Short recaps of torts working their way through the system:
Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
My Fav:
I love it when they turn on each other 
Perhaps the student was badly injured?
I guess we’ll never know.
I was looking for buglar-falling-through-skylight cases when I came across that (link courtesy mobileexxon or exxonmobile, whatever). Had to share.
I suspect a case involving severe injuries would seek at least $20m 
[sub]don’t make me drag ATLA into the picture[/sub]
The professor was demostrating a famous case that every law student must learn about. Luckily, I have forgotten the name. Pretty dumb move on the part of the professor, if you think about it. He doesn’t have to actually engage in tortious behavior in order to make the point. Would he also rape and murder in criminal law class?
Who knows? He’s a lawyer!
My mom works for a Lawyer. She(mom) is SO full of herself because of her job that she terms herself a “Paralegal without the papers”.
Actually, Shiela(mothers boss) Is a really nice person. She actually likes me and always gets me to babysit at her house, adn I stay at her house when I’m in town for the night. Which is kinda funny, the fact that she likes me, because When she was outa town, I kinda had a party at her house…
Anyways, she told me that in court they’re really polite to each other. They use endearments as insults.
ei: Sheila to a client about her oponent, Mr LawyerN:
“My DEAR freind mr LawyerN has this evidence, and its really SOUND evidence too. My dear freind ALSO has a few good witnesses…This is going to be a hard case.”
This translates to:
“The bastard figured out where you hid the body.”
Its a very intersesting language, that of the lawyers… I should learn it. Then, I can insult poeple without them knowing…
The case being demonstrated was Garrat v. Dailey, although I probably misspelled both of those. Absent some evidence that this is a real lawsuit, I will chalk it up to one of the numerous fanciful suits tort-reformers dream up to argue the need for tort reform.
yep, they’re all just figments of those nasty tort-reformer’s imaginations.
right.
Ain’t no such things as abusive lawsuits.
Ever hear of SLAPP suits?
(heathen dusts off the old soapbox…)
I checked, and this lawsuit was reported by 10 major newspapers. The stories don’t give much detail. The student had recently had back surgery and ended up with her skirt around her waist after the fall. The professor chose her because she had sent him an email saying that she hadn’t done her reading, which of course included Garrett v. Daley. If she was hurt, why would this be an abusive suit?
None of the cited cases are SLAPP suits.
Happyheathen: and there’s no such thing as people making up absurd tort lawsuits either
I had a boss with a wry and devious sense of humor. In a meeting one time he told one of the participants that he really should take sensitivity training because, “… it won’t stop you from insulting people but will let you know when you are so you can enjoy it more.”
chula -
If she were injured, this would not be abusive (assuming she was injured $5mil worth).
Nope, none of the listed suits were SLAPP’s - not all abusive/frivolous suits are SLAPP’s, but, by definition, all SLAPP’s are abusive - the citing of SLAPP’s was intended as an irrefutable proof the abusive suits exist.
(and no, these days, I’m NOT certain that “irrefutable proof” is redundant)
Opus1 -
-
Snope’s inability to verify the existance of a case does not mean that the case does not exist. Duh.
-
Rumors of non-existant abusive cases does not prove that there are no abusive cases. Double Duh.
**Note to viewers:
SLAPP =
Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation - IOW, speak your mind, get sued.
just a few SLAPP’s, for those who wish to wade through the legalese:
Oh c’mon! Do you believe this about everything? Snopes can’t prove that no stoned babysitter ever put a baby in the oven, so that may have happened too? What sort of nonsense is this!
Anyway, I researched the suit and found that it is real, but looks quite legitimate. The woman had had an earlier spine operation, and had recently completed a course of physical therapy when she was injured.
Of course, Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse loves to distort the facts of any case. Consider the exploding pop tart case, where a pop tart that caught fire in a toaster and ended up burning down a house is described as “nonsense” and “ridiculous.” Seems to me that there’s a pretty strong case for negligence against the toaster maker–toasters aren’t supposed to catch on fire even when unattended. But CALA thinks that the couple should be so “embarrassed” by their actions that they should just laugh off the $100,000 in damages.
So the student had had spinal surgery - that makes the prof’s action even more stupid, but the Q remains: was she injured by her fall? (no, I don’t think having one’s skirt end up about one’s waist is $5mil worth of “anguish”).
The flaming pop-tart:
News Flash! Some foodstuffs (esp. those covered with sugar) are flamable!
(I understand that pop-tarts can do a blowtorch impression, so a stronger warning (“do this and you die”) warning should be required - but we would still get people setting firetraps in ther homes, then blaming any/everyone else)
The box said: do not leave unattended
Common sense yes, I know, sigh says: do not leave unattended.
The moron left it unattended.
If I decide to leave a sugar solution on the stove (burner on) while I go to work, and the sugar carches fire and burns down the house, do I sue:
a) the sugar refiner (defective product - food shouldn’t burn)
b) the groger (negligently failed to inform me that sugar will burn)
c) the stove maker (should not be able to ignite foodstuffs, regardless of how I use it)
d) the builder (failed to foresee that I would set a delayed-fuse incendiary device on the stove)
or, should I make a note not to leave flammable items near heat sources?
A couple more cases like this and we are going to have sprinklers required in residences.
and, those defending questionable litigation would be wise to avoid use of the word “nonsense”
oh, - the pop-tart case - the toaster had nothing to do with, from what i’ve heard - while the toaster was still in normal temperature operating range, the pop-tart did the roman-candle bit, igniting the cabinet above the toaster.
With the pop tart case, do you thing that PopTartCo should not be liable when you follow the directions that they provide to you, cook the product in a functional toaster, and it causes a fire? A house burning down is certainly a forseeable, but not necessary result of the fire.
They should put a warning on the box saying, “If you follow the cooking directions we provide you, you will start a fire.”
With the pop tart case, do you thing that PopTartCo should not be liable when you follow the directions that they provide to you, cook the product in a functional toaster, and it causes a fire? A house burning down is certainly a forseeable, but not necessary result of the fire.
They should put a warning on the box saying, “If you follow the cooking directions we provide you, you will start a fire.”
If she wasn’t injured, then it’s safe to assume that the jury won’t award her anything. She’s only asking for $5 million.
If she wasn’t injured, then it’s safe to assume that the jury won’t award her anything…
You haven’t been following the news, have you?
OK - how many can find cases wherein awards were made for “intentional infliction of emotional distress” (a.k.a. “he hurt my feelings”)?
Abe Babe -
I doubt if the instructions said anything about heating the pop-tart to the point of ignition.
If fact, I seem to recall that they specified that one was to oversee the heating, and remove the characterization omitted things once they were heated.
Pretty standard instructions for heating potentially flammable items.