Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32
Like Tree14Likes

Thread: 10 of the Stupidest Lawsuits in 2011

  1. #1
    Sage
    Enola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    09-29-14 @ 12:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,028
    Likes Received
    2770 times
    Likes Given
    5115

    10 of the Stupidest Lawsuits in 2011

    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

  2. #2
    RDS
    RDS is online now
    Guru
    RDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,974
    Likes Received
    1008 times
    Likes Given
    85

    Re: 10 of the Stupidest Lawsuits in 2011

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

  3. #3
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-21-14 @ 10:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623
    Likes Received
    2227 times
    Likes Given
    1198

    Re: 10 of the Stupidest Lawsuits in 2011

    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.
    Last edited by teamosil; 01-01-12 at 03:02 AM.

  4. #4
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    102,580
    Likes Received
    31113 times
    Likes Given
    31658

    Re: 10 of the Stupidest Lawsuits in 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    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

  5. #5
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-21-14 @ 10:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623
    Likes Received
    2227 times
    Likes Given
    1198

    Re: 10 of the Stupidest Lawsuits in 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your left... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:51 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    13,679
    Likes Received
    7001 times
    Likes Given
    6503

    Re: 10 of the Stupidest Lawsuits in 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    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...
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    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.




    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    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.
    Last edited by radcen; 01-01-12 at 03:58 PM.

  7. #7
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    102,580
    Likes Received
    31113 times
    Likes Given
    31658

    Re: 10 of the Stupidest Lawsuits in 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    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

  8. #8
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-21-14 @ 10:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623
    Likes Received
    2227 times
    Likes Given
    1198

    Re: 10 of the Stupidest Lawsuits in 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Gradualist
    TheDemSocialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in the Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    20,791
    Likes Received
    9075 times
    Likes Given
    4388
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: 10 of the Stupidest Lawsuits in 2011

    What about all the birther lawsuits?
    Just a democratic-socialist in the heartland of America.CHECK OUT MY TUMBLR(BLOG)HERE "Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression, and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

  10. #10
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    102,580
    Likes Received
    31113 times
    Likes Given
    31658

    Re: 10 of the Stupidest Lawsuits in 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    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?

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •