Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

(No relation to the Darwin Awards)

It's time once again to consider the candidates for the annual Stella Awards. The Stella's are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonalds. That case inspired the Stella awards for the most frivolous successful lawsuits in the United States. The following are this year's candidates:

1. Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $780,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little toddler was Ms.Robertson's son.

2. A 19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr.Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hub caps.

3. Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, and Mr.Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of $500,000.

4. Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams who was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.

5. A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

6. Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.

7. This year's favorite could easily be Mr. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having driven onto the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the R.V. left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the owner's manual that he couldn't actually do this. The jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. The company actually changed their manuals on the basis of this suit, just in case there were any other complete morons buying their recreation vehicles.


--------------------

The clouds ran away, opened up the sky
And one by one I watched every constellation die
And there I was frozen, standing in my backyard
Face to face, eye to eye, staring at the last star
I should've known, walked all the way home
To find that she wasn't here, I'm still all alone

-Atmosphere "Always Coming Back Home to You"

This is crazy, are the juries taking bribes or something here? I think these cases would have to be the definition of madness.

Although they are all totally ridiculous and it's difficult to choose, I would vote number one, simply because of the amount of money. They all seem equally stupid though.

I found these facts more shocking than funny to be honest.

--------------------

'Let that be a lesson to all oppressive vegetable sellers.'

....WOWWWW.
likewise, i found these to be more shocking! the funny part is how insane these people are, trying to sue companies for the smallest and weirdest things. the shocking thing is, of course, them succeeding.
But man, that's a lot of money.

Holy crap, that last one is absolutely hilarious! I vote that one in a heartbeat!

--------------------

"Dance, water, dance!"
-Demyx, Kingdom Hearts II

"I met my love before I was born..."
-AFI, 'Love Like Winter' from 'Decemberunderground'

Currently Playing: Guitar Hero, Shadow of the Colossus

It's very amusing to read, but most of these don't sound true in any way. I'm pretty sure the act of trespassing voids any liability a homeowner might have and the act of negligence behind the driver's wheel would void any manufacturer's responsibilty on damage caused by said negligence.

I'm talking in fancy lawyer speak!

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

I heard about the last one 3 years ago from my Technology teacher...are you sure that that was this year?

--------------------

Is PJ

Although a number of these wouldn't surprise me in the least, I believe a few of them have turned out to be false, namely the ones about the burglar in the garage and the guy shooting the beagle.

If nothing else, I find it kinda odd that those two in particular are claimed to have happened in the past year, yet I seem to remember first reading 'bout them three or four years ago.

Edit

And Caesar beats me to the punch...sorta

This post has been edited by SilverFork on 23rd June 2005 21:09

--------------------

Words of Wisdom:

If something can go wrong, it will.

If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway.

If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong. - Murphy’s Law

Boing! Zoom! - Mr. Saturn

Quote (The Ancient @ 23rd June 2005 15:47)

It's very amusing to read, but most of these don't sound true in any way.  I'm pretty sure the act of trespassing voids any liability a homeowner might have and the act of negligence behind the driver's wheel would void any manufacturer's responsibilty on damage caused by said negligence.

Not entirely true unfortunately. As ridiculous as it seems, people can be liable for "accidents" that occur on their property. For example, you can legally be sued if the idiot kid next door jumps your fence and drowns in your pool while you're away. Somehow the owner gets blamed for the pool being too inviting (best word I could think of to describe the situation.)

Three points:
This is why things cost so damn much. People spend millions in insurance so that if the courts screw them in favor of a moron, they'll be covered. The cost is passed on to the rest of us, of course.

Second, this is why we need tort reform. Not to get too political, but property rights reform and legal reform needed to stop these ridiculous abuses are being pushed by conservatives, not liberals.

Last, and the reason liberals haven't supported legal reform strongly, is that this kind of nonsense is a direct byproduct of the culture of victimology and political correctness propagated by the left-- nothing is anyone's fault anymore.

In a perfect world, these people wouldn't get a dime, would have to pay for court costs, would be arrested for their crimes (the tresspassing/animal abuse cases), and would be put in the stockade for the rest of us to throw tomatoes at. Idiots. Only in America do people get rewarded for stupidity and poor behaviour.

This post has been edited by imperialstooge on 23rd June 2005 23:38

I agree with you 100%. We all live in a backwards society that gets worse and worse every day. The reason? The same reason that videogames supposedly 'cause kids to commit mass murder: People don't want to take responsibility for their own irresponsibility and stupidity.

--------------------

The island bathes in the sun's bright rays
Distant hills wear a shroud of grey
A lonely breeze whispers in the trees
Sole witness to history

ICO-You were there-

Quote (The Ancient @ 23rd June 2005 15:47)

I'm pretty sure the act of trespassing voids any liability a homeowner might have and the act of negligence behind the driver's wheel would void any manufacturer's responsibilty on damage caused by said negligence.

I'm talking in fancy lawyer speak!

Negative. I remember talking about that in my Business Law class back in high school. You can be held liable like imperial said. Somehow, they can put the blame on you by say: You're baking a pie and you place it on a window sill. The kid from next door comes over and tries to take it but in the process trips and breaks his leg on a rock. The blame is on you because you were doing something that "attracted" them over.

Also, pertaining to direct trespassing, if a criminal was trying to break into your house while you were gone, and it turned out you had unsafe floorboards that he breaks though and becomes paralyzed from, it is your fault. Because you should have had the boards replaced.

Pretty ridiculous.

This post has been edited by Tidu-who on 24th June 2005 07:50

--------------------

The clouds ran away, opened up the sky
And one by one I watched every constellation die
And there I was frozen, standing in my backyard
Face to face, eye to eye, staring at the last star
I should've known, walked all the way home
To find that she wasn't here, I'm still all alone

-Atmosphere "Always Coming Back Home to You"

Can I please smack these people around with a heavy, wet Persian carpet?

Please? Pretty please???

----------------------------

Back to seriousness, these are the kinds of things I identify by the descriptor "sickly funny". They would be funny if they happened in an imagined world, but..............the (very) sad part is that they actually happen in real life.

And I'm no lawyer or judge, but if I had my way and I was the judge, I'd have thrown all these cases out of the court (and possibly paddled some of these people myself, if the law would let me). (And Republicans say Democrats have no sense of self-responsibility...well, I'm one of the many that do have that sense.)

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

He wrecked his RV and they GAVE HIM MONEY FOR IT!

That's pure gold!
rofl

--------------------

"Dance, water, dance!"
-Demyx, Kingdom Hearts II

"I met my love before I was born..."
-AFI, 'Love Like Winter' from 'Decemberunderground'

Currently Playing: Guitar Hero, Shadow of the Colossus

I agree with Glenn Magus Harvey, while these things ARE funny, they're mostly just disturbing, 'cause they're living proof that America is MESSED UP. Heck, I'm more mad at the JUDGES and JURY than I am at the people themselves! Because if the American Legal System wasn't so messed up, people wouldn't even TRY to get away with it? I see it one of two ways: ONE, the judges are taking bribes, TWO, the judges are smoking dope, pot, crack, and PCP. Okay so you don't SMOKE all of those, but you get my point.

America is in dire need of a total reformation, before we destoy ourselves.

--------------------

The island bathes in the sun's bright rays
Distant hills wear a shroud of grey
A lonely breeze whispers in the trees
Sole witness to history

ICO-You were there-

damn, thats crazy. i agree with GMH as well, however ive gotta give mad props to those people who successfully fattened their pockets. they worked the system, so i guess they kinda deserve the money.

--------------------

"The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved."
- Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

Tidu-Who and imperialstooge are both correct. However, their posts might lead some people to believe that in ALL such cases the verdict will fall on the side of the Plantiff. Not true. It depends, as in all cases, on facts exclusive to the individual incident, how the evidence is presented (i.e. how good is your lawyer), and, ultimately, on how the jury decides. These decisions, under separate circumstances, could just as easily have had the opposite verdict.

I pulled a William & Mary law school grad away from her Bar studies to ask her about a thread on CoN, so I feel the need to quote some of her responses :

Re: imperialstooge's pool scenario:

Quote

the jury instructions will certainly say that a property owner has a heightened responsibility to child trespassers to protect against harm that is man made - in english - if u know a kid is going to trespass on your land to get into your pool, u have to anticipate that and take reasonable steps to keep them out (build a fence around the pool with a lock).  kids get a higher standard....if it were an adult trespasser, as long as they were aware of the possible danger u have no duty to them .  but thats the classic example, you are liable if a child trespasser drowns in your pool if u didnt take reasonable precautions to avoid the harm.

unless there is a state statute limiting liability the common law holds the defendant landowner liable in that situation....the jury just does not pay much attention to the law in some cases...and if u have a good enough lawyer then they may be able to show u took adequate precautions, such as warning the kids not to go in, putting up a fence or signs and asking parents to keep kids out of the pool unless an adult is around....in these cases, the defendant will have a defense to liability....but he always starts out with the liability in that scenario

Re: dog & pellet gun:

Quote

that case is crap…defendants always have to be aware that their actions would cause the plaintiff mental anguish (me: what she means to say here is that the owner could not possibly have been aware that his action, chaining his dog to his fence, would cause the plantiff mental  anguish via the plantiff shooting that dog with a pellet gun)....and there would be no case for negligent infliction there because he was not invited on the property and the facts dont show the owners had any reason to believe he would be on the property

Re: Winnebago

Quote

She:  the thing about the driving is that sometimes negligence will destroy a manufacturer's liability depending on the state comparative negligence statutes

Me: i see, so in the last situation, the owner's stupidity (negligence) might have negated any manufacturer liability

She: possibly, but manufacturers are different....i doubt that case was held up on appeal, but the theory of liability was probably that the harm was foreseeable that a driver using the cruise control function would get "distracted" doing "other things" while driving (making coffee, by analogy) and would crash the car.  manufacturers have a duty to warn consumers about possible dangers of ordinary product usage.

Me: even if he goes to the back of the winnebago where the road isn't visible?  geez louise.  well, i guess you have to account for total stupidity, huh...i.e. people who will equate "cruise control" with "auto pilot"

She: hehe yeah its a stretch, but juries are amazing.  they will uphold cases for the stupidest reasons, but thats the beauty of the right to be judged by your "peers"

Imperialstooge, she was particularly impressed with your example. She found it to be relevant to a T.

Quote (imperialstooge @ 23rd June 2005 18:36)

Second, this is why we need tort reform.  Not to get too political, but property rights reform and legal reform needed to stop these ridiculous abuses are being pushed by conservatives, not liberals.

Last, and the reason liberals haven't supported legal reform strongly, is that this kind of nonsense is a direct byproduct of the culture of victimology and political correctness propagated by the left-- nothing is anyone's fault anymore.

I also don't want to get too political, but felt the need to respond to this a bit.

Even though I've referred to myself as a "liberal" several times, I likewise think these rulings are ridiculous. Of course, I'm also sick of political classifications being separated into two black or white categories as if there are no shades of gray. I think that kind of classification, propagated by the past few years, leads to broad generalizations and simplicity of thinking. I'm probably more left-of-center than liberal, but since I've had the term "liberal" shoved down my throat anytime I dared disagree with a Bush policy I guess the term stuck.

The point I'm ultimately trying to make is that I get grouped with "the left," as do several of my politically-minded friends, including the W&M grad I talked to, and we would likewise agree with you that these rulings are absurd. Perhaps, as I said earlier, I'm more left-of-center than liberal, or perhaps I tend to rely on my own common sense for judgment and not political ideologies.

Edit

And oh yeah, in keeping with what Caesar and SilverFork said, my friend had heard of these also, and was not convinced all of them were even true. Our discussion was based on these cases as hypotheticals.

This post has been edited by MetroidMorphBall on 25th June 2005 17:57

The saddest part isn't the fact these cases exist and were handled like this. The saddest part is the fact these guys - people who break into garages and then sue people because they couldn't get out - are the WINNERS of this Western society.



--------------------

The Collapse of Heaven and Earth

Quote (MetroidMorphBall @ 25th June 2005 12:54)

Imperialstooge, she was particularly impressed with your example. She found it to be relevant to a T.

Wow.. I was actually a little nervous to look at the posts after me thinking someone would have torn that apart (due to my utter lack of legal knowledge and therefore belief that all things being equal, I'm usually wrong...) Only reason I used it is I've read of it happening before and was outraged at the insanity of it.

Whatever happened to common sense? Or property rights? Are we to be forced as a society to protect our idiot neighbors from themselves? Where is that outlaid in our founding documents? I don't want to become a nanny state; people should be able to care care of themselves--or more importantly, people should only have the responsibility to take care of themselves, and doing so for others should be benevolence not requirement.

If the world were logical and sane (big if, unfortunately) then common sense would rule the day. You can drown in a pool. Drowning is bad. It's tresspassing to use your neighbor's property without their permission. Tresspassing is bad. Ergo, if you tresspass and drown in your neighbor's pool, shouldn't YOU (forget the fact you're dead in this example) be at fault, not the neighbor?

This world amazes me sometimes.

As for the politics point, I didn't want to raise feathers or cause a stir or anything, or apply generalizations upon people, but liberal politicans do often stand in the way of tort reform. John Edwards was a powerful trial lawyer after all, and he wasn't sending bad guys to jail if you look at his record, it was lawsuits, class-actions, etc. Tort reform is the only way to end this nonsense (aside from electing more competent judges or creating enough public outrage to stop juries from allowing this stuff.)

But the tough part is finding a peaceful way to OBTAIN tort reform. It ain't gonna happen by itself! If I owned a giant corporation and some little jerk wanted to sue me for say... a papercut ("it causes me daily pain and mental anguish!")... I think I'm stubborn enough (when it comes to ideals) that I'd rather go to JAIL then pay thousands of dollars to the little snot.

I think a LARGE portion of frivolous lawsuits are due to one major problem in our legal system: If the defendant loses a case, HE has to pay the trial fees. Now that's not a problem. The problem is that if the suer...guy... (man I forgot the terminology) loses, the STATE pays the fees! If we just changed that ONE rule and made it to where the suer guy has to pay the fees if he loses, then there would be FAR less stupid suits. Because the main reason there are so many is that there are no RISKS! If we made it where they would lose a good bit of money if they lost, then they wouldn't even bother! This wouldn't stop ALL stupid suits, per se, but it would definately help.

--------------------

The island bathes in the sun's bright rays
Distant hills wear a shroud of grey
A lonely breeze whispers in the trees
Sole witness to history

ICO-You were there-

That list for "this year's" contest has been circulating on the internet for at least 5 years. Unchanged, apparently.
A high school English teacher read it to the class, and when I brought it up with my Legal Studies teacher, she told me she looked into it a few years prior, and every one of those were false. And that the McDonald's coffee thing was actually a legitimate case.

--------------------

"I had to write four novels before they let me write comic books."
-Brad Meltzer

Quote (Tidu-who @ 24th June 2005 02:49)

Negative. I remember talking about that in my Business Law class back in high school.

I'm afraid your business law proffesor was operating under the same faulty premise that allows rumours like these to still circulate.

You certainly could sue. And you certainly could win, but your attorney would have to be amazing and theirs would have to be terrible.

Quote

The saddest part isn't the fact these cases exist and were handled like this.

The thing that is saddest to me is how gullible people are and how quickly some people will jump on board to defend an unsubstantiated rumor...

I mean...

What's up wit dat?


--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

Didn't we already establish - or attempt to establish - that these are false?

Eh, forgot to post the almighty Snopes link before. How could I forget Snopes?!

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

--------------------

Words of Wisdom:

If something can go wrong, it will.

If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway.

If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong. - Murphy’s Law

Boing! Zoom! - Mr. Saturn

Silverfork beat me to it.^

It's pretty obvious that these cases are all a load of crap, isn't it?

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978