Outrageous Lawsuits
As unbelievable as these examples seem, this is just a small sample of the incredibly outrageous lawsuits that are a part of our "justice" system.
The Flying Shrimp of Death
Posted: October 3rd, 2007
A Long Island widow claimed that her husband’s death resulted from an injury sustained while dodging a piece of flying shrimp at the Japanese steakhouse Benihana. Both AP and the New York Times covered the trial.
The Times reported that the plaintiff’s lawyer told the jury on summation that “a flying piece of hot grilled shrimp” thrown by an irresponsible chef “set into motion an unbroken chain of interrelated events” that led to the plaintiff’s death 10 months later. Benihana’s lawyer reportedly said there was no proof that the neck injury caused plaintiff’s death, and asked the jury, “How in God’s name can this be related to Benihana?”
The man’s widow alleged he injured his neck while trying to avoid a hot shrimp playfully tossed at him by a table-side hibachi chef at Benihana, the Japanese steakhouse chain, that Colaitis’s neck injury required an operation, that an apparent infection necessitated another procedure and ten months after dodging the shrimp, he was dead of a blood-borne infection.
It took the jury just two hours to reject the claims. Some opponents of liability reform might use this as evidence that the system works, but Benihana had to pay the cost of the attorney time required to prepare for and defend a four-week trial, which was certainly in the six digits, and perhaps the seven digits, effectively punishing them for not paying protection money.
Revealing Photo
Posted: October 3rd, 2007
A New Jersey high school student wore boxer shorts instead of a jock strap when playing basketball for his varsity team, and a resulting action photo published in the school's yearbook inadvertently revealed more (or perhaps less) than he would have liked. Some students didn't return the yearbooks when they were recalled the business day after they were released, and an opposing basketball player teased Bennett the next year. The student claimed untold emotional distress (though he never sought counseling or medical assistance for his trauma) and sued the school board, three officials, two teachers, the publishing company, and nine students even though those students were not editors of the book. Some of those students have had to hire their own attorneys at their own expense since their parents don’t have homeowner's insurance. "Some of the students weren't even editors. Not able to determine who was responsible for content, the attorney named “everyone in the picture" and even threw in a child pornography charge.
The trial court tossed the case (though only after depositions and summary judgment briefing) and an appeals court summarily affirmed, but the attorney says he'll appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which will add to the legal expenses of the defendants.
Though the case was meritless, the court refused sanctions because the suit technically wasn't frivolous because it wasn't brought in bad faith, exhibiting once again the disconnect between the legal definition of "frivolous" in many states and the popular understanding of the adjective.
Happy Birthday Mom, See You in Court
Posted: October 3rd, 2007
Associated Press reported earlier this year about an Illinois woman suing her parents for negligence, claiming a surprise birthday visit to her mother left the woman with a broken ankle after a fall on her parents' icy driveway. In January 2005, Louah, traveled to surprise her mother on her birthday, which they celebrated at a local tavern. Louah spent the night at the home of her mother and stepfather. The next morning she slipped on their driveway, breaking her left ankle and injuring her foot and leg, according to court records. A mother-daughter courtroom showdown at the trial is scheduled for November 2006. The daughter is seeking damages for medical bills and lost wages.
Safe Bet Suit
Posted: October 3rd, 2007
A Texas man filed a lawsuit seeking to regain $7 million he lost gambling. The suit claimed that a major drug company was liable for his losses because the man’s Parkinson’s medication caused him to develop compulsive gambling habits. He also claimed the casinos where he lost the money were liable because they knew he was taking medication for the disease. The case is pending.
Only in New York
Posted: October 3rd, 2007
A New York man was awarded $1.4 million after he was hit by a train while attempting to outrun it. The transit authority was held liable for his actions despite his undeniable recklessness and illegal trespassing on the subway tracks after a night of drinking.
Don’t Forget the Sunscreen
Posted: October 3rd, 2007
A class action lawsuit is alleging that five of the leading U.S. makers of sunscreen lotions and sprays deceptively promote their products as protection from harmful sunrays. A suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court this year seeks to return money that consumers say they spent on these products. The suit names as defendants Schering-Plough (which makes Coppertone), Johnson & Johnson (which makes Neutrogena), Playtex Products (which makes Banana Boat), Tanning Research Labs (which makes Hawaiian Tropic), and Chattem (which makes BullFrog).
The lawsuit claims the manufacturers promote sunbathing by claiming to protect users from harmful ultraviolet rays. It says while the products might protect against ultraviolet B (UVB) rays -- the shorter-length ultraviolet rays that cause sunburn and increases the risk of skin cancer -- they do little to stop ultraviolet A (UVA) rays -- longer-length rays reaching deeper into the skin, which can also increase the risk.
Schering-Plough has vigorously disputed these allegations stating their current labeling is in compliance with FDA regulations. "I don't know if there is any credence to this lawsuit," says Roger Ceilley, MD, a clinical professor of dermatology at the University of Iowa in Iowa City and a spokesman for the American Academy of Dermatology. "Sunscreen is an important part of sun safety, but it's only a part of it," he says. "A number of studies clearly show the benefit of sunscreen when used properly," he says.
Suing for Suitors
Posted: October 3rd, 2007
In May 2006 Anne Majerik, a 60 year-old widow, was awarded $2.1 million after suing Orly Hadida, her Beverly Hills matchmaker, for failing to produce the love of her life.
In return for the $125,000 Majerik paid Hadida, a 25-year veteran of the matchmaking business, she expected an “extremely successful and highly educated, charismatic, kind, down-to-earth romantic who enjoys a life of fine dining, travel and leisure,” and who earns a minimum of $1 million a year with an estate valued near $20 million.
When the two women met, Majerik had been involved in another legal dispute with her former matchmaker in San Diego. “The lady is a serial matchmaker suer,” said Orly’s attorney. According the jury foreman, the $2.1 million award was meant to punish the defendant, not reward the plaintiff. “They were both wrong,” said the foreman. The jury hoped the money could have been awarded to a charity rather than the plaintiff but according to the judge that was not possible.
Bathing Suit
Posted: October 3rd, 2007
You can be sued for even taking a bath these days. In February 2006, an elderly couple filed a lawsuit against their neighbor over her 5:00 a.m. baths. District Judge Ronald Mullins has scheduled a review hearing for the lawsuit filed by Marvin and Goldie Smith, who claim the water pipes they share with Shannon Peterson, who lives below them, vibrate so badly they can't sleep through her early morning baths. Peterson, as is customary for most people, bathes before leaving for work each morning. After she became aware of the Smith’s complaint she took steps to try and resolve the matter. She had her pipes insulated and had sound engineers check her unit for abnormalities.
Despite these efforts, the Smith’s called their son, a lawyer, who wrote Peterson a letter ordering her to stop running water in her bathtub before 8:00 a.m. The homeowners’ association responded on Peterson’s behalf with a letter explaining that the request didn’t comply with the building’s rules. The Smith’s then decided to sue Peterson citing the “reckless and negligent use of her bathtub.” Peterson’s lawyer calls it “the most frivolous lawsuit he has seen in 30 years of practicing law.” The case is pending.
Me Sue Me
Posted: October 3rd, 2007
According to a March 2006 article in The Lodi News-Sentinel, Curtis Gokey decided to sue the City of Lodi for damages when a dump truck backed into his car. The loony thing is that Gokey, a Lodi city employee, was the person driving the dump truck. Even after he admitted that the accident was his fault, Gokey filed a $3,600 claim for damages to his car.
The city denied Gokey’s claim because in essence, he was suing himself. That still didn’t stop Gokey. He and his wife decided to file a new claim under her name. The city attorney said this claim also lacks merit because Mrs. Gokey can't sue her own husband. According to Mrs. Gokey, she has the right to sue the city because it was a city vehicle that damaged her private vehicle. As a result of negative publicity and the city’s reaction, the Gokeys dropped their suit.
Feeding Frenzy
Posted: October 3rd, 2007
Earlier this year, a court awarded a $1.1 million verdict against a California law firm for failure to accommodate an attorney who asked to be able to bill 140 hours a month while undergoing treatment for liver disease. The law firm's defense was that it really fired Warren Snider because he took time off to go to his father-in-law's memorial service.
Going After Big Chocolate
Posted: October 3rd, 2007
A lawsuit filed last year in Los Angeles County that claimed chocolate exposes consumers to dangerous levels of lead. The plaintiffs sued Hershey Food Corp. and Nestle USA Inc. This year, a state investigation discounted the claims, saying that although lead occurs naturally in chocolate, the levels are too low to pose any hazard. The suit has been dropped.
Getting Nailed
Posted: October 3rd, 2007
Earlier this year, the state won a lawsuit against a Brea attorney to halt his practice of suing groups of nail salons in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, alleging violations of state law and then aggressively seeking quick settlement payments in exchange for dropping the cases. The attorney served 15 days in jail in February for violating a court order against filing "shakedown lawsuits." The state bar suspended him for 30 days.
Look Out Leno
Posted: October 3rd, 2007
This year proved you could sue someone even for trying to get a laugh.
In June 2006, a woman filed a defamation lawsuit against late-night comedian Jay Leno claiming that one his segments on the “Tonight Show” accused her of having sex with a dog. Marilyn Drake claims she became an unwitting target during a segment of the show making fun of newspapers due to her appearance in a photo for a New York Times story about ovum donation headlined, “Are you my sperm donor? Few clinics offer answers.”
Earlier in the segment, Leno had made fun of a quote in another story about prosthetic testicles for neutered dogs. Later, Leno displayed the New York Times story, where Drake was pictured sitting on a couch next to a dog. Leno then imagined a dialogue between the woman and the dog: “Are you my sperm donor? No! I have fake testicles! How could I be your sperm donor?!”
A San Francisco Superior Court judge plans to throw out the lawsuit stating that reasonable people, even having only flipped through Leno’s “Tonight Show” briefly, would not have concluded that Leno was accusing the plaintiff of having sex with a dog.
Apartment Avarice
Posted: October 3rd, 2007
According to an April 2006 article in The National Law Journal, the law firm of Graham & Martin filed a lawsuit aiming to cash in on dubious toxic-warning claims under California’s Proposition 65. Graham & Martin filed suit against 170 California apartment building owners as well as the Rental Housing Industry trade association for failure to warn tenants and visitors of the dangers of exposure to cigarette smoke and carcinogens from auto exhaust in parking lots. The goal of the lawsuit was to require apartment buildings to post generic warnings along with a laundry list of potential sources of cancer provided on a Web site, including furniture, paint, construction materials, cleaning supplies, swimming pool chemicals, pest control and landscaping.
This case settled for $540,000 plus attorney fees – that is until Justice Sills got a hold of it in the state court of appeals. Justice Sills dismissed the plaintiff’s claims and overturned the $540,000 settlement, calling Graham & Martin “bounty hunters” who set up “straw plaintiffs” as a means to collect legal fees. In his opinion, Justice Sills provided a valuable, step-by-step guide for attorneys who find themselves with time on their hands and mischief on their minds, concluding with the following: “Given the ease with which it was brought, and the absolute lack of any real public benefit from telling people that things like dried paint may be slowly emitting lead molecules or that parking lots are places where there might be auto exhaust, instead of $540,000, this legal work merited an award closer to a $1.98.”
Be Like Mike
Posted: October 3rd, 2007
Allen Heckard of Portland stands more than 6 feet tall, has a shaved head, a hoop in his left ear, and wears Air Jordan shoes. He's an avid basketball player who, over the past 15 years, has been mistaken for the NBA legend. And he's sick of it.
So, in July, Heckard sought $832 million in damages from Jordan and Nike founder Phil Knight for defamation, permanent injury, emotional pain and suffering. Heckard blamed Knight for promoting Jordan and making him one of the most recognized men in the world. "I'm constantly being accused of looking like Michael, and it makes it very uncomfortable for me," Heckard told news agencies.
Heckard recently dropped the lawsuit without citing a reason, according to news reports. A Nike official was quoted in The Oregonian newspaper as saying he believes Heckard dropped the suit after realizing he would have to pay all costs if he were to lose.
Page 1 of 1 pages
