When you are Floridian-American you can say what you want.
Re: Hilarious Lawsuits
Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:53 pm
by The Sybian
Rex wrote:When you are Floridian-American you can say what you want.
Especially when you ARE Justice. [insert picture of this crazy woman's face on Judge Dredd's uniformed body].
I read about this woman, and she was suing in relation to her prosecution for a plot to bust her baby daddy out of prison. She was stopped by police, and admitted to have a "locked and loaded" AK-47 and a second gun. Apparently citizens of Florida can do this in Georgia.
Re: Hilarious Lawsuits
Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:02 pm
by tennbengal
That's just so many layers of awesome.
Re: Hilarious Lawsuits
Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:04 pm
by DC47
In Georgia it's illegal to have only one loaded weapon in your vehicle. Seriously, what if it jams just when you believe someone is threatening you?
Re: Hilarious Lawsuits
Posted: Sat May 09, 2015 9:28 pm
by Rex
looks like God v. All Of The Gheys didn't get too far:
Perhaps the choicest quotes were pulled to make her look bad, but...
I was at a party recently, and it was difficult to hold my hors d’oeuvre plate
The kid's mom passed away last year, just to top it all off.
Re: Hilarious Lawsuits
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 11:07 am
by Pruitt
“The injuries, losses and harms to the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the minor defendant in that a reasonable eight years old under those circumstances would know or should have known that a forceful greeting such as the one delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff could cause the harms and losses suffered by the plaintiff,"
Question for the lawyers - is an 8 year old responsible for his actions?
“The injuries, losses and harms to the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the minor defendant in that a reasonable eight years old under those circumstances would know or should have known that a forceful greeting such as the one delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff could cause the harms and losses suffered by the plaintiff,"
Question for the lawyers - is an 8 year old responsible for his actions?
It is possible. Under the common law, anyone 7 or under is not responsible, and anyone 14 or over is. Between 7 and 14, they look at what the reasonable person of that age would do - which is why the complaint is pleaded like that.
I'm sure it's not really about blaming the kid for anything, but rather getting insurance coverage for medical treatment, pain and suffering, etc.
Re: Hilarious Lawsuits
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 11:47 am
by sancarlos
Steve of phpBB wrote:
Pruitt wrote:
“The injuries, losses and harms to the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the minor defendant in that a reasonable eight years old under those circumstances would know or should have known that a forceful greeting such as the one delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff could cause the harms and losses suffered by the plaintiff,"
Question for the lawyers - is an 8 year old responsible for his actions?
It is possible. Under the common law, anyone 7 or under is not responsible, and anyone 14 or over is. Between 7 and 14, they look at what the reasonable person of that age would do - which is why the complaint is pleaded like that.
I'm sure it's not really about blaming the kid for anything, but rather getting insurance coverage for medical treatment, pain and suffering, etc.
I was guessing it was also about sucking money out of the parents' estate?
Re: Hilarious Lawsuits
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:38 pm
by Shirley
sancarlos wrote:This isn't hilarious. But, it is pretty weird.
Sounds horrible, but this strikes me as one of those situations where no one is really at fault. Unless you can expect the tree owners to remove cones over a certain size, or fence off all areas with big trees, there is no negligence. It's too bad for the guy, but that's it.
This is why it is important to have good disability insurance, as well as health insurance. You never know when something will happen that will make you unable to work.
Thanks to google, I found an article referencing an arrest of the since deceased mother on DUI charges back in 2012, and then her obituary which mentions she died suddenly and suggests donations to a suicide prevention or domestic violence center, so now I'm kind of sad.
Re: Hilarious Lawsuits
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 12:40 pm
by Steve of phpBB
From the Chicago Tribune:
Lawyers for a New York City woman who sued her 12-year-old nephew for injuring her while excitedly greeting her say Connecticut law forced her to go to court over her medical bills.
A jury on Tuesday rejected Jennifer Connell's lawsuit seeking $127,000. She says she broke her wrist when the Westport, Connecticut, boy jumped into her arms at his eighth-birthday party, causing her to fall.
Connell's law firm says her nephew's parents' insurance company offered her $1 and she had no choice but to sue to pay medical bills. They say she was never looking for money from him.
Peter Kochenburger is an insurance law specialist at the University of Connecticut School of Law. He says state law typically requires those claiming injury to sue the individual responsible.
Re: Hilarious Lawsuits
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:51 am
by degenerasian
Not that hilarious but high profile. Be interesting to see where this goes.
A top female tennis star who was forced to drop out of the U.S. Open after slipping on a wet locker room floor is suing the U.S. Tennis Association and the National Tennis Center for negligence.
Eugenie Bouchard was the No. 25 ranked player in the women's singles bracket before the Sept. 4 mishap.
After winning a mixed-doubles match, Bouchard went to the women's locker room where she took a tumble in the physiotherapy room where players soak in ice baths, according to the suit filed Wednesday in Brooklyn Federal Court.
Bouchard, who is the top ranked female player in Canada, "sustained a severe injury to her head, including, but not limited to a concussion," the suit states.
Since she was injured, Bouchard has been forced to withdraw from several tournaments and her ranking has plunged thirteen spots "and is likely to continue to drop," according to the suit.
A tourist is suing the parent company of Universal Studios for "deceptive" business practices over the theme park's unlimited soda refills. He claims he couldn't "quench his thirst" because he had to wait 10 minutes between each refill
Baloney wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 12:22 pm
A tourist is suing the parent company of Universal Studios for "deceptive" business practices over the theme park's unlimited soda refills. He claims he couldn't "quench his thirst" because he had to wait 10 minutes between each refill
Baloney wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 12:22 pm
A tourist is suing the parent company of Universal Studios for "deceptive" business practices over the theme park's unlimited soda refills. He claims he couldn't "quench his thirst" because he had to wait 10 minutes between each refill
If you're being serious, that's a loaded question. Obviously no one can at cost (pennies per refill), but I suspect the sodas cost at least about $5 if you get them individually, probably more, so it only takes drinking three or four over the course of a day to recoup the cost, which isn't unreasonable/ridiculous for a full 10+-hour day at a theme park.
Re: Hilarious Lawsuits
Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 12:36 pm
by Pruitt
I guess you're right.
Personal bias - one of my deeply held beliefs is that sugary pop is brewed by Satan himself.
Re: Hilarious Lawsuits
Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 12:40 pm
by brian
Pruitt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 12:36 pm
I guess you're right.
Personal bias - one of my deeply held beliefs is that sugary pop is brewed by Satan himself.
I drink diet, which supposedly has its own issues, but we're all gonna die of something.
Re: Hilarious Lawsuits
Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 12:43 pm
by Ryan
There's a deal like this at almost every park in the country. They know you've seen the cup itself for like $15 at the gift shop, so it seems like a great deal. Especially if the cup is boss.
Re: Hilarious Lawsuits
Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 12:44 pm
by A_B
I got a malfunctioning cup (look, I know it seems weird to say that, but there is a chip in there, like that article says) at Universal when eating lunch last year and you would have thought I was one of the 9/11 terrorists for how unwilling they were to let me get a new cup because they thought I was trying to scam them for a free refill. That has to come from the top, as no fast food worker gives a rat's dick about a refill.
Re: Hilarious Lawsuits
Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:34 pm
by wlu_lax6
I am with the plantif, Mr. Luis Arnaud....There is precedent....See Simpson v. Frying Dutchman Restaurant.
Lionel Hutz wrote:this the most blatant case of false advertising since The Neverending Story
Re: Hilarious Lawsuits
Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:53 pm
by The Sybian
wlu_lax6 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:34 pm
I am with the plantif, Mr. Luis Arnaud....There is precedent....See Simpson v. Frying Dutchman Restaurant.
Lionel Hutz wrote:this the most blatant case of false advertising since The Neverending Story
"Does that sound like the actions of a man who truly had 'all he could eat?'" 30 years later, these quotes are still fresh in my head. Seems like the words of Conan O'Brien.
wlu_lax6 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:34 pm
I am with the plantif, Mr. Luis Arnaud....There is precedent....See Simpson v. Frying Dutchman Restaurant.
Lionel Hutz wrote:this the most blatant case of false advertising since The Neverending Story
"Does that sound like the actions of a man who truly had 'all he could eat?'" 30 years later, these quotes are still fresh in my head. Seems like the words of Conan O'Brien.
That episode was written by him.
That is what makes the universal studios fact of the lawsuit even better.
Re: Hilarious Lawsuits
Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 2:19 pm
by Pruitt
Ryan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 12:43 pm
There's a deal like this at almost every park in the country. They know you've seen the cup itself for like $15 at the gift shop, so it seems like a great deal. Especially if the cup is boss.
Alright, then that makes sense.
The lawsuit sure doesn't though.
And speaking of Conan - just listened to his podcast interview with Bob Newhart and it was great.
And speaking of Conan - just listened to his podcast interview with Bob Newhart and it was great.
Yeah, that was a particularly good one. Newhart still has it, I love when he acts like an asshole. So funny hearing the slow talking dull eyed uber-niceguy say things that are bitingly mean.
And speaking of Conan - just listened to his podcast interview with Bob Newhart and it was great.
Yeah, that was a particularly good one. Newhart still has it, I love when he acts like an asshole. So funny hearing the slow talking dull eyed uber-niceguy say things that are bitingly mean.
To be that sharp at 90. Other than having the old man voice, Newhart sounded as sharp as ever.
Jesus, that was just sad to read. I wonder if he went to law school on a mission to file these lawsuits. Reminded me a union attorney I had to deal with for years. He was a Customs inspector, fired for gross incompetence and he was completely convinced that he was a superstar and setup by his manager. He went to law school solely to work for the union and get back at management. He was a fucking awful attorney, and got his ass handed to him every time. Judges and arbitrators mocked his baseless cases and he'd stumble and stammer in response. It was always sad to watch him, because he knew he was failing, and still had a passion to get back at the Agency.
Re: Hilarious Lawsuits
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 10:17 am
by mister d
Yeah, it definitely reads like there are Other things going on in Lassiter's Life.
And speaking of Conan - just listened to his podcast interview with Bob Newhart and it was great.
Yeah, that was a particularly good one. Newhart still has it, I love when he acts like an asshole. So funny hearing the slow talking dull eyed uber-niceguy say things that are bitingly mean.
To be that sharp at 90. Other than having the old man voice, Newhart sounded as sharp as ever.
I heard Howard Stern doing a segment on Pornhub's videos for the blind a few weeks ago. I wonder if this lawsuit is what caused them to put up videos for the blind. The narrators were horrendous. Just describing the scenes in a completely unsexy way, focusing on stupid details that nobody cares about. I'd think it'd be sexier just to listen to the actors and the natural sounds, rather than some idiot trying to describe the background or the camera angles. Unless you recently went blind, you wouldn't have a concept of the camera angles anyways. Not going to look for a clip on my work computer, but it was funny.
