10 of the Stupidest Lawsuits in 2011

[Enola]

The top ten Most Ridiculous Lawsuits of 2011 are:

•Convict sues couple he kidnapped for not helping him evade police
•Man illegally brings gun into bar, gets injured in a fight, then sues bar for not searching him for a weapon
•Young adults sue mother for sending cards without gifts and playing favorites
•Woman disagrees with store over 80-cent refund, sues for $5 million
•Mom files suit against exclusive preschool over child's college prospects
•Man suing for age discrimination says judge in his case is too old
•Obese man sues burger joint over tight squeeze in booths
•Woman sues over movie trailer; says not enough driving in "Drive"
•Passenger's lawsuit says cruise ship went too fast and swayed from side to side
•Mother sues Chuck E. Cheese – says games encourage gambling in children

The 10 Most Ridiculous Lawsuits of 2011 - Yahoo! News

 

[RDS]

Any Tom, Dick and Harry can sue and probably win.

 

[teamosil]

You can sue for anything you want. I could sue you because Zebras can't fly. But the case would be dismissed, so they don't harm anybody or anything. There are 311 million people in the US. Probably more than 1 million are literally, clinically, insane. So of course you get some people trying to sue for ridiculous things. That doesn't tell you anything about the legal system. The ILR, who released that list, is just a corporate funded anti-lawsuit lobby. They go around trying to stigmatize lawsuits in general to try to build public support for laws that will protect the corporations that fund them from liability for their actions. Don't fall for it.

 

[TurtleDude]

You can sue for anything you want. I could sue you because Zebras can't fly. But the case would be dismissed, so they don't harm anybody or anything. There are 311 million people in the US. Probably more than 1 million are literally, clinically, insane. So of course you get some people trying to sue for ridiculous things. That doesn't tell you anything about the legal system. The ILR, who released that list, is just a corporate funded anti-lawsuit lobby. They go around trying to stigmatize lawsuits in general to try to build public support for laws that will protect the corporations that fund them from liability for their actions. Don't fall for it.

The solution of course is to make losers pay the fees of a defendant that wins. In Federal lawsuits, if a TItle VII plaintiff wins, the defendant employer has to pay plaintiff's reasonable attorney fees (and many plaintiffs' attorneys churn up the hours when they think they have a winner). The solution of course is to make the plaintiff pay the defendant's legal fees.

a few years ago, anti gun politicians sued gun makers for injuries based on illegally used guns. Often times every maker was sued even if there was no specific case of saying a Walther being used to murder someone in say the City of Cincinnati. It was later discovered that the purpose of these lawsuits were not to win (they were unwinnable under current law) but to bankrupt the gun makers

those are perfect cases where the judges should have leveled huge sanctions against the plaintiffs as punishment for using the courts for that sort of crap. The ideal solution would have been to make the mayors or politicians PERSONALLY Liable rather than the taxpayers

 

[teamosil]

The solution of course is to make losers pay the fees of a defendant that wins. In Federal lawsuits, if a TItle VII plaintiff wins, the defendant employer has to pay plaintiff's reasonable attorney fees (and many plaintiffs' attorneys churn up the hours when they think they have a winner). The solution of course is to make the plaintiff pay the defendant's legal fees.

That doesn't make sense. Just because they can't prove discrimination in a court of law doesn't mean it didn't happen. Obviously. And even if it really did not happen, the plaintiff could certainly have honestly believed that it did. That's what the courts are there for- to sort out things like that. Why penalize people for using the courts as they are intended? If the case doesn't have any merit, it just gets tossed out. The standards are very high under Twombly. IMO you aren't really trying to prevent frivolous lawsuits, you're just trying to scare people who are discriminated against into remaining silent.

those are perfect cases where the judges should have leveled huge sanctions against the plaintiffs as punishment for using the courts for that sort of crap.

If the court feels that somebody is abusing the legal process, they do have the power to fine them, make them pay the other party's legal costs, etc. As the frivolous birther lawsuit lady found out.

 

[radcen]

You can sue for anything you want. I could sue you because Zebras can't fly. But the case would be dismissed, so they don't harm anybody or anything. There are 311 million people in the US. Probably more than 1 million are literally, clinically, insane. So of course you get some people trying to sue for ridiculous things. That doesn't tell you anything about the legal system. The ILR, who released that list, is just a corporate funded anti-lawsuit lobby. They go around trying to stigmatize lawsuits in general to try to build public support for laws that will protect the corporations that fund them from liability for their actions. Don't fall for it.

Completely disagree. Defending a frivolous lawsuit costs real time and real money. Frivolous lawsuits aren't filed only by people. They are also often by corporations against people purposely to stifle opposition to what the corporation wants to do. Corporations know full well that they can afford to throw another case to their legal team and that Joe Blow the defendant will probably have to back off simply because he cannot afford to defend himself.

Which brings us to...

The solution of course is to make losers pay the fees of a defendant that wins. In Federal lawsuits, if a TItle VII plaintiff wins, the defendant employer has to pay plaintiff's reasonable attorney fees (and many plaintiffs' attorneys churn up the hours when they think they have a winner). The solution of course is to make the plaintiff pay the defendant's legal fees.

a few years ago, anti gun politicians sued gun makers for injuries based on illegally used guns. Often times every maker was sued even if there was no specific case of saying a Walther being used to murder someone in say the City of Cincinnati. It was later discovered that the purpose of these lawsuits were not to win (they were unwinnable under current law) but to bankrupt the gun makers

those are perfect cases where the judges should have leveled huge sanctions against the plaintiffs as punishment for using the courts for that sort of crap. The ideal solution would have been to make the mayors or politicians PERSONALLY Liable rather than the taxpayers

I am VERY intrigued by "loser pays", but fall just short of saying 'of course'. I fear that it could also intimidate those who have legitimate cases because they don't want to take the chance that an idiot judge/jury might rule against them. Just because a wronged poor person should win doesn't mean they would. Except for that concern, I'm for it.

If the court feels that somebody is abusing the legal process, they do have the power to fine them, make them pay the other party's legal costs, etc. As the frivolous birther lawsuit lady found out.

They do, but it's rarely used. I'd like to see it codified as the first option, then a judge could overrule it as necessary.

 

[TurtleDude]

That doesn't make sense. Just because they can't prove discrimination in a court of law doesn't mean it didn't happen. Obviously. And even if it really did not happen, the plaintiff could certainly have honestly believed that it did. That's what the courts are there for- to sort out things like that. Why penalize people for using the courts as they are intended? If the case doesn't have any merit, it just gets tossed out. The standards are very high under Twombly. IMO you aren't really trying to prevent frivolous lawsuits, you're just trying to scare people who are discriminated against into remaining silent.



If the court feels that somebody is abusing the legal process, they do have the power to fine them, make them pay the other party's legal costs, etc. As the frivolous birther lawsuit lady found out.

If you file a lawsuit that you cannot convince a jury was 51% more likely to happen why should the defendant have to bear thousands of dollars in legal fees when they win.

If the Plaintiff can win thousands of extra dollars based on tipping the scale, so should the defendant

it should be the same rules for either side

 

[teamosil]

If you file a lawsuit that you cannot convince a jury was 51% more likely to happen why should the defendant have to bear thousands of dollars in legal fees when they win.

If the Plaintiff can win thousands of extra dollars based on tipping the scale, so should the defendant

it should be the same rules for either side

It's not really 51%. The plaintiff has the burden of proof. If nothing is proven either way, the plaintiff loses. You can't penalize somebody because nothing was proven obviously. Discrimination is a very hard thing to prove. It's a pretty safe bet that the vast majority of times it goes on nobody is able to prove it. We wouldn't want to be piling fines on on top of the discrimination and the defeat in court. Now, if somebody can prove that they just made it up and sued out of malice or in hopes of conning them out of money or whatever, they can counter sue for that. But then they'd need to prove their case too, just like the plaintiff had to.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

What about all the birther lawsuits?

 

[TurtleDude]

It's not really 51%. The plaintiff has the burden of proof. If nothing is proven either way, the plaintiff loses. You can't penalize somebody because nothing was proven obviously. Discrimination is a very hard thing to prove. It's a pretty safe bet that the vast majority of times it goes on nobody is able to prove it. We wouldn't want to be piling fines on on top of the discrimination and the defeat in court. Now, if somebody can prove that they just made it up and sued out of malice or in hopes of conning them out of money or whatever, they can counter sue for that. But then they'd need to prove their case too, just like the plaintiff had to.

If it was shown that the defendant was 75% right he should get all his fees? the fact is if the plaintiff narrowly wins the verdict they get all their fees. same as if its a summary judgment for plaintiff

I have won over 100 cases on Rule 56 summary judgments meaning that the plaintiff could not even muster enough of a factual dispute to get to a jury. Now why shouldn't the plaintiffs be forced to compensate my clients for the fees?

 

[teamosil]

I have won over 100 cases on Rule 56 summary judgments meaning that the plaintiff could not even muster enough of a factual dispute to get to a jury. Now why shouldn't the plaintiffs be forced to compensate my clients for the fees?

Again, because you haven't proven that they did anything wrong. The plaintiff only gets their expenses covered if they prove that the defendant did something wrong.

The vast majority of discrimination cases are dismissed. It's a notoriously hard thing to prove. If you had to pay the other side's legal fees whenever that happened to you, nobody in their right mind would ever raise a discrimination suit. Which, I suspect, is what you're actually after, right?

 

[TurtleDude]

Again, because you haven't proven that they did anything wrong. The plaintiff only gets their expenses covered if they prove that the defendant did something wrong.

The vast majority of discrimination cases are dismissed. It's a notoriously hard thing to prove. If you had to pay the other side's legal fees whenever that happened to you, nobody in their right mind would ever raise a discrimination suit. Which, I suspect, is what you're actually after, right?

so you think that a defendant that a jury says was not responsible for any harm should be saddled with massive legal fees?

 

[teamosil]

so you think that a defendant that a jury says was not responsible for any harm should be saddled with massive legal fees?

The jury doesn't say that they were not responsible for any harm, it says that the plaintiff was unable to prove that they were responsible for harm. So, since neither side proved that the other did anything wrong, both parties pay their own legal expenses. Again, if the defendant thinks that they can prove that the plaintiff was doing something nefarious, they can counter sue and try to prove it or they can push for a rule 11 sanction to force the other side to cover their expenses. But they can't force the other side to pay their expenses if they can't prove that the other side did anything wrong.

 

[TurtleDude]

The jury doesn't say that they were not responsible for any harm, it says that the plaintiff was unable to prove that they were responsible for harm. So, since neither side proved that the other did anything wrong, both parties pay their own legal expenses. Again, if the defendant thinks that they can prove that the plaintiff was doing something nefarious, they can counter sue and try to prove it or they can push for a rule 11 sanction to force the other side to cover their expenses. But they can't force the other side to pay their expenses if they can't prove that the other side did anything wrong.

you are wrong. in medical malpractice cases the jury often finds that the defendant DID NOT BREACH the standard of care. In discrimination cases-including the last one I tried, the federal jury held that the defendant DID NOT engage in actions that caused an "adverse employment action" (that was on the jury questionnaire)

what about Rule 56 judgments?

 

[teamosil]

you are wrong. in medical malpractice cases the jury often finds that the defendant DID NOT BREACH the standard of care. In discrimination cases-including the last one I tried, the federal jury held that the defendant DID NOT engage in actions that caused an "adverse employment action" (that was on the jury questionnaire)

Neither of those things equate to the defendant necessarily doing anything wrong. Maybe the plaintiff sincerely believed they had done something that it was discovered during the trial they didn't do. Maybe the plaintiff's interpretation of events differs from the jury's. Maybe the plaintiff had evidence that proved that they did discriminate, but it was not admissible. Maybe someone other than the plaintiff misled them. Etc. A jury concluding that the defendant didn't do something wrong isn't the same thing as a jury concluding that the plaintiff did do something wrong.

Neither party can get the other party to pay their legal expenses unless they prove that the other party wronged them. If the plaintiff can prove that the defendant wronged them in a discrimination suit, they can get the defendant to pay their legal expenses. If the defendant can show that the plaintiff wronged them, they can counter sue or push for rule 11 sanctions and if they can prove it, then they get their legal expenses covered.

what about Rule 56 judgments?

What about them? Same deal- the defendant hasn't proven the plaintiff did anything wrong.

 

[TurtleDude]

bottom line-if you aren't found to be liable you should not suffer any economic damages because someone chose to sue you; They initiated the action and they should make you whole again since they are the ones who COMMENCED the lawsuit

 

[teamosil]

bottom line-if you aren't found to be liable you should not suffer any economic damages because someone chose to sue you; They initiated the action and they should make you whole again since they are the ones who COMMENCED the lawsuit

Uh, nope. We don't need any artificial thumb on the scale in favor of defendants. Same rules for both parties. If you can prove the other party wronged you, you can make them pay your legal expenses. If you can't, you have to pay your own legal expenses.

 

[TurtleDude]

Uh, nope. We don't need any artificial thumb on the scale in favor of defendants. Same rules for both parties. If you can prove the other party wronged you, you can make them pay your legal expenses. If you can't, you have to pay your own legal expenses.

Same rules

Plaintiff wins-Defendant pays his own legal fees and that of the plaintiff

Defendant wins, Plaintiff pays his own legal fees and that of the defendant.

You don't want equal treatment you want a pro plaintiff system

I shouldn't suffer any economic damages unless it is proved I engaged in activity that harmed another. If I win a law suit I can prove the other side engaged in activity that harmed me

 

[teamosil]

Same rules

Plaintiff wins-Defendant pays his own legal fees and that of the plaintiff

Defendant wins, Plaintiff pays his own legal fees and that of the defendant.

You're just trying to play word games. You claim you're a lawyer, obviously you would understand that the trial is about whether the defendant did something wrong, not about whether the plaintiff did right? If the defendant wins all that tells you is that the plaintiff was unable to prove that the defendant did something wrong, not that the defendant was able to prove that the plaintiff did something wrong... If the defendant can prove that the plaintiff did something wrong, of course, they are free to do so. But they can't extract money from the plaintiff without proving that the plaintiff did anything wrong just like the plaintiff can't extract any money from them without proving they did something wrong.

I shouldn't suffer any economic damages unless it is proved I engaged in activity that harmed another. If I win a law suit I can prove the other side engaged in activity that harmed me

Stop and think. You're arguing that the plaintiff should have to give the defendant money without the defendant having to prove they engaged in an activity that harmed another.

 

[TurtleDude]

aren't you the one who claimed to be a law student. Filing a lawsuit that is lost inflicts pain on the prevailing defendant. The prevailing defendant should not suffer ANY loss due to the ACTIONS of a Plaintiff.

I have a right to be left alone

I have a right not to have my time and money wasted by the actions of another

Unless a plaintiff can prove I did something wrong, the law presumes I did not. If I did not why should another be able to deprive me of time or money


I want to make it extremely painful on people to file lawsuits that are without merit

 

[teamosil]

aren't you the one who claimed to be a law student. Filing a lawsuit that is lost inflicts pain on the prevailing defendant. The prevailing defendant should not suffer ANY loss due to the ACTIONS of a Plaintiff.

I have a right to be left alone

I have a right not to have my time and money wasted by the actions of another

Unless a plaintiff can prove I did something wrong, the law presumes I did not. If I did not why should another be able to deprive me of time or money

The law presumes the defendant didn't do anything wrong, but it also presumes the plaintiff didn't do anything wrong. Unless you can prove that either one of them did, the court doesn't just randomly make one of them pay the other for kicks...

I want to make it extremely painful on people to file lawsuits that are without merit

Without merit? If somebody files a lawsuit and you can prove that they just made it up or are abusing the system in any other way, for the tenth time, you can counter sue or push for a rule 11 sanction. What we're talking about isn't situations where their case had no merit, we're talking about situations where for whatever reason they were not able to win the case. Those aren't the same thing kiddo, as you obviously know.

 

[TurtleDude]

If you file a lawsuit you lose you have inconvenienced me and cost me money when you have failed to prove I have done anything wrong.

Kiddo? I bet have been practicing law longer than you have been breathing.

 

[teamosil]

If you file a lawsuit you lose you have inconvenienced me and cost me money when you have failed to prove I have done anything wrong.

There are two possibilities. Either the defendant did something wrong, but the plaintiff was unable to prove it, in which case the defendant cost the plaintiff legal fees, or the defendant did nothing wrong, in which case the plaintiff cost the defendant legal fees. We don't know which one is the case. The court didn't impose legal fees on anybody. Both parties voluntarily paid them. The court can't force either party to pay the other party if nobody is able to prove either party did anything wrong...

You seem to be taking the stance that the defendant should only pay if they are proven to have done something wrong, but the plaintiff should pay even if they haven't been proven to have done anything wrong. It seems like you're having trouble examining this topic clearly because of some kind of emotions you have about plaintiffs. You seem to just presume they are doing something wrong whether it has been proven or not, but that's just silly. Take a deep breath, step back from the problem for a minute, and think it through again. Your argument is that nobody can cost somebody else money if they can't prove that they did anything wrong, right? Ok, well that is a reason that the defendant can't make the plaintiff pay his legal fees- because he didn't prove that the plaintiff did anything wrong. You follow?

 

[TurtleDude]

plaintiffs COMMENCE lawsuits. YES, if the plaintiff fails to prove its case, the PLAINTIFF should make whole the Defendant.

 

[Crosscheck]

If you file a lawsuit you lose you have inconvenienced me and cost me money when you have failed to prove I have done anything wrong.

Kiddo? I bet have been practicing law longer than you have been breathing.

Even though you have decades of experience in law the fact is often those 12 people (majority without any legal experience) sitting in the jury box will decide who pays.

I see your point about about an innnocent person as a defendent being punished. But also seeing an innocent person who was wronged to be hesitant to file charges if he might be punished financially if the jury is swept over by the defendent's smooth talking lawyer.

It is not a perfect system but probably the best possible.