Top 5 Ridiculous Lawsuits of 2003

[Timemaster Tim]

http://cgood.org/news-all/item?item_id=43579

Dammit! I hate this URL (dis)functionality.

In summary:

1. Parents can sue Chinese restaurant for hot tea burn, even though a child from their family caused the burn by spinning the lazy susan.

2. Student can get injunction against school preventing it from allowing another student to share the award of Valedictorian.

3. Truck driver, who lied about having driver’s license, wins suit to get unemployment benefits.

4. Woman who broke her arm on backyard snow luge can sue neighbor who invited her and other friends and neighbors to use the luge.

5. Victim of beating by foster kids can sue state for failing to properly raise them.

[Midnight Son]

I'm sure all the defense attorneys on this board see nothing wrong with any of those!

[Bub, Andrew]

Are there any defense attorneys on this board?

[Jason McCullough]

1) Not a reasonable decision.
2) Assholey on her part, but perfectly reasonable.
3) Smells bad, but actually a good interpretation of the law as written.
4) Assholey, but reasonable legal interpretation.
5) What on earth is wrong with this one?

See, I only disagree with 4 of 5! I'm not a communist!

[Jason Levine]

I don't know if there are any defense attorneys on this board, but they sure wouldn't be the ones agreeing with these decisions. Plaintiffs' attorneys would be another matter. :)

The Illinois luge decision was delivered by Judge Bob Thomas, a former placekicker for the Bears and one of the most conservative Republican judges in the state. His reasoning was that, since Illinois law would allow anyone legally on the land to sue for negligent maintenance of the luge, why should someone be prevented for suing just because they were invited? Makes sense to me.

[extarbags]

1 and 2 are both disturbing. 3 and 4 seem like reasonable applications of nonsensical laws.

I have no idea why 5 would be considered ridiculous.

[Jason Levine]

I don't get what's nonsensical about the luge decision. If the thing was negligently maintained, why would the fact that plaintiff was invited to use it make the decision nonsensical? That's like saying that someone who was invited to dinner can't sue the host if he was negligently poisoned just becauce he was invited.

[Timemaster Tim]

Yeah, when I read through them, I didn't understand why #4 was considered ridiculous. It seems to be a reasonable grounds for a lawsuit.

[Euri]

Yeah, when I read through them, I didn't understand why #4 was considered ridiculous. It seems to be a reasonable grounds for a lawsuit.

?

She asked if she could use her neighbours luge.
She used her neighbours luge.
She broke her arm.
She sued her neighbour.


2) Assholey on her part, but perfectly reasonable.

I don't see it as reasonable at all. This girl wouldn't have been the valedictorian if she were held to the same standards everybody else was. Her disability worked to her definite advantage. The school in question apparently weights academic classes higher than physical education classes. They also require physical education except for those that are physically unable to complete them. So, this girl got to take an academic class INSTEAD of the physical class, so she got better points.

This girl has effectively ruined a good portion of her life. Everyone will remember that she was a greedy, selfish cow.

[Jason McCullough]

I'm not going to argue 2) again, the last time that was brought up the argument on for a week.

As to 4) - if I invite you to ride on my personal roller coaster, and it severely injures you due to having shitty maintenance work, should I be legally liable?

[Lunch of Kong]

These are humorous decisions.

For truly absurd lawsuits (some with outcomes yet to be decided) see www.stellaawards.com.

For example: The cop who shot a suspect in the back of her car with her service pistol thinking that she was shooting him with her Taser, and is now suing the Taser company (instead of the police department who supposedly trained her).

[Bob Cherub]

One of the biggest supporters of the Democratic party....

TRIAL LAWYERS.

So don't be hypocritical. Enjoy the fact you're supporting their cause: money in their pocket off of America's stupidity.

[Oppressor]

One of the biggest supporters of the Democratic party....

TRIAL LAWYERS.

So don't be hypocritical. Enjoy the fact you're supporting their cause: money in their pocket off of America's stupidity.

One of the biggest supporters of the Republican party....

FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS

So don't be hypocritical. Enjoy the fact you're supporting their cause: the fall of the scientific method and the celebration of America's stupidity.

[Euri]

As to 4) - if I invite you to ride on my personal roller coaster, and it severely injures you due to having shitty maintenance work, should I be legally liable?

even though the victim called and asked if she and her daughter could come over and use it.

We have a reasonable expectation of safety. However, a much better example here would be me asking if I could use your lawnmower, than me chopping off my foot and suing you. This woman asked if she could come over and then broke her arm. Even disregarding the fact that they're supposedly friends, it is an absolutely bullshit thing to do. This woman broke her arm. It's her own fault, as far as I'm concerned. The law, in this case, is wrongheaded.

[Jason McCullough]

Euri, if you ask to ride on my roller coaster and break your arm due to my negligence, am I not liable? How about if you get killed?

[Ibbz]

Euri, if you ask to ride on my roller coaster and break your arm due to my negligence, am I not liable? How about if you get killed?
I think it would depend if you made any guarantees as to the safety of the roller coaster.

It didnt actually say in the article whether the luge had been maintained - for all we know she could have fell off because of her and broke her arm because of her own fault.

[cyborg]

Euri, if you ask to ride on my roller coaster and break your arm due to my negligence, am I not liable? How about if you get killed?
I think it would depend if you made any guarantees as to the safety of the roller coaster.

It didnt actually say in the article whether the luge had been maintained - for all we know she could have fell off because of her and broke her arm because of her own fault.

Exactly - it's like suing the funfair when you were pissing about in the car of the rollercoster and got injured.

Either way the very fact that suing friends and neighbours is seen as perfectly reasonable in such cases of triviality should really alarm people.

[Oppressor]

Euri, if you ask to ride on my roller coaster and break your arm due to my negligence, am I not liable? How about if you get killed?

Butting in, as long as they never found the body, no problemo...

[Jason McCullough]

Whoops, you're right they don't mention it being badly maintained. Still, I don't see what's wrong with it; liability is liability, even if I personally wouldn't be enough of an ass to sue a friend.

On closer inspection, this decision was about whether they had standing, not whether they get damages.

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2003/December/Opinions/Html/95431.htm

Plaintiff filed a negligence action against defendants. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Act immunizes them from negligence liability arising out of the recreational use of their property. The trial court agreed with defendants and granted the motion. The appellate court reversed, explaining that defendants were not entitled to the Act's protection because they had not opened their land for recreational use by the public. No. 2-02-0435 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). We granted defendants' petition for leave to appeal. 177 Ill. 2d R. 315(a).

Personally if it wasn't badly maintained I have no idea why they should get damages, but they do get to try.

[Anaxagoras]

Jason, even if the luge was badly maintained, they still have no right to damages. (at least, in a perfect world they wouldn't) Your roller coaster analogy simply doesn't hold, for two reasons.

1) The roller coaster is run by a for-profit business. Presumably, one of the things the customers pay for is safety. In a not-for-profit situation, all claims for damages should go out the window, unless I maliciously try to harm you, or unless one of the parties breaks an established regulation. (hunting trips & gun safety guidelines come to mind here) Unless you can honestly make the argument that "Check old equipment every X years for wear and tear" is a societally accepted and commonly held guideline, there isn't grounds for damages. If I want to be a nice guy, I might help pay your medical expenses, but I don't see any reason for the government to force me to pay you.

2) With a roller coaster, it's impossible for the layman to tell if it's been maintained or not. However, with a luge, you can examine the thing yourself. I mean, it's not a complicated piece of machinery or anything. Sure, you need a little bit of specialized knowledge to know whether the runners should be greased, sharpened, or whatever, but even a layman can make an educated guess as to whether it's safe or not.

[Jason McCullough]

What does for-profit nature have to do with liability? And since when does inspectability matter?

[Jason Levine]

Under the English common-law system, as it is followed here in the States, and to my knowledge, is still followed in the UK and all commonwealth countries, liability for negligent maintenance of property does not depend on a profit factor. The exact nature of the duty that a property owner owes to someone legally on his property has evolved over time, but generally the rule today is that any property owner, commercial or otherwise, owes a duty to those legally on the property to properly, i.e., non-negligently, maintain the property. That's why your homeowner's insurance policy has a liability component.

Some of the posts have argued that, because the plaintiff asked to use the luge, she should be barred from recovery. I can't agree with that and fortunately that isn't the law in any of the 50 states. If she knew the luge was defective or improperly maintained and went ahead and used it anyway, then she should not be allowed to recover. In legal terms, that would be "assumption of the risk." Also, if her injury were simply a result of participating in a dangerous sport, which may have actually been the case, that's also assumption of the risk. She does not, however, assume the risk of a hidden defect in the luge run. If such a defect cause her injury, and it was the result of negligent maintenance, then she should be allowed to recover. And that's what the luge owner presumably carries property insurance for.

[Qenan]

IANAL, thank goodness, but it seems very wrong that the liability should be the same regardless of whether it was a commercial transaction or not. Perhaps another reason to disrespect the law...

[Jason Levine]

IANAL, thank goodness, but it seems very wrong that the liability should be the same regardless of whether it was a commercial transaction or not. Perhaps another reason to disrespect the law...

So it would be OK for me to let my property turn into a death trap for my friends and neighbors just because I don't charge them money to visit me?

[Anaxagoras]

Under the English common-law system, as it is followed here in the States, and to my knowledge, is still followed in the UK and all commonwealth countries, liability for negligent maintenance of property does not depend on a profit factor. The exact nature of the duty that a property owner owes to someone legally on his property has evolved over time, but generally the rule today is that any property owner, commercial or otherwise, owes a duty to those legally on the property to properly, i.e., non-negligently, maintain the property.

I'm not so hung up on the profit factor; I mentioned it because it seems reasonable that when profit is the motive, the person receiving profit is *always* responsible to pay the injured person's medical costs, unless the injured person disobeyed instruction, misused the equipment, or signs a waiver. When there is no profit, then the non-negligence clause comes in. Now, for something like a luge, the only negligent maintenance that I can think of (ruining the frame, letting it rust, etc.) would be readily apparent just by looking at it, so the injured person has enough knowledge to make a rational indecision. In other words, the responsibility ceases to lie with the luge's owner. And if the problem was something like loose nuts/bolts, or something not visually obvious, it seems like that is a case of a faultless accident.... the luge owner is again not responsible.

I guess my problem with much of the litigation in this country (and it would appear to be supported by the English common law system) is that "shit happens" is almost never an acceptable excuse. Sometimes shit does, indeed, just happen, and no one is to blame.

[Qenan]

IANAL, thank goodness, but it seems very wrong that the liability should be the same regardless of whether it was a commercial transaction or not. Perhaps another reason to disrespect the law...

So it would be OK for me to let my property turn into a death trap for my friends and neighbors just because I don't charge them money to visit me?

It seems more OK than if you were charging them money or otherwise making implicit claims about it, yes.

[Jon R.]

Profit or no profit, she asked for it. Literally.

I'm not sure i get the scope of the discussion. Are we going for "I agree" as in "this is in bounds according to the letter of the law", or as in "this was the right decision all around"?

5) What on earth is wrong with this one?

It's perverse on so many levels. A wholly disagreeable shotgun attempt to get money and a gross abuse of grief. Yes, let's make sure the state does a better job of raising orhpans by forcing them to pay millions. Orphans surely don't need the comfortable and stable conditions they have, so it'd probably be OK to chip a few bucks off from their state-sponsored country club membership dues.

[Ben Sones]

So it would be OK for me to let my property turn into a death trap for my friends and neighbors just because I don't charge them money to visit me?

Wrong? Maybe. Fun? Absolutely.

[Rywill]

With the luge thing, although I haven't read the underlying decision, just reading the part that Jason quoted makes it look like none of you guys who are going ballistic really have anything to be concerned about. Neighbor is presumably bringing a suit for negligence. Luge owner apparently tried to claim that some state law protected her from being sued at all, and the courts said "No; the law you're talking about protects people who open their property to public recreation, like owners of parks. You don't own a park that's open to the public; you own a backyard and you invited your neighbor, and only your neighbor, over. Sorry, but this law doesn't apply to you." That's it. Everyone seems to be getting into a tizzy because maybe the neighbor broke her arm either because she was an idiot, or because of some hidden defect that the owner couldn't reasonably have known about. In either of those cases, the neighbor is not going to recover any money, because you can only win a negligence suit if you show that the person you're suing was negligent--that is, that they failed to use the level of care that an ordinary person would have to make sure they didn't hurt someone else. So relax.

I guess the other objection people have is that if you ask to come on to someone's property, you should take it as you find it. I don't think that's at all reasonable--like Jason Levine said, what if you ask to come over to borrow a cup of sugar and then walk into the concealed pit that I dug to foil burglars? Is that supposed to be your own damn fault?

Re: the tea in the restaurant, this is like that McDonald's cup of coffee. If the argument here is "You sent out this tea that was ten million degrees, but tea only needs to be 100 degrees to be tea. What the hell is the matter with you?" I can see the claim.

[Jason McCullough]

It's perverse on so many levels. A wholly disagreeable shotgun attempt to get money and a gross abuse of grief. Yes, let's make sure the state does a better job of raising orhpans by forcing them to pay millions. Orphans surely don't need the comfortable and stable conditions they have, so it'd probably be OK to chip a few bucks off from their state-sponsored country club membership dues.

Let's also apply this logic to, say, EPA fines - punishing them will just make them poorer, and what does that accomplish? Incentives are so passe.

More seriously, I have no idea if the state should be liable or not for what foster kids do in general, but it doesn't strike me as totally outrageous either way. I can't find any more details, unfortunately, as they only reference news reports.

Oh, here we go:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001794141_foster18m.html

Turns out that:

1) It was a jury that returned the judgement.
2) "The jury found the state Department of Social and Health Services failed to heed warnings about an escalating crime spree of two foster children involved in an assault on Said Aba Sheikh."
3) "The jury said it intended the unusually big award to pay for the 20-year-old's lifelong medical care."

Judging by the rest of the article, sounds like they used the verdict as a big "fuck you" to the foster care system.

[Rywill]

Jason, even if the luge was badly maintained, they still have no right to damages.
Do you really think that? Let's say I have a luge in my backyard. You live next door, and your kids are always saying "Dad, can't we try the luge?" So one day you come over and say "Hey, would you mind if my kids and I ride on your luge?" And I go, "Sure, go ahead." So you go out there, and as soon as you start going down the thing, it collapses and you fall and break your arm. I mean, that's pretty serious shit, a broken arm. It's not like scraping your knee. There's medical bills, maybe you can't work or can't drive your stick-shift car for three months, whatever. You go, "Jesus Christ, what the hell? This thing totally collapsed as soon as I got on it!" And I go, "Yeah, I know. It's a piece of crap. I never ride it, because it's totally unsafe. I figured it'd collapse under you and you'd get hurt, but you asked to ride it. So, you know, you get what you ask for, I guess." You think that's okay?

[Anaxagoras]

Rywill- In the case you mention, I would think that not telling someone about a known defect is a violation of an "established regulation", to use my earlier phrase. I should have said "established practice", since regulation is usually used to indicate governmental oversight.

[Jon R.]

I guess the other objection people have is that if you ask to come on to someone's property, you should take it as you find it. I don't think that's at all reasonable--like Jason Levine said, what if you ask to come over to borrow a cup of sugar and then walk into the concealed pit that I dug to foil burglars? Is that supposed to be your own damn fault?

I'd consider it to be if i asked to come over and screw around with your concealed pit. I'm kind of thinking that this neighbor didn't exactly go there for another reason only to be thrown onto the luge by surprise.

Let's also apply this logic to, say, EPA fines

Let's not, since it's not quite comparable to businesses dumping waste or breaking clean-air standards.

More seriously, I have no idea if the state should be liable or not for what foster kids do in general, but it doesn't strike me as totally outrageous either way.

The ridiculous part, to me, is that while 3 of the 4 assailants were able to be tried as adults, the DSHS is still somehow responsible. Where does that end? In their 20s? Mid 20s? It looks like a completely asinine deal of letting the blame cards fall where they may.

And why did the foster mother decide to ring up the DSHS rather than the police? Being the foster mother, would she not be to blame for her inability to prevent the attack?

Judging by the rest of the article, sounds like they used the verdict as a big "fuck you" to the foster care system.

Looks like. The thing that sticks in my craw is that the point of saying as much isn't apparent. Sounds like a big honking mess, and not a clear cut one that requires a base punishment over actual fixing. I'm not trying to play the "save the children" card, but from these little bits of information, i just don't get what that prosecution and jury were going for. Is it about "warehousing" the kids, or just that they viciously beat someone? The state's got an 8.8 mil fire under their ass without the benefit of being able to really jump away from it, or really even know why it's there in the first place. Essentially, my problem is that i don't have enough information to answer my questions.

[Rywill]

I guess the other objection people have is that if you ask to come on to someone's property, you should take it as you find it. I don't think that's at all reasonable--like Jason Levine said, what if you ask to come over to borrow a cup of sugar and then walk into the concealed pit that I dug to foil burglars? Is that supposed to be your own damn fault?

I'd consider it to be if i asked to come over and screw around with your concealed pit. I'm kind of thinking that this neighbor didn't exactly go there for another reason only to be thrown onto the luge by surprise.

Nobody's saying they were. But will you agree that "You take your neighbor's property as you find it" is not a workable way to have the law? That was the only point I was making with that hypo. Because if you agree, then we have to start talking about whether the luge accident was the fault of the neighbor (for being an idiot or just doing an inherently risky activity) or the owner (for having a defective luge), or nobody. Put another way, of course the person wasn't thrown onto the luge by surprise. But if the luge has some defect that the owner does (or should) know about, but the neighbor doesn't and couldn't, that defect acts just like the concealed pit in my example.

[Rywill]

Rywill- In the case you mention, I would think that not telling someone about a known defect is a violation of an "established regulation", to use my earlier phrase. I should have said "established practice", since regulation is usually used to indicate governmental oversight.
OK, that's fine. But like I said, that's already the law. "A violation of an established safety practice" is as good a definition of "negligence" as any. No negligence, no damages award (assuming the suit is for negligence, which is all I can imagine it would be). Some states do "require" owners to regularly inspect their property, though--IOW, they have rules that it's negligent not to keep track of your property and make sure it doesn't contain hidden defects that could hurt someone else (like a rickety stair, or a dead tree that could fall on somebody).

[Michael Fortson]

Just commenting on the apparent frivolity... since when does sliding down an icy hill on a tiny sled with little or no safety gear come with a reasonable expectation of complete and total safety? :P might as well sue the weatherman. I'd like to hear how some of these lawsuits turn out (the luge one and the tea centrifuge gone shockingly awry).

[Jon R.]

Nobody's saying they were. But will you agree that "You take your neighbor's property as you find it" is not a workable way to have the law? That was the only point I was making with that hypo. Because if you agree, then we have to start talking about whether the luge accident was the fault of the neighbor (for being an idiot or just doing an inherently risky activity) or the owner (for having a defective luge), or nobody. Put another way, of course the person wasn't thrown onto the luge by surprise. But if the luge has some defect that the owner does (or should) know about, but the neighbor doesn't and couldn't, that defect acts just like the concealed pit in my example.

I think i do go along with the notion of "take your neighbor's property as you find it". If your neighbor's yard looks like a backyard paradise and you fall down some tiger pit with no warning from the owner, you have the right to be pissed and legal action would be reasonable. If there are rusty spikes in plain view all over their back yard, don't be surprised if you dick around and end up needing a tetanus shot. It's absolutely irresponsible for the spikes to be there in the first place, but it's one of those 50/50 deals where an incident can be equally avoided by not going over there. Getting something done to get it cleaned up would be a good idea, but being able to sue because you knowingly went over there and got hurt seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Now, in the case with the luge, turns out that it has nothing to do with the sled at all. From http://www.iicle.com/flashpoints/flashpoints_content.asp?ID=11

"Tim and Sue Henn built a 'luge-like' sled run, complete with a platform and steps with snow, sprayed with water and hardened into ice in their backyard. Only invited guests who received the Henn’s permission were allowed to use the run, and only when they were present to supervise. A neighbor telephoned and asked if her family and a friend visiting could use the run and permission was granted. The visitor, Ellen Hall, slipped and fell on the stairs after a couple of runs and was knocked unconscious, fractured an arm, and tore a knee ligament."

The link also goes into a bit about the profit=liability thing. Not that i knew any of this before that last post of yours, of course.