Stupid Lawsuits

Remove all ads!

Actually, a couple of posts in Random Babbling got me thinking about this. What are some of the more ridiculous but successful lawsuits you are aware of? One of my favourites is one I recall from 60 Minutes a long time ago. Some idiot had a step ladder, and he put the feet of it in a pile of manure; when he climbed the ladder, the feet of course slipped, causing him to fall and injure himself. He sued the ladder manufacturer for not putting a warning label on the ladder that the feet should not be put in manure (or something to that effect; the lawsuit probably said the warning should be more general). He won the lawsuit, and won a large sum of money (I forget how much).

What are your favourites?

P.S. I wasn’t sure if this should be posted here or in the Alley (since lawsuits are pretty serious), but Whatnots seemed more appropriate.

 

A guy stepped over a wrinkle and fell on the ground of a company, where a colleague of mine works. He claimed that now his shoes were damaged, and that the company which owned the ground was responsible. He went to the judge of the peace with it and got 60 CHF for the shoes. The whole fuss did cost much more.

 

Some guy in Illinois got punch drunk, drove this 2tonne truck home. On the way he felt a need to piss. So he gets out in front of the prison or some such security facility, ignoring the 10,000Votl warnings. Guess what?
Well his widow sued saying that the said institution had no business putting an electrfied fence withing its own land (Oh yeah he was tresspassing too). WON.

 

This one is probably apochryphal, but I heard about it ages (i.e., 25+ years) ago and it's always stuck with me...

Some moron had picked up his gas-powered lawn mower and was using it to trim his hedges. Needless to say, he dropped it and severely damaged himself. He sued successfully because there was explicit warning in the litereature or on the package not to do such an incredibly stupid thing.

If you have a bike with quick-release wheels, did you ever notice those little metal tabs on the dropouts? You know, the ones that prevent the wheel from dropping out when the quick-release lever is opened, thereby defeating their whole purpose? Can you guess why most cyclists refer to them as "lawyer lips"?

 

A guy was driving his Winnebego down the interstate, put it on cruise control and got up to get himself a cup of coffee. The Winnebego drove off the side of the road and the driver successfully sued the manufacturer because nowhere in the driver's manual did it say you couldn't put the vehicle on cruise control and let the vehicle drive itself.

A woman successfully sued a furniture store after she tripped over a child in the store and broke her leg. The child was the woman's daughter.

A man won a lawsuit against a driver after the driver ran over the man's hand. The driver had just got into the car and started it without realizing that the man was on the other side of the car busy stealing one of the hubcaps.

A lawyer sued his insurance company for failure to pay up on his fire damage claim on an expensive box of cigars (they were $100/cigar or something like that) that occurred when he smoked the cigars. The lawyer won but the joke was on him as he was promptly arrested for committing arson against insured property.

 

Any lawsuit that begins:
"And now we have the case of the crown versus Dale Vick" (thats me)

 

I've heard of one similar. In someone's barn a beam was loose. The burglar won the suit after he fell and took some damage. The owner has to pay him money every month.

In my humble oppinion, it's rubbish. Of course someone who trespasses unknowingly, in good faith, etc should be protected, but not a thief. Thieves should only be able to sue you when you in all consciousness elect to do something harmful to them, for example serve them some beating in your cellar and lock them there for three days without food or water.

They should also face immediate legal action as a result of what they confess about their transgression for the purposes of accusation.

But of course what should be and what is are two completely different matters. Some lawyers blatantly consort with the devil.

Heh, it seems that I'm not going to be rich when I've finished my legal studies

 

The church in Finland tried to make a lawsuit against the company that makes "Magnum" icecreams, because of their newest ones: 7 sins, they had the name of all the seven sins and of course had seven tastes

The church lost by the way

 

Heh, isn't it odd that most of these kind of cases come from USA? Any such cases from, say; Italy?

(Or maybe it's just that in the named country there are more of 'common sense challenged' lawyers and juries than anywhere else... You know what they say: "Everything is big in USA" )

 

@ Chevalier

"Thieves should only be able to sue you when you in all consciousness elect to do something harmful to them, for example serve them some beating in your cellar and lock them there for three days without food or water."

Actually that reminds me of another U.S. case. A burglar successfully sued a homeowner after the homeowner went away on vacation and the burglar broke into the house and then somehow managed to lock himself in the garage for several days until the homeowner returned.

 

Just remembered the one about the woman who sued McDonald's because the coffee that she spilled in her lap was too hot!

And JSBB, lol for the one about committing arson against insured property. "Just desserts" IMO

 

More than a handful of those are myths. For example, the Winnebago one has been around since the 70's:

http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp

Actually, all of that list are myths I think. It's kind of hard to track em all down in one place since the lists get shuffled but here are others:

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

I don't see any of the trespassing cases on the net but I believe they are most likely myths - a trespasser doesn't receive those protections. I am certain this is the case in the typical dog biting context and some specific premises liability cases.

The last, 'locked in the garage' case is a myth and can be verified on snopes too on one of the above links I believe (or you may need to do a search for 'locked in garage.')

Including the myths


I believe the Illinois electrical fence one is wrong or at least the facts have been altered.

Edit - for the McDonald's case, call me the McDonalds crusader It's reported inaccurately too :
http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000055#000000

 

here is a website of crazy lawsuits you can trust ($1 to Viking):

http://www.stellaawards.com/

 

Well, not only have I started a topic that's been covered before, I also goofed on the McDonald's case . Thanks, Laches - your SP link was very informative and provides a good counterpoint to this thread.

 

I might be wrong about the Illinois thing.
It was something I read 4-5 years ago,soo...

 

Anyone seen the movie "The man who sued god"? That is about one big stupid law suit.
For those who haven't seen it... A mans boat gets struck by lightning; he tries to claim insurance; the insurance companies say that it was an act of god so therefore he's not covered. So he goes and sues the churches. If they say that god exists then they would have to pay the insurance for his boat, because it was god who damaged it, this would also open up the path for many more claims like the one above, or they could prove that god doesn't exist and be charged for fraud.

 

@RotKU: Sounds like the episode of Ally McBeal where a child dying from leukemia did the same thing.