Want 100 million $$$

[dscurlock]

Just heard on the news this girl ate a hamburger..bad
meat i guess..well the company confessed it was their fault
or something to that nature...

family is suing for:

$100,000,000

yes, 100 million dollars...

I doubt she will ever see that, they will more likely to settle, but
she would be rich never-the-less.


lucky her...

call me...

[justbroke]

Personally, I can't wait for the dry cleaners to lose my wool-blend pants so that I can sue them based on their guaranteed satisfaction!

[dscurlock]

Personally, I can't wait for the dry cleaners to lose my wool-blend pants so that I can sue them based on their guaranteed satisfaction!

I saw court tv with some cleaner that messed up some
pants...by the time you take off the worth of the garments,
age, etc...not worth much in value...not only that, a smart
cleaner would make people sign "we are not responsible.."

The only thing you would win is the guaranteed satisfaction...
basicly what you paid to get them cleaned...

[kvangild]

Personally, I can't wait for the dry cleaners to lose my wool-blend pants so that I can sue them based on their guaranteed satisfaction!

From what I recall it was a judge that sued the dry cleaner. I don't know if he is still working from the bench on account of it or some other action.

[WhatMoney]

That's the story of the judge, yes an administrative law judge, who sued a dry cleaners for $54 Million for losing his pants. Was a national story.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18471265/

As some karma, the judge lost his job 6 months later when his renewal term came up.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306957,00.html

However, the dry cleaners spent over $100,000 in litigation over two years fighting the case, and eventually was forced out of business. And the dry cleaners did find the judges pants only 1 week after they were lost in 2005, but the judge still wanted to sue for his stress and inconvenience, and refused any settlement from the cleaners. So while the judge lost the case, he also put the cleaners out of business.

The moral of the story - don't lose the judges pants!

[dscurlock]

That's the story of the judge, yes an administrative law judge, who sued a dry cleaners for $54 Million for losing his pants. Was a national story.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18471265/

As some karma, the judge lost his job 6 months later when his renewal term came up.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306957,00.html

However, the dry cleaners spent over $100,000 in litigation over two years fighting the case, and eventually was forced out of business. And the dry cleaners did find the judges pants only 1 week after they were lost in 2005, but the judge still wanted to sue for his stress and inconvenience, and refused any settlement from the cleaners. So while the judge lost the case, he also put the cleaners out of business.

The moral of the story - don't lose the judges pants!

a common sense judge would have thrown that out immediately...
suit for $54m on what, pants that probably was not worth
more then $200 from the start?

This is where the justice system caused the most
damage in this case..they should have put
a stop to this stupity from the start...

[justbroke]

a common sense judge would have thrown that out immediately... suit for $54m on what, pants that probably was not worth
more then $200 from the start?

Judges do through things out, quite easily, if there's no merit of the case. The case actually had merit. There was constantly a challenge to whether the case was frivolous, but it was not based on the "guarantee" that the dry cleaner had plastered everywhere.

So the question to you, would be... when is a guarantee not a guarantee? The other thing is, you can sue for a billion, but the Judge has the discretion if the plaintiff wins, to reduce the amount. Almost all lawsuits are for multiple millions of dollars, and most settle for far less.

This "plaintiff" took them to the cleaners, literally. They should have just settled for $50K.

[banca rotta]

We should link this thread to the unemployment thread since they are both directly linked issues on why the private sector isn't providing any jobs to the masses.

This bunch of law suit creatures should meet up with the wall street bankers and go to CENSORED!!!

[justbroke]

The fate of a litigious society is that you just keep suing until there's no one left to sue? Where is JustFileSuit or SoSueMe when you need them?

[OhioFiler]

We should link this thread to the unemployment thread since they are both directly linked issues on why the private sector isn't providing any jobs to the masses.

This bunch of law suit creatures should meet up with the wall street bankers and go to CENSORED!!!

Tort abuse and over-regulation by the feds are the biggest causes of no job growth today. Liberalism strikes again.

[OhioFiler]

Judges do through things out, quite easily, if there's no merit of the case. The case actually had merit. There was constantly a challenge to whether the case was frivolous, but it was not based on the "guarantee" that the dry cleaner had plastered everywhere.

So the question to you, would be... when is a guarantee not a guarantee? The other thing is, you can sue for a billion, but the Judge has the discretion if the plaintiff wins, to reduce the amount. Almost all lawsuits are for multiple millions of dollars, and most settle for far less.

This "plaintiff" took them to the cleaners, literally. They should have just settled for $50K.

This plaintiff abused his power. He is the most despicable of despicable politicians. He destroyed a small business owner at the whim of his inflated ego. I hope he rots in hell.

[justbroke]

This plaintiff abused his power. He is the most despicable of despicable politicians. He destroyed a small business owner at the whim of his inflated ego. I hope he rots in hell.

I don't think he abused his power. I think he abused the system. Unfortunately there is recourse for the former, but not the latter.

[OhioFiler]

I don't think he abused his power. I think he abused the system. Unfortunately there is recourse for the former, but not the latter.

He was able to abuse the system specifically because of his position of power. I can't think of any other reason this case dragged on as long as it did. The good ol' boys network of attorneys and judges refused to smack him pronto.

Fortunately, the public outcry over his bullying tactics resulted in him losing his position of power.

[backtoschool]

Tort abuse and over-regulation by the feds are the biggest causes of no job growth today. Liberalism strikes again.

The problem with "tort abuse" is that if you try to stop it, you end up on a slippery slope where legitimate cases are also thrown out of court. Personally, I want the parents whose toddler dies of e-coli at a Burger King to be able to sue Burger King.

Besides, "tort abuse" creates as many jobs as it costs. Think of all of the lawyers, paralegals, kinkos copy workers, data entry clerks, court reporters, etc that are employed due to all of these lawsuits.

I am not sure how "liberalism" is at fault for tort abuse. Just as many conservative people sue for personal gain, as "liberals".

[banca rotta]

Tort abuse and over-regulation by the feds are the biggest causes of no job growth today. Liberalism strikes again.

True, but today "liberalism" comes in many shapes, sizes, colors and political parties. 8 years of Bush, 6 years of repubs in congress and we got no tort reform.

It's a two headed, one party system.