Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Frivolous Lawsuits - Starburst Candies

We have yet another ridiculous lawsuit from a woman by the name of Victoria McArthur who claims Starburst Candies permanently caused personal injuries to her jaw. She's suing for $25,000.00.

I can see why so many companies are moving to other countries.

There was a time when I became friends with this woman who would visit me on and off. When I found out she had sued the apartment complex she lives in because she had slip and slipped down 3 steps, and that she had sued a company for 1 million dollars (she lost) for not hiring her because she was a minority, and had sued a department store for slipping when she had gotten of the escalator, and had sued the owner of a motorcycle in which she was a passenger when a car bumped into them, I told her to leave my house and never come back!! I have cats, dogs, and 3 stairs that must be taken to enter my house. There's no way I'm going to take chances with this sue crazy bitch planning an accident and suing me!

Why are frivolous lawsuits allowed to continue, and why Why do lawyers accept these types of lawsuits?

This is funny! My LJ is considered RATED R, because
I've written: bitch (3x) death (2x) murder (1x)!!
Online Dating

Mingle2 - Online Dating

What's your LJ rated as?!! :o)

Playgirl's Amnesia

Join The NRA

"The Right Of The People To Keep and
Bear Arms, Shall Not Be infringed."


( 33 comments — Leave a comment )
Jun. 27th, 2007 03:39 pm (UTC)
I only got a PG?!?!?

I obviously need to lewd things up a bit.
Jun. 27th, 2007 03:47 pm (UTC)
You must!
Oh how funny! Sure wish you had posted your little PG banner here! :o)
Jun. 27th, 2007 03:52 pm (UTC)
Re: You must!
It's not too late...

Online Dating

Mingle2 - Online Dating

Jun. 27th, 2007 10:20 pm (UTC)
Re: You must!
That sure is a pretty color! Thanks!
Jun. 27th, 2007 04:09 pm (UTC)
Lawyers will take on any lawsuit... they get paid to!

I agree though, there are too many frivolous lawsuits...
Jun. 27th, 2007 10:22 pm (UTC)
It really upsets me when I see people suing for the most insane reasons and for so much money!
Jun. 27th, 2007 04:17 pm (UTC)
My blog is rated G...
that means I do a good job of screening ;p
Is my halo on straight? ;pp

Jun. 27th, 2007 04:18 pm (UTC)
here it is ;)
Online Dating

Mingle2 - Online Dating

Jun. 27th, 2007 10:27 pm (UTC)
Here, let me straighten it up, 'cuz it's tilting a wee bit to the right! heee

I never realized that the words death, murder and bitch would categorize me as RATED R! I wonder what would happen if I wrote down the word bedroom??! ;o)
Jun. 28th, 2007 08:13 pm (UTC)
crooked halo
ha! ;p
thanks ;)
on the same subject, I think certain higher-ups would censor our minds if they could- have you ever read 1984?
Very weird...
Jun. 27th, 2007 04:29 pm (UTC)
Online Dating

Mingle2 - Online Dating

Would you of guessed this :o) and you are not the only one that can not comment on my LJ I have had 3-4 others tell me this too this morning
The powers that be on LJ must have not seen my ratings!

Let me know if you get on? Thanks sunshine
Jun. 27th, 2007 04:50 pm (UTC)
I agree with you but then again I can't imagine who wouldn't. The answer must include some penalty for those that file these lawsuits. In Europe many countries make the failing party pay the other's fees. This rarely happens in the U.S. legal system. The agrument against this is that then the legal system wouldn't be accessible to the average citizen. I understand this argument and haven't yet worked out the answer to my own satisfaction.

I have recently added you because I enjoy you mind and thoughts.
Jun. 27th, 2007 10:33 pm (UTC)
Something has to be done about these outrageous lawsuits, like the man who sued for about $57 million for a pair of pants. People like this man, along with the attorney who agrees to represent them should be arrested for attempted theft.

Thank you for adding me, I really appreciate it Sweety Pie! :o)
Jun. 28th, 2007 05:36 am (UTC)
Happens more than you think
Actually, every state and the federal government has a series of mechanisms in place to levy court costs and filing fees against parties to undertake frivolous lawsuits. Sometimes the sanctions are aimed squarely at the lawyers, other times at the party as a whole.

It does happen, but it is uncommon, b/c most of the time courts will not grant it if the complaint meets a prima facie standard (that is, "if what you allege is true, then you are entitled to relief") and sometimes the complaints are filed in broad terms ("I was injured through his negligence").
Jun. 27th, 2007 04:55 pm (UTC)
Earlier this year we were having some problems with water leaking into our windows. Repeated calls to the condo association yielded no results, and every time we'd contact them, the lady on the phone seemed to have some kind of personal problem with me. I was baffled. We eventually got the leak fixed, but I couldn't figure out why they seemed to take exception to me.

Then a couple of months later I found out that a distant relative with the same last name also lives in the same complex, and about a year ago she fell into a roped off ditch next to her building where they were fixing pipes and successfully sued the hell out of the place.

Hey thanks for making things difficult for us with your frivolous, dumbass.
Jun. 27th, 2007 04:56 pm (UTC)
oh yeah..
Online Dating

Mingle2 - Online Dating

Jun. 27th, 2007 11:33 pm (UTC)
Re: oh yeah..
I shouted the same thing when I got my Rated R banner! :o(
Jun. 27th, 2007 11:41 pm (UTC)
What an awful coincidence and bad timing for her to have your same last name, and live in the same apartment complex!

I hope you explained things to the woman on the phone, and got reimbursed for your out of pocket expenses on that water leak!
Jun. 27th, 2007 08:57 pm (UTC)
I can totally see suing for the actual cost of medical care, but the amounts that people get away with is insane. my girlfriend was recently part of a test jury, and the case sounded completely fake. this woman is claiming a section of spice-rack shelving in a store fell over on her, and her neck was injured, requiring surgery. it looked like she and a relative pulled on the shelf to knock the product on the floor and then said the shelf fell over, and then a year later she claims her neck needs surgery as a result, but there's no direct evidence that this shelf incident would have caused the injury. like your former friend, she has a history of doing this. the thing is, the companies involved (she's suing the store, the spice company, and the company that makes the shelves for negligence) may very well just settle rather than risk losing in court, but that still means she won a shit-load of free money.

that aside, I was wondering what your feelings are about the U.S. government contracting with mafia bosses to assassinate foreign heads of state?
Jun. 27th, 2007 09:09 pm (UTC)
Yes, these frivolous law suits add to the cost of virtually everything we buy or do. The ability to sue is needed when appropriate but not for $40 or $50 million dollars because a dry cleaners alledgedly lost your favorite pair of pants.....And by a judge too.....
Jun. 27th, 2007 11:31 pm (UTC)
And a crying judge at that! He started crying on the stand when he started talking about his pants!

This guy needs to be sitting on a bench at the funny farm!

What a mockery of justice for the courts to have accepted this disgusting lawsuit in the first place!
Jun. 28th, 2007 12:55 am (UTC)
I didn't know about his crying..... I understand he might be subject to losing his job....I hope so!!

Yes, it was a total mockery of justice....Plus the economic impact on the family that owns the cleaners. I guess it caused their business to drop significantly.

Take care.
Jun. 27th, 2007 09:49 pm (UTC)
Yep, people sue for anything anymore. Looking for that free lunch via someone else. Lots of people really don't care who they sue.

PS. Did you get my package with the newspaper?
Jun. 27th, 2007 10:37 pm (UTC)
I sure did! :o) I made a post about it yesterday!

What a wonderful surprise Ron! I'm going to try and share some of the many wonderful pictures. I couldn't get over seeing Queen Elizabeth as a little girl!

Thank you so much!
(Deleted comment)
Jun. 28th, 2007 04:08 am (UTC)
You know... in Europe that coffee case would have never gotten off the ground because people in Europe know coffee is served HOT. Not luke warm. Not mildly hot. No, it is served HOT!

Coffee is made with water that reaches boiling point. And it is served that way because that's fresh coffee. What got her burned was her ignorance that coffee is served hot, and she was driving with it in her lap. It was her decision to order something that is known to be hot because it's made with boiling water, and then it was her decision to ride around with it in her lap. How was McDonald's causing harm by serving what was ordered? How is McDonald's negligent for serving coffee the way it is suppose to be served? In short, there is no such thing as serving coffee too hot because it is served HOT!

Basically, corporations shouldn't be liable for the stupidity of others. If we allow it, then are we not saying that people are not expected to think for themselves?

For example, I do property management for vacation villas -- usuallu residential properties. If a previous guest leaves some sort of floaty or beach ball out on the pool deck, and the following guests decide to play with it and some how gets injured while playing with it. I can be held liable because of their poor judgment to play safe, and all because they can say I provided the toy.

So, are people expected to have no accountability for their judgment?

(Deleted comment)
Jun. 28th, 2007 06:24 am (UTC)
That's one way to look at it.
(Deleted comment)
Jun. 28th, 2007 02:59 pm (UTC)
I think the grandmother has an underbite. And cases of lockjaw or symptoms where the jaw locks aren't uncommon for those who have underbites. So I doubt she has a case.

Jun. 28th, 2007 05:40 am (UTC)
Actually she wasn't driving--her son or nephew was, and she stilled spilled it when the lid popped open. The cotton pants she was wearing soaked it up, contributing to the severity of the burn.

The exact number the original jury came up with was the amount of money McDonald's took in for a single day and a half--of profit just from coffee.
Jun. 28th, 2007 06:20 am (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. I looked the case up. Her grandson parked the car so she could add sugar and cream. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.

And they actually settled for less than the $2.9 million. The judge awarded $640 thousands, and they settled for a confidential amount.
Jun. 28th, 2007 04:42 am (UTC)
Lawyers get paid regardless of the outcome. So there are some who accept whatever they can get their hands on. Supposedly, there is nothing unethical about it.

And, people get away with it because for large companies it is easier to just settle the case than to tie up resources (personel and money) for business that are unproductive, especially in cases where the opposing side has a pretty decent arguement. So they lose twice if they don't settle. They settle to cut their losses.

And it's the small businesses that get the short end of the stick because they don't produce enough income to cover the expenses produced by lawsuits.

However, if small business owners or people realized that the problem with these lawsuits are the statutes that allow one to have legal standing, then all an owner or human being has to do is opt out of society and be a free man. Because these lawsuits are brought up due to a violation of statute. And a statute is a rule of society that has the force of law. And society, is a number of people joined through mutual consent to determine, deliberate and act for a common goal. By the way, that's why many statutes have a title containing the word "Act". Also, we were contracted into society when our parents registered us to the government as a person. However, we're not a person. We're a human being. A person is a legal entity, and statutes are imposed on the person, not the human being. So, get rid of that legal entity, and no statute has the force of law. ;)

Then all that applies is the Rule of Law as our founding fathers intended.

Jun. 28th, 2007 05:43 am (UTC)
What about common law?
As far as tort law goes, a lot of things for which a party may sue another are not explicitly spelled out in statute, but are part of the common law tradition. For example, there is no real statute in MO that allows for a woman to sue for "seduction," but under common law it is possible for her to do so (although I doubt there's been a case of that in a while).
Jun. 28th, 2007 07:53 am (UTC)
Re: What about common law?
Yes, you're correct. Basically, according to Common Law, no one has the lawful right to claim a right to cause harm to another human being, to cause damage to property, to engage in fraud or extortion or breaking of a contract. When one sues, he/she or it sues for remedy of one of those unlawful acts, and the claimant has to prove one of those unlawful acts occured. Otherwise, there is no case. So yes, one can sue for seduction, but one has to prove one of the above unlawful acts occured.

However, when it comes to statutes, there is usually a catch due to the ambiguity or deception within the text. Every human being has a natural God given right to contract. When we were born, we were entered into contract with the government by our parents. Therefore, due to that contract we are obligated to 'act' according to the rules posed by the governing statute(s) in a given situation, otherwise we break contract and we are in dishonour. Thus, legal action can be taken against our person whether it be by the government or by another legal entity such as corporation or another person. Furthermore, one can claim that harm was caused against him/her or it by the other entity because that other entity did not 'act' according to statute.

Now, given the fact that most people are unaware of the deception within statutes, one usually does not know how to manipulate the system to their favor. But many lawyers are becoming aware of it and are able to conduct these frivolous lawsuits that are becoming more and more common. [Without further investigation], the administrative law judge suing 65 million for the pants may be a prime example of this. But, the majority of the wealth robbed from the People comes from unlawful actions perpetrated by the government under the specious guise that the government is acting "legally".

Jun. 28th, 2007 05:48 am (UTC)
A few thoughts
Most of what I would say has been said already.

The biggest problem in the system is the risk management system under which business and corporations operate.

If a person is suing for $500, is it really worth while to the company to spend $5000 in resources to counter it?

If the circumstances are not likely to repeat, and there is fear of scandal/bad press, the company will settle. That might not seem right, but consider that the scandal part alone is often the worst part (and unfortunately, people make up their minds about a story one way or the other without knowing too many details; the aforementioned McDonald's Coffee Case mentioned by someone else here is a good example).

By contrast, if a company has fear that by settling one case they will open the door to many more, then it may be in their interests to fight it, even if they lose money, and likewise if they do not want to appear ridiculous by caving to any blatantly frivolous lawsuit.

One good thing to keep in mind is that often cases which win at trial level are overturned on appeal, so in the end maybe the greater justice is served.
( 33 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2015


Powered by LiveJournal.com