Of all the ridiculous things to sue for.............

LaserFreak

Enlightened
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
367
I think we can all agree that the lady that sued McDonalds for the coffee spilled on her lap was an extremely ridiculous lawsuit.

But today, I have learned of an even more ridiculous lawsuit.

There was a guy who rented a room at the house I live in. He was there only for a few days, when he decided to move out.

Last week, I found out the reason why this guy moved out. Apparently, he came home one night to find out that the landlord had cooked fish, and we all know that fish tends to smell up the house--this is why he moved out. He didn't like the smell. As if this wasn't a ridiculous enough reason to move out of a house, especially after only one incident, he decided to attempt a lawsuit against my landlord, for cooking fish and making the house smell.

I haven't found out what the ruling was on this case, but I can only assume that this guy lost.

I'd like to see anyone top this one.
 

gadget_lover

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Messages
7,148
Location
Near Silicon Valley (too near)
Before one can pass judgement one really needs all the facts. What are the claims in the suit? Did the LL fail to disclose that she cooked fish every night? Did she refuse to make accomodations and then refuse to refund part or all of the security deposit? Did she fail to comply with some part of their contract?

Without knowing, it's all conjecture.

Daniel
 

CLHC

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 25, 2004
Messages
6,001
Location
PNW|WA|USA
Some years ago there was this fellow who was attempting to rob a home and looking for a way in via somewhere on the roof. He fell through the skylight and landed on the kitchen island where there was a knife lying there and injured himself, maybe stabbed himself I don't remember. Well he sued the homeowner (because of the knife "accident") and won!<<——How's that? ! ? !

Mind you—he was trespassing and attempting a break-in! ! !
 

LaserFreak

Enlightened
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
367
CHC said:
Some years ago there was this fellow who was attempting to rob a home and looking for a way in via somewhere on the roof. He fell through the skylight and landed on the kitchen island where there was a knife lying there and injured himself, maybe stabbed himself I don't remember. Well he sued the homeowner (because of the knife "accident") and won!<<——How's that? ! ? !

Mind you—he was trespassing and attempting a break-in! ! !

Yeah, this one was pretty lame too.

Gadget Lover:

I'm not too sure what all was included in this lawsuit...it may have also included the non-returned security deposit, however, they make each new renter sign an agreement that states they must reside in the home for 7 months before any deposit is returned after moving out. So I would assume he didn't get his deposit back.

And BTW, she had NEVER cooked fish in the house before--as I had stated above there was only one incident, after which she told me that she wasn't going to cook fish because it stunk up the house. (This occured after the incident, before the attempted lawsuit)
 
Last edited:

CLHC

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 25, 2004
Messages
6,001
Location
PNW|WA|USA
Was the fish being cooked toyo?, bangus?, bagoong? I know those all too often when growing up in Hawaii. . .
 

LaserFreak

Enlightened
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
367
CHC said:
Was the fish being cooked toyo?, bangus?, bagoong? I know those all too often when growing up in Hawaii. . .

Huh? All I know was it was cooked and it stank.

The fish was unavailable for comment, as it had experienced a death shortly before the incident occured. The fish's lawyer declined comment as well.
 

Trashman

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
3,544
Location
Covina, California
Let's see, toyo=soy sauce, bangus=a type of milkfish (not sure about this one, I know it says bangus milkfish on the package), and bagoong is shrimp paste. How'd I do?
 

CLHC

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 25, 2004
Messages
6,001
Location
PNW|WA|USA
Trashman said:
Let's see, toyo=soy sauce, bangus=a type of milkfish (not sure about this one, I know it says bangus milkfish on the package), and bagoong is shrimp paste. How'd I do?

You are spot on Trashman! The bagoong has anchovies. . .For those who like it. He he he. . .

And No! I have not eaten those in more than 25+ years and even then, it was far too few in-between. The exception being the "sun-dried" milkfish (bangus).<<<———THAT ONE IS REALLY GOOD! ! ! Doesn't stink my olefactory says. . .
 
Last edited:

CLHC

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 25, 2004
Messages
6,001
Location
PNW|WA|USA
LaserFreak said:
Ewwww....anchovies.

I have to agree with you there. But some people like them with their pizza?

Also, if I remember correctly, my aunt lived in the military housing in Hawaii and she told me that they were not allowed(?) to cook any fish or other food items that creates or have offensive ordors. That's keeping in consideration for those who are not accostumed to eating—albeit smelling—such things that are living nearby.
 

jtivat

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 14, 2002
Messages
2,375
Location
Grand Rapids
Check out the real facts.

McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit
Everyone knows what you're talking about when you mention "the McDonald's lawsuit." Even though this case was decided in August of 1994, for many Americans it continues to represent the "problem" with our civil justice system.

The business community and insurance industry have done much to perpetuate this case. They don't want us to forget it. They know it helps them convince politicians that "tort reform" and other restrictions on juries is needed. And worse, they know it poisons the minds of citizens who sit on juries.

Unfortunately, not all the facts have been communicated - facts that put the case and the monetary award to the 81-year old plaintiff in a significantly different light.

According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation.
The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

The most important message this case has for you, the consumer, is to be aware of the potential danger posed by your early morning pick-me-up. Take extra care to make sure children do not come into contact with scalding liquid, and always look to the facts before rendering your decision about any publicized case.

Courtesy of Legal News and Views, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers
 

chesterqw

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
1,968
Location
singapore,jurong
do not worry, soon with of us here, we will get sued for carrying metal lights around, distracting ppl, or for shining a usl up ppl's eyes or just as simple as"i don't now, the light had some much functions that i freaked out and faint"
 

Lemon328i

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
42
jtivat said:
McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit
Everyone knows what you're talking about when you mention "the McDonald's lawsuit." Even though this case was decided in August of 1994, for many Americans it continues to represent the "problem" with our civil justice system. .....

The most important message this case has for you, the consumer, is to be aware of the potential danger posed by your early morning pick-me-up. Take extra care to make sure children do not come into contact with scalding liquid, and always look to the facts before rendering your decision about any publicized case.

Yet, the ultimate cause of the plaintiff's injury was negligence on her part. She had an expectation of hot coffee, which she received. She spilled the coffee into her own lap while operating a motor vehicle. Had she taken the care to put the coffee into an approved cupholder and waited until it was safe to drink (i.e. not driving), she would not have suffered any injury. Juries are simply too susceptible to emotion rather than straight logic. Had it been a 22 year old male who burned himself, McDonald's likley would have won this case.

Under the reasoning argued in this case, if a person spills grease onto themselves from a McDonald's hamburger (which contains a higher grease content than comparable hamburgers), McDonald's should be liable for dry cleaning costs. There was a time in America when a person would have been ashamed to bring a lawsuit for something they did to themselves, but in this era of the trial attorneys, frivolous suits are the name of the game.
 

gadget_lover

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Messages
7,148
Location
Near Silicon Valley (too near)
As I understand the Mc Donalds case, the restraunt brewed the coffee at close to boiling to minimize the amount of coffee grounds needed per pot.

The woman had no way of knowing that the McD coffee was significantly hotter than coffee she brewed at home or that she had bought in the past freom other vendors. Not only significantly hotter, but capable of causing severe burns faster than she could remove the coffee soaked clothes.

That was the brunt of the case. Mc D knew it was serving a dangerous beverage based on previous accidents. They knew they were brewing hotter than industry standards, and continued despite the risks.

I'm with you 100% on the stupidity of most law suits. A person stealing a car should not be able to sue if they get injured in the process even if the keys were left in the ignition, but they do it frequently. A criminal should lose all rights as soon as they attempt to commit a crime.

ALL of them.

Daniel
 

danielo_d

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Messages
359
Location
NorCal
Pretty soon McD's will have to post warnings on their Sundaes. Someone could sue for the mental anguish and physical pain they received for eating the ice-cream too fast resulting in ice-cream headache.

I jest. :ironic:
 

turbodog

Flashaholic
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
6,425
Location
central time
Lemon328i

**************

had this big reply typed..... then POOF when I hit submit

pisses me off

***************

Can't agree with you though.

Yeah coffee is hot. But someone's supposed to know it's a few degrees shy of boiling?

A few drops of grease do not cause almost instant 3rd degree burns. Grease has a low specific heat; water has one of the highest.

What if she was in the restaurant as I am SURE some of the HUNDREDS of other people that filed claims were?
 
Top