Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Frivolous Lawsuits

Playgirl Basket Full Barfs
For January 3, 2007

We're screwing ourselves big time with all these frivolous and fraudulent lawsuits going on in the U.S.A.! Is it any wonder that this country is going broke, and jobs are dwendling by the day? Many companies are setting up businesses in other countries, and who can blame them?!


1. Meredith Berkman, seeking $50 million, filed one of the first anti-fat lawsuits against the manufacturer of a snack food named Pirate's Booty. It looks like eating too much Pirate's Booty had added too much booty to Ms. Berkman's booty.

In December, 2001, the Good Housekeeping Institute tested Pirate's Booty, which is basically flavored puffed rice, and found that it contained 147 calories and 8.5 grams of fat, while its label said it contained only 120 calories and 2.5 grams of fat.

The manufacturer, Robert's American Gourmet Foods (a subsidiary of Keystone Foods), blamed the problem on a change in its manufacturing process and immediately recalled the product from store shelves.

Nearly four months after the recall, Berkman filed a $50 million class-action lawsuit against Robert's Foods, claiming "emotional distress" and "weight gain...mental anguish, outrage and indignation." The complaint claims to represent all consumers who ruined their diets and had to spend more time at the gym because they ate mislabeled Pirate's Booty.

2. The California Supreme Court in August of 2002 made it more difficult for bystanders to sue physicians for emotional distress.

The case, Bird v. Saenz, stemmed from a Nov. 30, 1994, incident in Los Angeles County hospital.

On that day, Janice Bird, the adult daughter of Nita Bird, brought her mother to the hospital for outpatient surgery.

About an hour to 90 minutes into the surgery, something went wrong with the procedure. About that same time, one of Bird's sisters arrived at the hospital. The two daughters then witnessed doctors rushing their mother to emergency surgery.

According to court papers, Janice Bird saw her mother "being rushed down the hallway." Nita Bird was bright blue and her bed was on an angle so that her head was almost touching the ground.

The daughters sued, NOT for malpractice, but because they had to witness the incident. These women sued the doctors and the hospital -- the same doctors who were rushing to assist their mother -- for causing emotional distress to THEM.

The case went all the way to the California Supreme Court, where the court ruled against the girls.
Source: AmedNews.com, Septemeber 2, 2002

"Lawsuits - and frivolous lawsuits - are just sapping the life out of the people who perform the services and deliver the goods for the rest of the citizenry in the State of Montana."
- Conrad Burns

"Frivolous lawsuits and skyrocketing insurance rates are driving doctors out of business and threatening access to care across America."
- Chris Chocola

"The most costly personal injury claims came in the medical malpractice area, the report said. Although those claims make up just 3.3 percent of personal injury claims filed, they accounted for $150.6 million of the total. That represents a jump from the previous year's $118.2 million."
Costs Climb for the City
Elaine Song
New York Law Journal

"Frivolous lawsuits are booming in this county. The U.S. has more costs of litigation per person than any other industrialized nation in the world, and it is crippling our economy."
- Jack Kingston

White-Collar Jobs Go Abroad

"It's not just frivolous lawsuits that weigh down the economy; the ever-increasing cost of health insurance does, too."
- Bill Owens


Playgirl's Aquarela
Uma canção Portuguesa mais
maravilhosa e amado do Brasil

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


( 14 comments — Leave a comment )
Jan. 3rd, 2007 11:52 pm (UTC)
Case number one: I say is not friv....they misrepresented their product.

Case number 2: bullshit

You know there is more than meets the eye to some of these things. Example the McDonalds coffee crotch case.....seems stupid right? But do a little research and you will find out that THAT McDonalds had been issued health code warning about serving their coffee too hot...and they did not heed it. With that little but of info I believe that she was NOT being friv.

And the tobacco cases...of course smoking is bad for you, but what got Big Tobacco in trouble is two things. 1) they had research proving that is was bad LONG time ago and denied having that knowledge, and 2) they manipulated the amount of nicotine in cigs to get people hooked. That makes them BAD in my mind. Not that they produced a harmful product but that they lied about it, and they added drugs to get people hooked.

The ins. companies are spending a lot of money to convince people that lawsuits are causing the rise in medical costs....look at the facts and you will see that is in NOT true. They are doing it so THEY can make more money.


Jan. 4th, 2007 12:11 am (UTC)
I agree
Jan. 4th, 2007 04:35 pm (UTC)
The woman who placed the hot cup of coffee against her twat should have known better. In cases like this one, we must take personal responsibility for our own stupidity.

Okay, so she sued. I don’t believe she should have been awarded one penny. Since she did sue and won, then perhaps a few bucks for her medical bills to attend her twat! This woman became obscenely rich in the blinking of an eye, without shedding a drop of sweat. She became filthy rich at the expense of those who have worked hard all their lives.

As for tobacco cases, every person that takes that first puff from a cigarette, knows exactly what risks he’s taking. He can plainly see from all those who smoke how addictive it is, and he knows it is hazardous to his health.

Why is it that they have a right to sue tobacco companies and hard core drug addicts don’t? Because if the drug addict were to attempt suing the person who sold him the drugs, he’d find his head down some sewage drain.

I honestly feel the outrageous costs in malpractice suits are one of the main reasons health care is unobtainable for many. It’s just like the rising costs for food. Those who steal are the reason for this, just as stealing the grocery carts is. I’ve seen countless of homeless people use them to place their things in them. I’ve seen many women take their dirty laundry in them to the launder mat. All this costs us money.

I’m the first to agree that we should have the right to sue, but for a VALID reason, such as the man who went in to have his right leg amputated, and the surgeon mistakenly amputated his left foot!

I have sued twice in my life, and won. I sued for the death of my mother, and I sued my city for the theft of my irrigation water. I won a fair amount for my mother’s death. The city, I DID NOT sues for money, but only that they return what was rightfully mine.

If the frivolous and outrageous amounts of suits continue as they are, this country won’t even have jobs flipping hamburgers!
Jan. 4th, 2007 04:54 pm (UTC)
So if I sell you a car that I know has a bad engine and I tell you it is fine, YOU should know better? I did nothing wrong?

I mean that is what tobacco did.......

Look at the numbers on rising health costs, the lawsuit numbers do not support the argument.
Jan. 4th, 2007 05:11 pm (UTC)
There are many instances where we have a right to sue, such as the case if you were to sell me a car, knowing all the while that you had lied to me about it being in good condition. But then too, I shouldn't expect to sue you to the point I'll end up owning everything you've worked so hard for.

As for the tobacco industry, again I feel it's our responsibility to never have started smoking in the first place. It is a well known fact that smoking is hazardous to our health. So why start smoking in the first place. It's just like the fan I have next to my desk. I know full well that if I stick my finger in it while it's running, I'll cause serious injury to my finger. If I'm stupid enough to stick my finger in it, it isn't the manufacturer of the fan's fault.

As for the guy who ended up having his wrong leg amputated by that surgeon, then I honestly believe the victim should sue the doctor for every penny he has for his unforgivable negligence!
Jan. 4th, 2007 09:54 pm (UTC)
The difference with the fan and tobacco industry. The fan manufacturer isn't making the claim that you can stick your finger in the fan. They aren't trying to find a way to compel to get addicted to sticking your finger in the fan. They don't have cool cartoon camels aimed at getting kids to start putting their fingers in fans at an early age.
In fact, they don't makew a claim that a third party like hte surgeon general said it was hazardous to your health. They make it quite clear that putting your fingers in fan is pretty damned stupid. They don't want you to stick finger in your fan. Tobacco company did everything they could to get you to smoke including misinformation campaigns, added stimulants to induce addiction, etc. They had reports
knowing in detail that they sell a very dangerous product and they , in bad faith, proceeded to find ways to boost consumption in light of the bad news that would hurt them financially.
Basically they got in trouble not so much for selling a dangerous product but for raising the risk involved and lying.
Jan. 4th, 2007 11:51 pm (UTC)
Yes, but I’m sure there have been cases where someone stuck their finger in the fan and sued a fan manufacturer for damages to the finger.

What I’m against is all the fraudulent and frivolous law suet from people whose main goal is to become rich.

As for suing the tobacco industry, I’m still against it. Nobody grabbed the smokers arm and twisted it into forcing him to smoke. I do not smoke, nor do any of my friends. Why? Because we know that smoking is addictive and it’s bad for us. I, nor any of my friends do drugs, and never will. Why? Because we see 1000’s of examples of what drugs do. I drink, but I only drink on special occasions. I know some people who can’t have even one drink because they were once alcoholics. Why is it that I can drink only one Margarita ever-so-often, and they can’t? I believe some of us are of an addictive personality. If I found myself starting to HAVE to have many Margaritas every single day, I would never have one again.

Why is it that alcoholic don’t sue the liquor industry? Why is it that smokers are suing the tobacco industry? I don’t get it.

All in all, I honestly believe that we all have a free will, and if we make bad choices, we ourselves must face responsibility.

All in all, some of us Americans are a bunch of delicate pieces of tissue paper, looking for any excuse to sue. We continue to cry because most companies are going abroad. Is it any wonder? There’s this case where a girl sued MacDonald’s because she got fat. GIVE ME A BREAK!!
Jan. 5th, 2007 03:57 am (UTC)
Here's the thing about tobacco. Regardless, health problems of a serious nature are not a 100% definite thing. But if a company knowinly increases the risk of bad effects then they are liable. Bungee jumping has it's risks and precautions are made by smart companies to help safeguard the users. If a bungee company knowingly did something to make the bungee cord more dangerous maybe cutting back on some of the material, etc and an accident occurs they are liable. Same with tobacco. The fact is they knew they were adding more carcinogens to an already dangerous product and covered it up shows they willingly put their own customers in more danger. The fact that smoking is already with risk is mott if the company increases risk. It would be the same if a condom maker covered up the fact that they were using an inferior latex knowing that a possible tear could expose the user to venereal disease.
The sex may have had risks already but those risks were not as great as when the manufacturer manipulated the product without letting the consumer know. Not frivolous since the manufacturer as well as the tobacco makers were deceiving the consumers to make big profits.
Jan. 4th, 2007 12:08 am (UTC)
"Lawsuits - and frivolous lawsuits - are just sapping the life out of the people who perform the services and deliver the goods for the rest of the citizenry in the State of Montana."
- Conrad Burns

Hum Conrad Burns was the bad apple we just got out of the senate here :o)
What he was talking about here was a lawsuit that a asbestos company here
Lost but never paid to its workers that have been dieing of lung cancer from when they where exposed to asbestos and there still dieing and the company does not care and neither did Conrad Burns so I would not put much stock in what he has said,

And if a company is in fault of endangering their employees they should pay
And take a smaller salary for the top people. The work is what made them the money in the first place

Now yes there are frivolous lawsuits and yes they should be stopped but how
Jan. 4th, 2007 04:38 pm (UTC)
The frivolous lawsuits should be stopped by making the money-hungry mongrels pay for all court costs.
Jan. 4th, 2007 04:50 am (UTC)
25 years working in Federal Court
It never ceased to amaze me the number of crazy shit law suits that people will try and file. My court was one of limited jurisdiction, but we still had more than our share of crap to put up with.

State Courts are much worse, as anyone can file anything there.
Jan. 4th, 2007 04:40 pm (UTC)
Re: 25 years working in Federal Court
Perhaps it would stop if they'd have to pay all court costs, and pay a huge fine when they lose.
Jan. 4th, 2007 05:16 am (UTC)
make the loser pay all the court costs.
that would stop a lot of this.

Case no 1 may not be bullshit..but the amount of the award sure is.

Wal*Mart has hundreds of lawyers on reatiner...they don't put up with ANY frivolous lawsuits against them....
Jan. 4th, 2007 04:46 pm (UTC)
I think case one was a bunch of bull shit. She should have known better.

Had I burned my twat the way that woman did, I'd have been so embarressed, that I would have driven off and not told a soul of my stupidity!
( 14 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2015


Powered by LiveJournal.com