Subject:
|
Re: Frivolous lawsuits--a new winner?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 31 Jul 2001 18:38:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
151 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > > http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/07/28/life.poptart.reut/index.html
> >
> > I like this one too...
> >
> > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010728/us/toy_yoda_3.html
>
> I may take some lumps for this, but...
>
> I think in that second case, the plaintiff is in the right--
I agree--I'd be especially interested to learn if some sort of
inter-office memo had circulated, because the spelling of "Toyota" in such a
document would seem a clear implication of the nature of the prize.
> That said, I think the woman with the pop-tart is an idiot,
> and shouldn't get a dime. She should consider herself lucky
> if her homeowner's insurance even pays out!
In addition, I flatly disbelieve that she was gone for "10-20" minutes,
because it seems unlikely that a full firefighting complement could have
arrived on the scene in so short a time. That is, while the firefighters
themselves might have responded that quickly, but I don't know how they'd've
been alerted to the blaze so rapidly, unless the homeonwner had some sort of
auto-alert smoke detection system.
I started filling my bathtub this morning before work, so by now it's
surely overflowed. Should I sue the water company?
> By the way, did anyone hear about the MRI accident yesterday?
> I can't WAIT to see the lawsuit/settlement on THAT one--it's another pretty
> clear-cut case (and the hospital has, to its credit, admitted as much).
Yeah, that's a rare case of an institution taking full responsibility
right from the start. Here's a link:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/mri010731.html
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Frivolous lawsuits--a new winner?
|
| (...) I think in that second case, the plaintiff is in the right-- if the implication was that the prize was a car, then using trickery to get the motivational results pursuant to offering a car as a performance incentive is completely dishonest. (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
