Okay, even I hate THIS lawyer...

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 7103 Location: Yes

Lawyer turned judge sues his dry cleaner for $65,000,000 over a pair of missing pants. And yes, that's ... pinky extended.... sixty-five MILLION dollars.

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 3:45 pm

They must have been Versace. Rolling Eyes

What an idiot.

He should receive the death penalty (the judge that is).

Baiting Guru Joined: 11 May 2004 Posts: 2163

Quote:

Back to the beginning. In 2002, Custom lost a pair of pants that Pearson had put in for cleaning. One week after the error was discovered, Custom gave Pearson a check for $150 for new pants. A few days later, the Chungs, Korean immigrants who live in Virginia and own three D.C. cleaners, told Pearson that he was no longer welcome at their store. That dispute was eventually put aside, and Pearson continued to use the company.

If Pearson accepted the $150,-- check then wouldn't the case be settled?

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

That soooooooooo exceeds the definition of 'frivolous'.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 7103 Location: Yes

Klaasvaak -- further reading of the article would reveal that the $65,000,000 "liability" resulted from a subsequent missing pair of pants (suit pants actually -- when the guy became a judge he needed to wear suits, so he took in 5 suits to be let out). My defense would be "assumption of the risk" -- he knows this dry cleaner loses pants, yet he still went back. Wink

Baiting Guru Joined: 08 Jul 2004 Posts: 11857 Location: UK

Doesn't surprise me at all, only in America.

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 4:48 pm

Does it happen that a judge would say in such a case to this idiot: "You are a disgrace to our profession. Get lost and pay for this whole thing!" ....cause THIS would be the only right decision about this, after all the pain and worries that he put that dry cleaner through. And then reward the dry cleaner with a few thousand bucks that the lawyer has to pay instead.

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 4:58 pm

Do these Korean guys have 65,000,000 dollars? I usually only see figures like that from our friends. Perhaps this lawyer should go into business with them.

twat.

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 6:06 pm

Ban battery - for giving the lads ideas. Seriously, this judge needs to get his head sorted out.

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:19 pm

Scam Patroller wrote:

Doesn't surprise me at all, only in America.

Sadly it does happen here waaaaaay too often. Sad to see that is the kind of person sitting behind a bench too. Confused

As far as Scam Patroller's comment, does this crap happen in other countries too or does everyone elses legal system work correctly?

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:36 pm

Perhaps the cleaner should counter-sue for years of storage.

What a pathetic excuse for a lawyer. Hope he gets done for wasting court time, greed and generally being a disgrace to his profession.

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:13 pm

OxygenDeprived wrote:

... does this crap happen in other countries too ...

In Germany a fat ass judge who contracted diabetes after eating a number of chocolate bars and drinking a liter of Coca-Cola *every day* sued the makers of Mars and Milky Way bars and Coca-Cola, claiming they were responsible for his diabetes.

He argued that instead of advertisements they should have printed warnings.

Just plain stupid.

article in German

Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:12 am

In UK, a friend of mine was digging the floor up in his new house to make a soundproof room so he could practice his drums without bothering the neighbours.
He got burgled. Burglar fell on broken up floor and broke his ankle. Burglar sued friend for not having a sign up stating work was going on in house.
Burglar won.
Bastard. Evil or Very Mad

Edit : Couldn't for the life of me remember how to spell burglar and wrote it down as bugular. (Tut, and the blonde shines through again. Rolling Eyes

Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:33 am

how many times has that actually happened? I've heard so many similar stories that I kind of get the idea that it's raining house breakers in the United States. Surely if it keeps occuring the law should be altered in favour of the home owner.

Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:41 am

A guy in the US tried to sue McDonalds a few years back because eating there every day made him fat. I don�t know if he won anything, but I remember a great quote from comedian Lewis Black:

�He didn�t know that FAT fried in FAT makes you FAT? This guy�s an American hat-trick; stupid, fat, and litigious.�

(or something like that)

Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:24 am

A protagonist of the "Supersize" set -

- The folks who eat Mackie every day - just to see if it will make them ill. Apparently if a food source doesn't provide adequate nutrition to sustain a comfortable state of living, they can be held liable if it can be proven that the glutton in question were eating no other form of food.

Based on this I have constrained myself to a diet consisting exclusively of pork lard and bacon.

Naturally I have become very ill and I am currently taking action against a family of pigs, on the grounds that when they are born, they do not carry a health warning on any part of their body. Nor were they able to adequately explain when questioned, the nutritional information contained within the various parts of their bodies.

Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:32 am

Oh yeah, the friend who's burglar succsessfuly sued him, put up a sign afterwards. It was an Alsation snarling with blood coming off it's teeth. The warning said "Beware, I live here."
The police came round and told him he had to take the sign down or lose his dog as he was admitting he had a dangerous dog. (Even though the dog had never even growled in the wrong direction.)

Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:06 am

I tripped over my shoelaces once and broke my arm. I sued myself for negligence and won the case. I'm still paying. Where I went wrong was I should have sued the shoe manufacturer for not putting a nice big warning on the sole of the shoes saying "Danger. Shoes can kill or cause serious injury!"

The world has gone mad and we let it happen.

Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:06 am

Sounds like a story I heard of a woman who sued a supermarket after she tripped over a child that was running amok around the place and won several hundred thousand dollars

and it was her child

true

Or the woman who sued McD's after burning her lip on hot coffee. She reckoned there should have been a warning on the cup

Only in America <sigh>

Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:45 am

I once worked in the legal dept of a company that made a well-known mouthwash and a customer tried to sue us after she was given a DUI after drinking about 6 bottles of the stuff. She said that the warning on the label "Do not swallow" wasn't clear enough. We got endless whiney letters from her (very expensive) lawyers and it became a bit of a standing joke. I don't think it was ever settled Very Happy

Talking of frivolous. An Aussie bloke is trying to sue a condom manufacturer for the cost of raising twins who were conceived when their product 'failed'. Unfortunately he didn't keep the 'evidence' - ew - so we just have to take his word for it. Double Laughing

Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:20 pm

Katipo wrote:

Or the woman who sued McD's after burning her lip on hot coffee. She reckoned there should have been a warning on the cup

You sure you're not thinking of the woman who burned her legs, instead? The woman who got third-degree burns because McDonalds was keeping their coffee 50 degrees hotter than they should have?

Pretty good summary in this forum.

huge linkadoodle

To me, that actually wasn't a frivilous lawsuit once you knew the whole story. I do wish we could get tort reform in the States, though. You ought to be fined, have to pay the person you sued damages, and sentenced to community service or something if you waste the time of the courts with a pair of lost pants you've already accepted reimbursement for.[/url]

Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:50 pm

^^Sad story, but fortunately, it's still legal to sell hot food in the US... for now.

New Jersey banned sunny-side up eggs for a while (salmonella worries). But it didn't last.

Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:08 pm

battery wrote:

Surely if it keeps occuring the law should be altered in favour of the home owner.

It must depend on the state. Where I live we have no duty to warn a trespasser of any danger at all. If you walk into my house without my permission and I just happen to have a hole in the floor and you fall in, too bad.

/me like that fact
//we also have the castle doctrine... you come in my house it is open season on you.

Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:12 pm

Luckey:

We have a lot of places that will not sell a burger cooked any more rare than medium well. I like mine medium to medium rare.... so that usually pisses me off. Same deal, scared of getting sick. Gesh, I *know* that, but I want to take the risk for crying out loud.

Freaking nanny state we live in.

Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:39 pm

We had a boy who was stung by a scorpion. As it was God's creation, (the Scorpion), the boy was brought back from death, and given a life time's (forever) supply of gasoline, Hamburgers, and new cars, along with 5000 shares of Haliburton yearly! He'll never, ever die! And never get a speeding ticket! He will be elected President in 2104!

Okay, even I hate THIS lawyer...	View next topic View previous topic