Ridiculous Lawsuits

[Montreal Wanderer]

they are allowed to use electricity, just not turn it on or off

Which kind of renders ridiculous the whole idea of kowtowing to screeds writ millennia ago, no? I understand those who attempt to stick to their religion's original orthodoxy, but it often ends up unintentionally laughable. Especially when certain types focus on their bugbears - say, sexuality - as opposed to the equally (if not more) forcefully condemned practices like planting crops side by side or touching pigskin (that's Simon Farnworth dead).

But that's a well-worn discussion for a different thread, and it's time for me dinner.

No argument here from my perspective. I'm just not sure it makes them nut jobs even if their religious beliefs seem like a fairy tale to us. Bon apetit.

[TANGODANCER]

they are allowed to use electricity, just not turn it on or off

Which kind of renders ridiculous the whole idea of kowtowing to screeds writ millennia ago, no? I understand those who attempt to stick to their religion's original orthodoxy, but it often ends up unintentionally laughable. Especially when certain types focus on their bugbears - say, sexuality - as opposed to the equally (if not more) forcefully condemned practices like planting crops side by side or touching pigskin (that's Simon Farnworth dead).

But that's a well-worn discussion for a different thread, and it's time for me dinner.

No argument here from my perspective. I'm just not sure it makes them nut jobs even if their religious beliefs seem like a fairy tale to us. Bon apetit.

It's all back to the old argument about what is the word of God and how much of it is man's interpretation. Al I remember is "Six days shalt thou labour and, on the seventh though shalt rest". The along came Tessie Cohen and co..

[Lord Kangana]

Just to help clarify, McDonalds used to advertise their super-heated coffee (don't ask me how, they were the ones advertising it) that was guaranteed hotter than anyone else's. That in a nutshell was the basis of the case, and has never been as hot since. I shed no tears for their loss. (and again, to answer Monty's point, my scratchy memory leads me to believe that it was 100+ temp. due to some additive or other)

It would take quite an additive to stop water vapourizing above 100 celsius. However, I check the tempratures on wiki and discover:

During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F coffee like that McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that, because those who purchased the coffee typically wanted to drive a distance with the coffee, the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.

Fair play. Although we do have steam pressure ovens at work that will go up to 115c, I was thinking along those lines.

[Hoboh]

Think we can sue Megson for distress?

[Lord Kangana]

Trades Description.

[thebish]

My law tutor told me of one particular case in none other than the US of a lawyer who had bought some cigars and then insured them. The insurance included destruction by fire and so he claimed when he smoked them. The insurance company refused so he sued and won.

To get their own back, the insurance company brought an action against him for criminal damage and he was jailed.

since when can you be jailed for damaging your own property??

[enfieldwhite]

My law tutor told me of one particular case in none other than the US of a lawyer who had bought some cigars and then insured them. The insurance included destruction by fire and so he claimed when he smoked them. The insurance company refused so he sued and won.

To get their own back, the insurance company brought an action against him for criminal damage and he was jailed.

since when can you be jailed for damaging your own property??

Arson?

[thebish]

My law tutor told me of one particular case in none other than the US of a lawyer who had bought some cigars and then insured them. The insurance included destruction by fire and so he claimed when he smoked them. The insurance company refused so he sued and won.

To get their own back, the insurance company brought an action against him for criminal damage and he was jailed.

since when can you be jailed for damaging your own property??

Arson?

surely you can burn any of your own stuff that you like - as long as in the act you don't burn anybody else's stuff?

[Lord Kangana]

Think it was the burning o your ow stuff and then asking for your money back that kinda p*ssed the insurers off.

[Montreal Wanderer]

My law tutor told me of one particular case in none other than the US of a lawyer who had bought some cigars and then insured them. The insurance included destruction by fire and so he claimed when he smoked them. The insurance company refused so he sued and won.

To get their own back, the insurance company brought an action against him for criminal damage and he was jailed.

since when can you be jailed for damaging your own property??

Arson?

And of course it is a complete urban legend - see http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blcigar.htm

[thebish]

Think it was the burning o your ow stuff and then asking for your money back that kinda p*ssed the insurers off.

hmm- i get that - but the story is plainly bollox if he is supposedly then jailed for burning his own stuff in such a way that does not affect anyone else - at least in terms of "criminal damage".

(am I taking this too seriously? )

[enfieldwhite]

Think it was the burning o your ow stuff and then asking for your money back that kinda p*ssed the insurers off.

hmm- i get that - but the story is plainly bollox if he is supposedly then jailed for burning his own stuff in such a way that does not affect anyone else - at least in terms of "criminal damage".

(am I taking this too seriously? )

Yes.

Some more urban myths.

Hoax version

The "Stella" Awards rank up there with the Darwin awards. Stella Liebeck is the 81 year old lady who spilled coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonald's instead of accepting their $20,000 offer. (Note: in the factual version of this story, McDonald's refused Stella's $20,000 settlement offer and took her to court instead. After losing the case and being called reckless and callous in court, McDonald's started serving coffee at drinking temperature rather than skin-burning temperature.)

This case inspired an annual award -- The "Stella Award" -- for the most frivolous lawsuits in the U.S. The following are among the leading award candidates:

1. January 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin Texas was awarded $780,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle by tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably upset at the verdict, considering it was Ms. Robertson's son that she tripped over. Fabricated.

2. June 1998: 19 year old Carl Truman of Los Angeles, won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice that there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps. Fabricated.

3. October 1998: A Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania was leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation. Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance company claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of half a million dollars. Fabricated.

4. October 1999: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced-in yard. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams, who was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun. Fabricated.

5. May 2000: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson threw it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument. Fabricated.

6. December 1997: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighbouring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies' room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses. Fabricated.

(Number 7 used to be about a woman who put her dog in the microwave to dry. It reduced the credibility of the other fabrications, and it was deleted. The new number 7 is not much more credible.)

7. Mr. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City. In November, 2000, Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32 foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having motored onto the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly the Winnie left the freeway, crashed, and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the handbook that he couldn't actually do this. He was awarded $1,750,000 plus a new Winnie. (Winnebago actually changed their handbooks as a result of this court case, just in case there are any other complete morons buying their vehicles). Fabricated.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

To get their own back, the insurance company brought an action against him for criminal damage and he was jailed.

since when can you be jailed for damaging your own property??

Arson?

And of course it is a complete urban legend - see http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blcigar.htm

Rated "dubious" rather than "false" at About. However, it's listed (with more details, including a suitable but darker ending) on Snopes - a site upon which I can lose hours.

More concerning, perhaps, is that RealLifeHobbit's law tutor is peddling unproven falsehoods... wouldn't want that from our legal eagles now, would we?

[Montreal Wanderer]

To get their own back, the insurance company brought an action against him for criminal damage and he was jailed.

since when can you be jailed for damaging your own property??

Arson?

And of course it is a complete urban legend - see http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blcigar.htm

Rated "dubious" rather than "false" at About. However, it's listed (with more details, including a suitable but darker ending) on Snopes - a site upon which I can lose hours.

More concerning, perhaps, is that RealLifeHobbit's law tutor is peddling unproven falsehoods... wouldn't want that from our legal eagles now, would we?

I normally do use Snopes and they are more categorical. I also agree about the law tutor if he gave the impression it was factual. I suppose the youth of England will believe anything about litigious Americans.

[Prufrock]

How about this one which was reported today:
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/06/17/str ... than-this/

F*cking nut jobs. Nutters like that wind me up. Arguing down to trivialities irrelevant one liners form fairy tales. Case dismissed and all legal fees to be paid by them me hopes.

I'm not sure it is that black and white, Prufers. The Orthodox Jews of my acquaintanceship turn many things on before sundown on Friday - for example the TV - because they are allowed to use electricity, just not turn it on or off. I suppose they believe that by moving with motion detectors around they are actually turning an electrical system on. It would probably take their Rabbi to rule that their actions were not responsible for the light coming on since it was something beyond their control - rather than a decision from Bournemouth Crown Court. Personally I'm not convinced that the spark electricity can produce is the same as setting a fire on the Sabbath (which is what is forbidden) and I think the elders should rethink some interpretations of rules elaborated before the invention of electricity. Still, I feel dismissing them as effing nut jobs is a little OTT.

I don't. For a start as you say it is lighting a fire. What kind of a crazy person thinks that 'god' is going to send them to Gehinom because a light that wasn't theirs came on when they walked past it. What sort of piss poor knowledge of electricity do you have to think that constitutes a fire ? As DSB says so many take one trivial aspect and ignore all the rest, from pigskin, to Muslims not drinking because they can't have intoxicants, yet smoking sheesha and cigarettes? It's defining one's life by trivialities, trivialities written by men. Why should the other residents have to fork out, and be inconvenienced because some crackpot things their god is a whimsical pedant? If it bothers them that much, they should move.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Well, we will have to differ, Prufrock. As most know I am an atheist and have no religious superstition. I believe in the rule of law to avoid anarchy, and education to resolve problems. Yet I would never dismiss people of faith as crazy or nut jobs just because they have a belief I do not share or even comprehend. I may personally think the belief is daft, but not the believers. There is a difference.

[TANGODANCER]

Well, we will have to differ, Prufrock. As most know I am an atheist and have no religious superstition. I believe in the rule of law to avoid anarchy, and education to resolve problems. Yet I would never dismiss people of faith as crazy or nut jobs just because they have a belief I do not share or even comprehend. I may personally think the belief is daft, but not the believers. There is a difference.

Or, as A.W.Kinglake wished to see inscribed on all churches: Important if true

[Prufrock]

Well, we will have to differ, Prufrock. As most know I am an atheist and have no religious superstition. I believe in the rule of law to avoid anarchy, and education to resolve problems. Yet I would never dismiss people of faith as crazy or nut jobs just because they have a belief I do not share or even comprehend. I may personally think the belief is daft, but not the believers. There is a difference.

There's a difference between believing there are things we might never understand and that everything we see was created by a greater power, even a belief that said power sent his son to save us, or gave Moses holy commandemnts we should live by, and in believing this god is going to cast you into purgatory because you turned a light on! It's not even a fire, not even bloody close. They've picked one trivial line from a book written by men, and kicked up a major fuss. I've never read the Torah or any other Jewish holy texts, but I imagine somewhere there's stuff about respecting one's fellow man etc.. If they are that offended they should move, the other people living with them shouldn't be the ones inconvenienced.

[TANGODANCER]

The Torah doesn't work quite like the Bible Pru. The way I understand it, ( I work with a jewish guy who is quite open to questions) anything not regarded as Kosher can be debated and decided by Rabbi's or panels of them depending on how they interpret things. (one of my long-standing arguments about the word of God and the word of man) Not either, pretending to understand them, there are several branches of the Jewish Faith, Orthodox etc, which may have differing beliefs.

By the way, some of those suits the law wear are indeed quite ridiculous.