Posted on 02/26/2005 5:12:50 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
This would be funny if it weren't true. Congress has passed legislation curbing legal insanity several times, but the prez vetoed it. This is the Legal Reform legislation since Bush took office. Gotta wonder where the loop holes are.
As I type this, listening to Jerry Doyle on the radio, he's is telling even a worse abuse. I'll tack it on the end of this message.
Rich Martin
Editor, Slick eZine
FW: This year's Stella Awards]
From: Keith Carter [email deleted]
THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH OUR LEGAL SYSTEM
It's once again time to review the winners of the annual "Stella Awards".
The "Stellas'" are named after 81 year old Stella Liebeck who spilled coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonald's. That case inspired the "Stella Awards" for the most frivolous successful lawsuits in the United States.
Unfortunately the most recent lawsuit implicating McDonald's, the teens who allege that eating at McDonald's has made them fat, was filed after the 2003 award voting was closed. This suit will top the 2004 awards list without question.
THIS YEAR'S AWARDS GO TO: 5TH PLACE (TIED)
Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas was awarded $780,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving toddler was Ms. Robertson's son.
5TH PLACE (TIED)
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 did not notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal the hubcaps.
5TH PLACE (TIED)
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 could not re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation and Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for 8 days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The Jury agreed to the tune of $500,000.
4TH PLACE
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 dog. The Beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been a little provoked at the time as Mr. Williams, who had climbed over the fence into the yard, was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.
3RD PLACE
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 (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier, during an argument.
2ND PLACE
Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware sued the owner of a Night Club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out two of her front teeth. This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak in the window of the Ladies Room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.
1ST PLACE
This year's runaway winner was Mr. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new Winnebago motor home. On his trip home from an OU football game, having driven onto the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly the RV left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the owner's manual that he could not actually do this. The jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new Winnebago motor home. The company actually changed their manuals on the basis of this suit just in case there were any other complete morons buying their recreational vehicles.
[subscription information deleted]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THIS WAS ON THE JERRY DOYLE SHOW
A man lost his law suit suing a woman for using his seman. The judge ruled that the seman she obtained by oral sex was an irrvocbe gift, and dismissed his suit.
The woman who is a doctor, used the seman to inseminate herself. She got pregnant and had a child. The suckee must pay the sucker $800/mo for child support.
Gives a whole new meaning to P T Barnum's famous quote: a sucker is born every monute, doesn't it?
--
Pinging ya to a frivolous lawsuit near you!
ping
These are just TOOOOOOO funny! You've gotta wonder how much these jurors were paid off.
Moral of the story: If you've got a single-digit IQ, pack up your bags and move down south! Someone's gonna make you VERY rich!
I'm no fan of lawyers but these stories sound real similar to ones I heard in the 90s.
Maybe my mom is mentally ill not to sue people. I could be rich!
Google Urban Legends, Stella Awards. They are false.
Swell. Thanks for the info. Still good for a laugh, though.
I've thought it would be nice to see jurors randomly pre-pooled, and lawyers allowed only to eliminate prospective polls.
For example, start with six pools of six jurors and one alternate; both sides are allowed to eliminate two pools for any reason. The remaining two pools try the case.
And so could some poor lawyer. Your mom is a cruel woman!
Yeah I agree :O)
That's an interesting idea, it sound like that could work.
I think simply limiting the number of eliminations would solve the problem as well.
My own experience in going to jury duty several times (and being eliminated each time) is that the lawyers question every one in the jury pool and then use the answers to get rid of anyone who has any knowledge or opinion of anything relating to the case.
One was a civil case, where an older lady was suing a restaurant for damages after she slipped and fell on a wet floor. Her lawyer asked every potential juror if they had any knowledge of the law or lawsuits, or how restaurants operated, or a whole list of other things that would demonstrate an opinion on anything relevant. He then went through and eliminated all but the few who answered every question with "Uh, I don't know about that stuff."
Perhaps, but grouping jurors would make if harder to eliminate some of the people who really should be on a jury. Indeed, an interesting irony is that a pool might have someone each side very much wants and someone they very much don't; both people would be eliminated if they were selected separately, but both parties might be willing to tolerate both people if they thought the juror they liked benefitted them more than the one they disliked benefitted the opposing party.
Go to snopes.com & check it out. Then, go go True Stella Awards,
http://www.stellaawards.com/ and read REAL cases, and subscribe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.