noble in enduring your suffering, but there is absolutely nothing immoral or unethical about expecting compensation for damages caused through the negligence of another. Why should I, if injured through no fault of my own, be expected to go without salary if I am unable to work because of an injury caused by someone else? Why should I not be compensated for the pain I endure as a result of someone else’s misdeed? Why should my insurance company or I be expected to foot medical bills for injuries for which I am not to blame? That you would say hypothetically that you wouldn’t expect compensation for your injury doesn’t mean that those who would seek what they are entitled to are lesser beings.
Otto … It was a few Tylenols and a couple of days’ worth of aggravation. At the same time, deep in my heart, I don’t think it would be WalMart’s fault if I DID really hurt myself. They weren’t NEGLIGENT about stocking the milk. A CLIENT of theirs spilled it. Accidents happen.
Where there’s NEGLIGENCE, that’s another thing …
But in the case of NOT LIKING A COMMERCIAL … I can’t wrap my mind around it.
Speaking of negligence… A woman I know in Brooklyn was visiting her father in the hospital. She went to the ladies’ bathroom. (Picture this)… As she was pulling down her pants and doing that squat action that women do so they don’t touch the seat with their tushes, she slipped on the wet floor. She says it was urine that she fell into, wetting all of her pants and her top. She did something awful to her knee and ended up conking her head on the toilet bowl. She was in a brace for weeks or months, I forget. Now has physio etc. So she’s suing the hospital.
My question is: Is it the hospital’s responsibility to make sure the floor is dry after EACH person comes out of the cubicle? Furthermore, if it wasn’t for the “Squat and Aim” action that even she participated in, would the floor be wet? She fell in urine, not backed up water from the bowl.
Things that make you go HMMMMMMmmmm
There’s certainly a possibility that they were negligent. When was the milk spilled? How long did it sit there? Did Wal-Mart have appropriate staffing and procedures for cleaning up spills? Were they aware of the spill and neglected to clean it? Were there “caution wet floor” signs up? And so on.
If you didn’t feel you suffered damages sufficient for you to sue, that’s fine. That doesn’t mean someone else in a similar or identical scenario might choose to sue, and thre’s nothing wrong with that.
Oh, totally agree. If the OP filed such a suit s/he should be laughed out of court with costs and the attorney should be sanctioned.
I would say that the hospital might have some liability depending on how well or frequently the restroom is maintained. The hospital would certainly be able to raise the issue of contributory negligence.