Thread Options 
|
#123726 - 10/20/03 06:48 PM
Rant-lawsuit for no reason
|
10K Club
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 40,766
Turnpike Exit 10
|
Big time rant warning!
I was just served with court papers on Saturday, because of a bus that rear-ended my car (fiance was driving, of course it wasn't me) in 2002 while it was starting to move after a bus stop. There was no damage to either the bus or my little Honda del Sol (about as big as an MG), and the insurance companies have photos to prove it. And out of 40 people on this city bus, one is making a claim.
This civil suit, naming the bus company, the bus driver, my fiance (driver) and myself (owner) as "negligent and reckless" and causing this woman to have been "roughly tossed about" and had "significant disfigurement, loss of wages, loss of future wages, emotional and physical distress" and a whole load of other bullcrap, and wanting monetary damages to be paid. (I would like to know how "significant disfigurement" could happen???)
So tell me, when are the lawmakers going to recognize fraud and frivolous litigation? And when are the insurance companies going to stop settling these types of case. And ambulance chasing lawyers ought to be shot just for driving up our taxes with this frivolous nonsense. (And yes, I do have insurance, it just irks the living HE-- out of me that this type of stuff happens.)
 I am so disgusted!
End rant! Thanks, I feel a little bit better.
_________________________
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please. - Mark Twain
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#123728 - 10/20/03 06:59 PM
Re: Rant-lawsuit for no reason
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,706
|
They named you and your fiance in the lawsuit not because they necessarily believe you two were at fault. It is because if by some shred of evidence you were and they didn't name you in the beginning and they lose, they can't go after you later. They have to lump everyone in at the same time.
People will file lawsuits if they believe you caused them to get a hangnail. As long as there are lawyers who accept these cases and insurance companies that settle them they will never go away.
_________________________
Beauty is only skin deep...but ugly goes all the way to the bone!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#123729 - 10/20/03 07:06 PM
Re: Rant-lawsuit for no reason
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,873
|
It is amazing that things like that can go on. Last year, our bank was adding on additional offices. The contractor had a trailor parked in our bank parking lot. His working was "tossing" sheetrock from the third floor on to the trailor which was parked near the building. The trailor was trailor was parked directly across from my car....yep, it began to back up.......It hit my car and there was about $4500 in damages. Well, I have insurance with a certain company. The contractor has insurance with the same company. The contractor borrowed the trailor from his brother-in-law. The brother-in-law's insurance would not pay because the trailor was loaned out to the contractor...they said that the contractor was responsible. The contractor's insurance said they would not pay because the trailor was unhooked and therefore not their problem. It was a circus. I knew that I was not going to pay but I had a very difficult time getting someone to accept responsibility for the "wreck". The bank seemed to even not really want to get involved. However, I told them that if the contractor didn't own up to it, I would see a lawyer. The bank then became involved after all it was on their parking lot.
It doesn't appear that the claimant has "a leg to stand on".
Good luck....
_________________________
Riding the waves of change.....2014
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#123730 - 10/20/03 07:10 PM
Re: Rant-lawsuit for no reason
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Maria - I think you should counter sue for them getting you all worked up to rant status.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#123731 - 10/20/03 07:17 PM
Re: Rant-lawsuit for no reason
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Many years ago, in my "teller" days, one Friday evening I looked up to see a customer crashing through the glass side wall of our entrance. This glass wall was preceded by 6 feet of shrubs, and they were at least a foot tall. The customer decided to leap over the bushes and leaped right through a plate glass window. He cut his thumb......and since he was a drummer in a rock bank, he decided to sue the bank. I guess his "rationale" was that the window should have had some sort of lettering painted on it so that everyone would know that it was glass. Of course this was many years ago, and we required ALL of our customers to leap over a 6 foot spanse of shrubbery to enter the bank. Times have changed since then...we provide walkways and doors now.......
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#123733 - 10/20/03 07:24 PM
Re: Rant-lawsuit for no reason
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,719
PA
|
Quote:
Of course this was many years ago, and we required ALL of our customers to leap over a 6 foot spanse of shrubbery to enter the bank. Times have changed since then...we provide walkways and doors now.......
That's good, because I don't think the shrubbery scenario would be ADA compliant. 
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#123734 - 10/20/03 07:27 PM
Re: Rant-lawsuit for no reason
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,678
United States
|
Maria, I hate it for you, but I don't see where they have a leg to stand on. This person is using the court system to rob from each and every party named in the lawsuit, and I hope they lose. I hope the judge has the good sense to see this for what it is and that he tosses it out immediately. This is mockery of justice and a waste of time, not "justice for all". People bringing these lawsuits, along with their lawyers, should be jailed, immediately, for a year and put to hard labor.
_________________________
Opinions expressed are solely my own.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#123736 - 10/20/03 07:38 PM
Re: Rant-lawsuit for no reason
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Sorry, to hear about this Maria--it makes me mad too when it happens. Don't worry, if she gets anything, she certainly won't get rich. Quote:
So tell me, when are the lawmakers going to recognize fraud and frivolous litigation?
Be careful what you ask for. Speaking as one who works within our judicial system--things are not nearly as broke as the media makes it out to be. Do we really want the lawmakers restricting our access to the courts or the redress when we arrive there just because a few (and I do mean a few, in fact, a very few) abuse the system? And if you believe that these miscreants usually get away with frivolous lawsuits, you have been sold a bill of goods.
Remember, there are many countries you could live in that would make you long for the access we have to our courts. Our founding fathers established an innocent until proven guilty standard in our criminal system. They would rather a hundred guilty men walk away than to incarcerate one innocent man. Similarly, our civil courts give broad access. The founders would rather have some frivolous lawsuits make there way to court than to deny even one legitimate claim access to justice. There is no way for our government to divide the wheat from the chaff short of the courthouse door.
And trust me, there are many thing more damaging to our justice system than frivolous lawsuits. And if you want to know what is backloggin our courts, it is not personal injury suits, it is family law matters and criminal matters.
Oh, by the way, big business, which is behind the effort to halt so-called frivolous lawsuits is not immuned to the frivolity:
• In 1998, Kellogg Co. sued Exxon Corp., claiming that Exxon's "whimsical tiger" logo, which had been in existence for over 30 years, would confuse consumers who associate the tiger logo with Kellogg's Frosted Flakes mascot, "Tony the Tiger." A federal judge in Memphis threw out the suit, saying that Kellogg was "grossly remiss in failing to assert its rights" sooner. This didn't stop Kellogg, which further clogged the courts by appealing the verdict to the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. In its brief, Kellogg argued that the Exxon tiger, like Tony, "walks or runs on his two hind legs and acts in a friendly manner."
• In 1998, Enterprise Rent-A-Car filed lawsuits against Rent-A-Wreck of America (a tiny rental company) and Hertz Corp. and threatened to file lawsuits against several other car-rental companies who use the phrase "pick you up," claiming that "We'll pick you up" is Enterprise's slogan. While those suits were pending, Advantage Rent-a-Car counter-sued Enterprise, claiming that Advantage had used the phrase "We'll pick you up" long before Enterprise did. Enterprise argued in its lawsuits that the phrase means more than "We'll give you a ride"; it means "We'll pick up your spirits." Competitors said that there was no other way to say "We'll give you a ride." Enterprise attorney Rudolph Telscher said that "We'll decide in the courtroom who is correct here."
• In November 1995, Hormel Foods, the maker of the luncheon meat SPAM, sued Jim Henson Productions to stop the creator of the Muppets from calling a character in a new movie Spa'am, claiming that the character was unclean and grotesque and would call into question the purity and quality of its meats. A federal court rejected Hormel's claims, and Hormel also lost on appeal.
• Mattel, Inc., the maker of Barbie, is waging an aggressive trademark war against unsanctioned use of the Barbie name, attacking the founders of the "Barbie Makes a Wish" weekend that raises money for critically ill children; artist Paul Hansen, sued for $1.2 billion for making $2,000 from the sale of his Exorcist Barbie, Tonya Harding Barbie, and Drag Queen Barbie; and Mike Grove, who distributes Sizzler toy cars to sick and dying children. Mattel made almost $4 billion in annual sales in 1996, but has filed copyright and trademark infringement suits against all three toy enthusiasts.
• In November 1995, PepsiCo's Frito-Lay snacks division filed a lawsuit against Procter & Gamble over advertisements claiming that Procter & Gamble's Pringle's Right Crisps Potato chips are "more nutritious than Frito-Lay's Chips."
• Coca-Cola, the producer of Minute Maid orange juice, sued Procter & Gamble charging that ads for Citrus Hill Select "falsely" claimed that the juice was made from the "heart" of the orange.
• In 1989 Walt Disney Company used a lawsuit to force a public apology from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for an "unflattering" representation of Snow White in the opening sequence of the 1989 Academy Awards ceremony.
• In 1980 the manufacturers of Haagen-Daz ice cream, in a suit against Frusen Gladje, tried to lay claim to the concept of premium ice cream with a "Scandinavian flair."
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#123737 - 10/20/03 07:45 PM
Re: Rant-lawsuit for no reason
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
People bringing these lawsuits, along with their lawyers, should be jailed, immediately, for a year and put to hard labor.
No, no no!!! We should not make people fear going to court. Do you think judges are perfect? Do you think there are no crooked courts? If a lawyer and his client could go to jail if in a judge's opinion a lawsuit they brought was frivolous, do you really think an African American could get justice in some courts, or a gay man, or a member of the Communist Party? A single judge could make certain people afraid to bring lawsuits to their courts. Our system is not perfect, but please, let's not tamper with it. You'd be surprised at how well it works, despite the abuse.
Its kinda funny to hear you folks ask for a government answer. A government answer was requested for certain problems in banking and now look at the regulatory system we have.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#123738 - 10/20/03 07:52 PM
Re: Rant-lawsuit for no reason
|
10K Club
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 40,766
Turnpike Exit 10
|
I wasn't targeting all lawyers, and I certainly believe that big business as well as the sloths of this country who utilize the ambulance chasing lawyers to try to get something for which they are not entitled or which is frivolous. I think my underlying bone of contention is "entitlement". And it also burns my butt when I see recipients of public assistance and spousal support who aren't deserving (or who lied to obtain it). This woman isn't entitled to a dime! So, can anyone tell me why people think they are entitled to things to which they do not deserve?
And, Z, if they do throw all lawyers in jail, I'll bake you a cake!
_________________________
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please. - Mark Twain
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#123739 - 10/20/03 07:59 PM
Re: Rant-lawsuit for no reason
|
10K Club
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 27,750
On the Net
|
"I am filing this lawsuit", means, "give me something for nothing and I'll touch everyone involved who may or may not pay me to go away".
What about when a 16 year old goes into a store and wants his ear pierced. Mom comes in a day or two later screaming that her son is forever scarred. He lied about his age and the girl who helped him didn't verify his ID. Mom was asked how the son got to the store to do this, was she with him? No, he has a license, a car and she gives him $50 a week for spending money. The employee was fired. Mom thought $3,000 would help the scarring. Store settled for that.
But I must ask, how many women have gone a short time without an earring and the hole closed.
Re-read paragraph 1.
_________________________
AndyZ CRCM
My opinions are not necessarily my employers.
R+R-R=R+R
Rules and Regs minus Relationships equals Resentment and Rebellion. John Maxwell
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#123740 - 10/20/03 08:18 PM
Re: Rant-lawsuit for no reason
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,719
PA
|
Quote:
This woman isn't entitled to a dime! So, can anyone tell me why people think they are entitled to things to which they do not deserve?
I'm not sure if this is a matter of the woman not being entitled to a dime, but whether or not you are responsible. To what extent is this woman injured, we don't know? But if she does have a legitimate claim, then she should get something from it- just not from you or your fiance. The bus rear ended your fiance, not the other way around.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#123741 - 10/20/03 09:00 PM
Re: Rant-lawsuit for no reason
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
"I am filing this lawsuit", means, "give me something for nothing and I'll touch everyone involved who may or may not pay me to go away".
This is a problem, but much of it is caused by the media hype about frivolous lawsuits. The media make us think that these people filing frivolous lawsuits are actually sucessful. So, when the mere filing of frivolous lawsuits becomes profitable (albeit on a small scale), some of the blame is squarely on the media that created the fear and some of it is on the people who let these sharks extort their fear.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#123742 - 10/20/03 09:16 PM
Re: Rant-lawsuit for no reason
|
Platinum Poster
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 689
Home of the 8 time NCAA Champ ...
|
Good luck Maria, hopefully you'll have no liability and won't have to personally bear the cost of your defense. I'm confused as to how they could sue you, however. In Kentucky, it is my understanding that if you hit another vehicle in the rear, you are at fault, in almost every case. It might be skewed if you quickly stopped in front of someone, but even then, another driver has the responsibility to follow at a great enough distance to avoid hitting you.
_________________________
Kentucky basketball isn't a matter of life and death, it's much more important than that.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#123743 - 10/20/03 09:31 PM
Re: Rant-lawsuit for no reason
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,706
|
Quote:
Good luck Maria, hopefully you'll have no liability and won't have to personally bear the cost of your defense. I'm confused as to how they could sue you, however. In Kentucky, it is my understanding that if you hit another vehicle in the rear, you are at fault, in almost every case. It might be skewed if you quickly stopped in front of someone, but even then, another driver has the responsibility to follow at a great enough distance to avoid hitting you.
RGS
That is the way things should be. However, the insurance companies have now figured if you were there and part of the accident then you are at least 10% at fault. I don't think that would count against someone in court but it does on insurance payouts for vehicle damage. See the insurance companies want you to pay them a ton of money and keep your car in the garage in an area that doesn't flood, doesn't have tornados or any other natural disaster as well as no other vehicles to cause damage. In other words pay them for nothing so they never have to pay out. But if they have to payout they want the money back by raising your rates whether it was your fault or not.
_________________________
Beauty is only skin deep...but ugly goes all the way to the bone!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#123744 - 10/20/03 09:52 PM
Re: Rant-lawsuit for no reason
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
I'm confused as to how they could sue you,
RGS--anyone can sue anyone for anything for the cost of a filing fee. Now, winning, that is a different matter. It's the worst system in the world, except for all the others.
I know someone who was parked closely behind someone on a hill. That person let off their brake and crashed into their car. The folks in the front car did not say anything about fault at the scene and did not admit to anything. They did not call the police. They just exchanged insurance information and went on their merry way. Then later they filed a claim that my friend rear-ended them and they had medical damages. At that point, it became a "he said, she said." The insurance company handled the offenders damages and my friend ended up paying a deductible, because, as we know, a rear end collision is always the rear-ender's fault.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#123745 - 10/20/03 09:57 PM
Re: Rant-lawsuit for no reason
|
Power Poster
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,455
The Pennant Race
|
Z, If the suit is frivolous, (at least with regard to Maria and her fiance), cant they file a counterclaim, asking for reimbursement of legal fees?
If so, wouldn't it be effective to file against the woman's attorney also?
Maybe Shakespeare was right... but we'd have to lie about your profession, Z. 
_________________________
The opinions expressed here are personal and do not represent opinions of my employer.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#123746 - 10/20/03 10:03 PM
Re: Rant-lawsuit for no reason
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Remember that Shakespeare was writing words for an anarchist when he said to kill all the attorneys. So, I am proud to defend our country from anarchy by plying my trade.
Maybe Maria should sue the bus company and everyone on board for her injuries. They must all be at fault somehow, right? Maria likely will not be out a dime or more than a few minutes of her time on this one. Her insurance company will defend and cover the legal fees.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#123748 - 10/20/03 10:42 PM
Re: Rant-lawsuit for no reason
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,568
New Jersey
|
This all reminds me of a line from an old movie I watched this past weekend, "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof," by Tennessee Williams: "We live in a world of mendacity."
First, Maria, I really do feel sorry for you that this should cause you and your fiance such grief and hassle, and I hope it goes away quickly.
Secondly, it does indeed appear to me that the filing of frivolous lawsuits gets a lot of media attention, but the disposition of those lawsuits gets buried in the back pages of the newspaper, if it gets reported at all. It's reminiscent of situations where the arrest of an individual gets front page treatment, but if that person is acquitted or the case dropped, that gets back page treatment (see "Absence of Malice," a 1973 movie dealing with this subject).
Third, I remember something that Colonel Blake said in a M*A*S*H episode: "They taught us two things in command school. Rule #1, in war young men die. Rule #2, doctors can't change rule #1." In this situation, I would revise that observation thusly: Rule #1, people are sinful human beings who do sinful things. Rule #2, the legal system can't change rule #1.
_________________________
Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. Peter Drucker
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Thread
Index