Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Stupid Lawsuits


jl-1

Recommended Posts

Well another idiot is suing over the death of his son. This time it is Hancock's dad he is suing the restaurant that served him his drinks so what next is he going to track down his dealer and sue him next for selling him his pot???

http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/news_story/?ID=208744&hubname=

I read this early this morning and actually just came to post it as well. Definitely strange. Apparently, the driver of the flatbed and the driver of the car (who the flatbed driver was assisting) were named as defendants as well, although I don't believe they're being directly sued.

What a world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 29Dryden29
I read this early this morning and actually just came to post it as well. Definitely strange. Apparently, the driver of the flatbed and the driver of the car (who the flatbed driver was assisting) were named as defendants as well, although I don't believe they're being directly sued.

What a world.

Pretty damn pathetic if you ask me this guy needs to be tarred and feathered for exploiting the system and his Son's death the way he is some people need to realize you and your children really need to take responsibility for your actions apparently this guy missed this lesson in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest noob616

in the tone of "what a wonderful world" by Louis Armstrong

"I see a kid bad at sliding, his mom will sue, do you want to get rich? i'll spill some coffee on you. and i think to my self, what a wonderful world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest baxus

there should be some changes in the USA legal system...

for example, if you come to the court with a lawsuit as ridiculous as this one you get slapped repeatedly and have to walk home wearing a huge multicolored hat that has "IDIOT" written on it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LarryRobinson
Pretty damn pathetic if you ask me this guy needs to be tarred and feathered for exploiting the system and his Son's death the way he is some people need to realize you and your children really need to take responsibility for your actions apparently this guy missed this lesson in life.

Serving alcohol to someone and then letting them drive off, is a lesser form of negligent homicide in many states. Before you argue for everyone's responsibility, the only real counter is that these guys make a living off people drinking alcohol. Responsibilty is therefore attached to the guy behind the counter.

Im studying for the NY/NJ bar right now. I dont apologize for the inefficiencies and improprieties that go on with the American litigation system. Cases that you find online like the little league case are a dime a dozen. Tort law, the law that bothers most of you is bothersome because it tries to take account of all possible situations that can EVER occur in a society. Thats not easy. Everything you do, largely unconsciously has effects on other people. Whether its walking down the street, opening the door, or making a left hand turn. Things that go by day in and day out, that seem to have no consequence, occasionally become events where people or property are injured. This case of the little league kid is pretty obvious if not for the fact that children, at that age, are considered to be under the control of adults i.e. teachers, babysitters, camp counselors, or in this case little league coaches.

Of course, the law then turns to what a reasonable expectation should be? Should the child have reasonably expected his coach to control exactly how he slide into second base? Probably not. And thus the child and his parents have no argument. Its cases like this, the ones that challenge new notions of responsibility that usually annoy everyone except lawyers. Obviously we find this fascinating stuff because each case builds the law, old laws lead future generations in determining how society interacts, and so on and so on. Plus we like to collect our fees B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serving alcohol to someone and then letting them drive off, is a lesser form of negligent homicide in many states. Before you argue for everyone's responsibility, the only real counter is that these guys make a living off people drinking alcohol. Responsibilty is therefore attached to the guy behind the counter.

I know you're just repeating what the law is, but that's just such a stupid rule. People shouldn't need a bartender to babysit them. Plus it's almost impossible in a lot of cases to keep track of when someone's leaving or how much they've had to drink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest habs_fan1160
there should be some changes in the USA legal system...

for example, if you come to the court with a lawsuit as ridiculous as this one you get slapped repeatedly and have to walk home wearing a huge multicolored hat that has "IDIOT" written on it

There should be a change in the US legal system - maybe not to the extent of what you suggested. :) But they should do something, what a waste of tax payers money, to fund a case based on nothing but pure stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LarryRobinson
there should be some changes in the USA legal system...

for example, if you come to the court with a lawsuit as ridiculous as this one you get slapped repeatedly and have to walk home wearing a huge multicolored hat that has "IDIOT" written on it

A much simpler and less violent change is simply charging all legal fees to losing plaintiffs. This is done in alot of European nations. If you bring a law suit, fine. If you lose, you pay your lawyer, the defendants lawyer, and all court costs. As of now, you can sue anyone and even if you lose all you pay is your attorney, so the change would have the effect of deterring ridiculous cases. Of course the flip side is that this wrongly puts too much pressure on someone who has a decent case but not a surefire winner. It will never fly in the U.S. for policy reasons that I dont have time to get into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LarryRobinson
I know you're just repeating what the law is, but that's just such a stupid rule. People shouldn't need a bartender to babysit them. Plus it's almost impossible in a lot of cases to keep track of when someone's leaving or how much they've had to drink.

Agreed completely. Its a law, but honestly in my studies and experience its almost never enforced. You need a specific situation where a bartender is feeding a guy beers in an empty bar and then watches him pull out his keys and drive away on the wrong side of the road for the law to go into effect. I dont want to start spouting my legal studies to you guys, but its an issue of causation.

If A serves B alcohol. B gets up and drives his car into C, killing B and C...the cause of the accident is traceable back to A.

Some argue that B getting up and driving away, is an "intervening action" which cuts off A's liabiliity. The cause of the accident is now traced back to B, not A.

The difference between the two situations is usually how much interaction A and B have. If they have alot of interaction, then B's subsequent drunk driving will be hard to seperate from his encounter with A. If on the otherhand A just hands B a beer and goes on serving other patrons, the act of driving drunk is easily seperated from the A-B relationship. Hope thats a bit clearer, although I doubt it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there should be some changes in the USA legal system...

for example, if you come to the court with a lawsuit as ridiculous as this one you get slapped repeatedly and have to walk home wearing a huge multicolored hat that has "IDIOT" written on it

I prefer the starship trooper form of law. You are either whipped, or executed for your crimes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest baxus

ok, i forgot to post a disclaimer, and fortunately no one mentioned it...

there are many bad legal systems, serbian being one of the foremost...

but american takes the cake when it comes to ridiculous lawsuits...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest habs_fan1160
Its like that woman who wanted to sue McDonalds because she said it made her Fat...geeez...

Yeah that was a good one.

There was a guy recently too that sue'd McDonalds over being fat - but they threw the case out. Not sure, but I think that one was here in Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest noob616
Its like that woman who wanted to sue McDonalds because she said it made her Fat...geeez...

don't forget the coffee lady!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest habs_fan1160
don't forget the coffee lady!

We should all be thankful for that lady. Now because of her, whenever we pick up a hot chocolate we know it's hot because it says "caution contents hot."

I've seen labels on mattresses that have read "do not eat." Kinda makes you wonder where that one originated from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest noob616
We should all be thankful for that lady. Now because of her, whenever we pick up a hot chocolate we know it's hot because it says "caution contents hot."

I've seen labels on mattresses that have read "do not eat." Kinda makes you wonder where that one originated from.

Are you freaking serious! i was in hysteria for 20 minutes after reading that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest habs_fan1160
Are you freaking serious! i was in hysteria for 20 minutes after reading that!

Lol, yup. Can't remember the brand name of the mattress though. But I mean who buys a mattress for dinner anyway?

Another good one is the "do not eat" thing they put on that bag of salt they put in shoes. Because everyone buys shoes and uses the little baggie on their fries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest noob616
Lol, yup. Can't remember the brand name of the mattress though. But I mean who buys a mattress for dinner anyway?

Another good one is the "do not eat" thing they put on that bag of salt they put in shoes. Because everyone buys shoes and uses the little baggie on their fries.

ya. i bought new baseball cleats today and that was there!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'do not operate heavy equipment' on baby medication (tempra drops)

my stupid lawsuit story is about a guy who bought an RV and while on the road, he put the vehicle on cruise control and went in the back to make himself a coffee... obviously he rolled off the road then sued the company for i dont remember how many millions ... and won, because it was not mentionned in the owner's manual that you couldn't go in the back while driving :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LarryRobinson

Well, to add a good criminal story....a classic from law school.

A doctor met with a female patient and informed her that she was gravely ill. The patient requested a cure and the doctor convinced her that the only cure that existed had to be administered by him, via his body entering her's and releasing the "cure". -- some smart girls out in Cali.

(im trying to keep this family friendly, but you guys get the point)

She consented to the "treatment" and only after consulting some family and friends did she realize her mistake. Its a case used to teach the notion of consent in sexual assault cases, the guy got off -- b/c there was i) no forcible physical contact and ii) it wasnt against her will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...