Addicted to cable? Sue the cable company!!!

[Buffler]

Man says he’s addicted to cable; wants to sue Charter

Cable TV made a West Bend man addicted to TV, caused his wife to be overweight and his kids to be lazy, he says.

And he’s threatening to sue the cable company.

Timothy Dumouchel of West Bend wants $5,000 or three computers, and a lifetime supply of free Internet service from Charter Communications to settle what he says will be a small claims suit.

Dumouchel blames Charter for his TV addiction, his wife’s 50-pound weight gain and his children’s being “lazy channel surfers,” according to a Fond du Lac police report.


Full Article: http://www.wisinfo.com/thereporter/news/archive/local_14044768.shtml

Personal responsibility seems to have been totally lost in America and exhanged for the lawsuit lottery.

I strongly support the implementation of a loser pays system.

[Loonman]

1. Automatic Contempt of Court

He'll miss his cable with 30 days in county for filing this asinine lawsuit.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

2. I'm gonna sue

DU for giving people an online place to sit there in front of the computer and just let their bodies rot...anyone thinking class-action status???

TheProdigal

:-)

PS : LOSER PAYS!!! would put an end to a lot of this crap

[LincolnMcGrath]

3. Loser Pays?

What about injured workers who lose jury decision? You have fallen for the TORT lies of Newt and all the rest. This hasn`t gone to trial, and judges and lawyers regularly toss this crap to the can. The blame lies with the media for spreading TORT lies as news, and with folks like you who repeat their nonsense.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

5. perhaps judicial review then?

there has got to be some way to protect against frivolous lawsuits. I got the opportunity to review several lawsuits in NC over the years, and there are some that would just make you laugh. But people bring them and unfortunately, if you're sued, you can't just show up in court and say, "This is ridiculous." Sometimes that might work but if it doesn't you could be seriously screwed. If you lose a lawsuit, let it be put up for review to determine whether it is frivolous or not!

TheProdigal

[LincolnMcGrath]

15. Judicial review is already in place.

Only AFTER a judge has reviewed a case can it go to trial. Some judge there in NC disagreed with your frivolous findings, evidently. ELECT NEW JUDGES. Don't scrap the entire system to protect big business.

[Loonman]

18. Any sane judge would throw this right out

While citing this jackass for contempt, or misuse of the judicial system or, something.

This case has no merit.

[LincolnMcGrath]

25. Thank you

And any judge who regularly lets this crap go through will be reviewed by his peers and/or run out of office by big business.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

21. good point, but there are some problems

for instance, one man sues his neighbor over a tree that has fallen onto the suers property and damaged his home. The problem was, the suer actually cut down the tree and the process of felling the tree it struck the corner of his house and did about $22,000 worth of damage. The case was presented to a jury and it was decided for the defendant. But the defendant accumulated over $3,000 in legal fees to defend himself and have acurate surveys of the property done.

While this was a jury decision, should the defendant have had to pay that money to defend himself against some idiot that cut down one of HIS trees? The judge letting it come before the court was WRONG. It should have been reviewed, but because the defendant won the case, there was no need for any sort of appeals process (not sure what that would have been) so there was no remedy to recoup his financial losses.

There should be safeguards against this that are not in place.

TheProdigal

[LincolnMcGrath]

28. Has he never heard of a counter-suit?

That judge will be reviewed by his peers. It is part of the system.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

32. not without the money to do it

the gentleman in question lived by limited means and did not have the money necessary to continue pursue this matter. I interviewed him personally...this process ate about 85% of what he had been able to put away. The guy just got screwed...and judicial review? Well, what good would that do him?

TheProdigal

[LincolnMcGrath]

35. He could have countersued at the same time as the plaintiff.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

40. you and I may know that

but Mr. Horrell was not informed (yes, he had a slacker lawyer but you get what you pay for) as to this option, and to be honest, it probably would have still ended up costing him. Just a poor old guy that didn't know what he was up against. The system is the best around, but there are still ways to make it better. To have a panel of judges look over this and decide its merit would at once be review of the judge who allowed it to come to court and give the poor bastard who got slapped with this thing his money back.

TheProdigal

[LincolnMcGrath]

4. Personal responsibility is a REPUG Mantra

Thanks for spreading it here.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

6. And Rush Limbaugh is the epitome of personal responsibility

not to mention this administration...

[ProdigalJunkMail]

7. Repub talking point or not,

he has a point. Just because the pubbies like to use it doesn't mean there isn't some truth to it...

TheProdigal

[LincolnMcGrath]

17. People pay for there actions every day.

How do we mandate your idea of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

24. you become a lardass by your own

mouth, you should NOT be allowed to threaten some company or other. Why can people NOT be responsible for this crap? Why blame someone else?

Yes, in many things people DO pay for their actions, this is about someone who want someone ELSE to pay for his action or lack thereof!

TheProdigal

[LincolnMcGrath]

34. This will not make it to trial.

The system weeds out the junk everyday. As for why he thinks he can get rich, that involves a bigger societal problem than just the courts.

[Buffler]

36. What if it does make it to trial

Seriously. Just as with every other profession, there are idiot judges. This guy might just get lucky and hit the right judge on the right day.

If he does, that does not mean that this lawsuit was justified, nor that it should proceed, or that there is any fault on the cable companies part. It means the guy got lucky.

As I and others have asked, give us your honest opinion on this suit. And don't give us that "it hasnt gone to trial" crap. You have an opinion, but you seem afraid to share it. Why?

[LincolnMcGrath]

46. The only thing I fear is losing our rights.

Lets play what if. What if this man is currently suffering from some form of mental illness? Is he lazy? Or Sick? Why comment on a nothing story? Why get huffy over a nothing case?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

38. amen on that point, Lincoln!

huge societal problems with people thinking that they are owed something. Some legitimately are owed, but for some reason this sinks into the brains of people like this and they 'work' really hard to find something that will give them the get rich quick...of course, this guy isn't asking for much and that is probably part of the genuis. Make it worth the cable company's time to just make it go away...

TheProdigal

[Buffler]

8. So it is the cable companies fault?

Either it is these peoples fault (personal responsibility) or it is the cable companies fault. Which say you?

And what is wrong with wanting people to take personal responsibility for their actions? Not a damn thing.

It is a virtue that I wish was instilled in more people.

[LincolnMcGrath]

11. IT HASNT GONE TO TRIAL

moot point

[Buffler]

13. Nice try

Nice try to avoid answering several questions asked of you.

Who do you think is to blame and why?

And do you think such a suit should ever have been filed, let alone go to trial? Please be specific in your answers.

[LincolnMcGrath]

19. This will not go to trail without a judges approval.

Who is to blame for what? Your outrage?

[Buffler]

20. another avoidance

not surprised.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Why?

Why can't we comment. We all have experience with cable TV providers (or most of us do anyhow.)

[Loonman]

16. But citing the cable company for his own lack of character is apalling

Nobody wants to take responsibility for themselves, anymore.

[ProfessorGAC]

27. Come On, Linc

You don't have an opinion if it hasn't yet gone to trial? Huh?

What's your opinion of the validity of this suit?

Secondly, judicial review does NOT take place in all 50 states. Most, yes. All, no.

I still propose a system modeled on the Criminal Courts structure in which a Civil Grand Jury of Peers reviews the case. If you can't get (say 21 people) to decide by majority that a civil suit has merit, than the case doesn't belong in court. If 11 out of 21 people think it's frivolous, it's frivolous. This is no less fair than the current Grand Jury System.

It doesn't work to the benefit of corporations. It doesn't work against the rights of folks with clearly legitimate grievances.

That's my proposal.
The Professor

[ProdigalJunkMail]

41. damned reasonable idea

let it be written, let it be done! Man, you don't want me anywhere near THAT kind of power :-) worse than the ONE RING...

TheProdigal

[ProfessorGAC]

45. But, The Power. . .

. . .wouldn't be in any one person's hands. The "Civil Grand Jury" would have a limited term, just like the criminal one, and would have a large number of people on it.

So, the power would not only be diluted amongst several average folks, but would only be in their hands for a limited time. It works for the criminal system. I don't get why we can't do that in the civil courts, too!
The Professor

[ProdigalJunkMail]

oh, I agree

I was just talking about the line, "let it be written, let it be done." THAT is the power that I should not have!!! :-) Couldn't agree more with your idea...sorry for the confusion!

TheProdigal

[ProfessorGAC]

48. I'll Tell Ya What!

You and i should share the power. If we both agree, it will be written and will be done. Then neither of us has all that pressure.

Let THAT be written, let THAT be done.

LOL!
The Professor

[ProdigalJunkMail]

49. whew...takes all the pressure off!

any way I could coerce you for a couple of things? I wash your back you wash mine??? Damned, now I DO sound like a corporate tort reform backer!!!

TheProdigal

on edit : damned keyboard...I certainly won't take responsibility for that mistake!

[freestatevet]

54. Hmmm

I like that. I like that a lot. Good idea.

[Pithlet]

77. We already have that

It's called the judicial system. That is what a jury is for. Heck, even a judge can decide it's bad before it even gets that far. Does it weed out all the bad cases? No. However, it is always possible that a case can seem frivolous on the face of it, until it comes to trial. All your proposal does is add an unnecessary step that could deprive a person of the opportunity to address a real grievance.

[Loonman]

9. Therefore, "letting the Gov and lawyers baby you" is a LIB mantra?

?????

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Then you blame the cable companies?

[Nevernose]

12. Maybe it should be a DEM mantra as well

People like this, who blame the cable company becuase they're lazy, or McDonald's because they're fat, or RJ Reynolds because they started smoking...these people piss me off, and I think a lot of Democrats would agree with me.

All day long in RL I see people, kids and their parents, unable or incapable of taking the slightest responsibility for their actions, enough so that the mantra of "personal responsibility" is starting to make sense.

I would also agre with you that most "tort reform" is nothing but a payoff to insurance companies and big business, giving them one more whip in their cat o' nine tails with which to enslave us. Fuckers.

[LincolnMcGrath]

22. SO where do you stand?

The GOP wants across the board TORT reform. Yes, that would make this suit go away. It would also be an end to any form of grievance against the corporate robbers who want nothing put above profit.

[Buffler]

29. They are not tied at the hip

personal responsibility and tort reform are not tied at the hip and are seperable issues.

Aside from lawsuits filed on a daily basis, people are constantly trying to proclaim themselves victims or innocent on a variety of matters, or trying to dismess any semblance of responsibility for actions they have taken.

Recently in NC there were 7 teenagers killed in a car crash. Driver was unlicensed, under age, exceeding 100 MPH in a STOLEN CAR with a DOUGHNUT SPARE for one of the wheels. But its the cops fault they crashed and were killed. Or so the family members of those killed claim and are repeatedly quoted saying in the newspaper for several days following the incident.

[LincolnMcGrath]

42. Straw man alert!

I guess your ok with 7 kids dying, and for what a traffic violation? Even the cop said he probably shouln`t have chased them.
The driver broke the law as written, yes. Police chases over minor traffic infractions need to end, as they have in most metro areas. To a better end, it is a shame that we can put a rover on mars and not invest in tech. that would end police chases without killing innocents. That cop will see those bodies every night in his dreams for no reason.

[Nevernose]

33. It's America -- we SHOULD BE able to sue for anything we want

Frivolous or otherwise. Though I suspect that this particular case, the first thing filed will be a motion to dismiss, and that the judge will grant it.

The guy suing has every right to sue, of course, but it is my personal opinion that the cable company didn't make him lazy or his wife fat -- their lack of personal responsibility did that.

Tort reform is a frigging monster, taking away the common American's most basic right, that of "addressing grievances" -- and the insurance companies have done such a good job demonizing "trial lawyers" that most people don't even suspect just how bad this movement is for them. Gotta hand it to the repukes, though, they've got one HELL of a propoganda machine.

[LincolnMcGrath]

43. "they've got one HELL of a propoganda machine."

So true, This whole thread is evidence.

[Pithlet]

51. I completely agree

With everything you said in this post. I hate to use a tired cliche, but we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater (even if they've kept you up last night, as mine did). Most frivolous lawsuits get thrown out of court. The very few that don't get trotted out by the right as anecdotal evidence to support their cause of corporate protectionism, aka tort reform.

[LincolnMcGrath]

53. You and I know that.

But he true facts are below the radar. Not spoonfed, the way some prefer to gather their facts.

[loftycity]

26. It is Repug propaganda

Thanks for that--the Neo Cons have been spewing that since the beginning of time.
It got the Cable Companies attention.
Cable companies have 2 streams of income the advertisers and us.
We should not be paying to watch their propaganda and advertiser's commercials.
I got rid of cable 10 years ago.

[Buffler]

31. Did you read the story?

HE WASNT PAYING FOR CABLE EITHER!!! HE WAS GETTING IT FREE!!!

Is it safe to assume you support the lard ass channel surfing loser in this case over the cable company?

On Edit: Those who like to absolve idiots of their actions may consider personal responsibility to be repug propoganda. But those of us (a vast majority) who want to see people take responsibility for their actions and held accountable for their actions know it is not propoganda, but the right thing to do.

[Loonman]

44. What does that and this post have to do with personal responsibility?

So people accepting the consequences of their actions or lack thereof, is not a good thing?

[LincolnMcGrath]

56. Everybody rightly has a different idea of PR

Accepting the consequences of your actions is a given. Hit your head with your hammer and the consequence is a lump. lol


How do you suppose this story made it into the mainstream media in the first place?

[Buffler]

66. Accepting consequences of your actions

Suppose you were doing a home improvement and putting down a new floor in your kitchen. You purchase an adhesive (the wrong one for the job), read the warning label, which says DO NOT USE INDOORS, Flammable, Explosive Hazard, and then you proceed to use it indoors, and it catches fire causing you severe burns.

Are you responsible for the misuse of the product, after reading the warning label, admitting you read it and understood it. Or is the company who makes it responsible and owes you $8 million?

[LincolnMcGrath]

69. Another Strawman?

The DIY crowd is a whole other ball of glue. lol

[Buffler]

74. Again

you fail to give an opinion on the matter.

Be honest, is the above person due $8 million or should he have to suffer the consequences of his idiocy?

[LincolnMcGrath]

76. Agian?

I gave an opinion on the cable guy.

[jpgray]

23. Oh boy! Everyone "ooh"s and "ah"s at exceptions and ignores the rule

For every crazy like this, you have several hundred workers with Mesothelioma who worked in a factory and were exposed to asbestos, or you have a few hundred who were disabled due to a company's failure to adhere to safety regulations. Why do you think tort reform is being intensely lobbied for? Because of one or two nutjobs, or several thousand serious cases?

edit: never mind, just believe what the glowing box tells you. It's to save YOUR money! These frivolous cases take up your taxpayer dollars! :crazy:

[LincolnMcGrath]

39. Great post JP

My father has Mesothelioma, and there are company bought EXPERTS who claimed for years it was a bogus sickness.

Lets all puff our chests over some loony who has a case that will never make it to trial in the first place. :crazy:

[prole_for_peace]

30. tort reform advocates always mention frivilous lawsuits

in pushing their agenda. the problem with this isn't a fair representation of the tort system in this country. just because someone sues another person shouldn't have a damn thing to do with stats. it is if it goes to trial that should be looked at. any judge worth his pay would throw out anything really frivilous and they usually do. the FILED suits are cited to prop up reformers arguements.

i can sue someone because they look at me funny. that would be reported and used as an example of needed reform. but it doesn't mean it would ever go to trial.

[LincolnMcGrath]

37. Thank You

[ProfessorGAC]

47. One Correction

I already told Lincoln this once, but all states don't require judicial review.

Secondly, here in IL, there is no judicial review for small claims court. You file, pay the fee, and end of story. It goes to court.

Lastly, many judges, believing in the integrity of the jury system, won't throw out cases on principle. They let the juries decide, rather than they themselves. That might be a punt. It might be the right thing to do. I'm not sure.

But, the notion that frivolity in lawsuits is adequatly filtered in all (or even the preponderance) of cases is just not so.
The Professor

[LincolnMcGrath]

52. How many Frivolous lawsuits were there in IL lately?

Lawyers don’t want to waste their time on frivolous lawsuits they have little chance of winning.

Do you have numbers to back your IL claims? Or are you just spraying! A preponderance of these cases do in fact get thrown out. You might not agree with the ones that get through, heck I might not either.

Small claims judges get elected Right?

[ProfessorGAC]

60. Small Claims Not Elected

Appointed, but retained by electorate.

I'm not just spraying, i'm positing based upon local knowledge only. The rag in my area (The Joliet Herald News, or as we call it, The Hardly News) had a recent article about the overload of cases in Will County. They are in favor of tort reform (i'm not) but they had a list of cases accepted vs. those rejected by the judge. IIRC, the number thrown out was around 15% or so. Not completely sure. This is only one data point. I know we can't extrapolate nationwide. But, it is NOT true that all states have judicial review and it is true that some judges will not reject a suit, preferring to let a jury decide.

BTW: Do you have documentation to show which states have and which don't have judicial review? And, to show how often cases are rejected by judges as opposed to being taken to trial? Or are YOU just spraying?

I don't get this attitude that every opinion has to be backed with data. It's an opinion. Mine is based on knowing that in IL there is no judicial review of small claims. You file, it goes to trial. So, your question about elections is apropos of nothing. The judges aren't at fault. Secondly, i know that in Will Country judges are loathe to reject a suit, preferring to allow a jury to decide. So, my opinion is based upon two local facts. You suggested that the judicial review is a filter that works universally. I say it doesn't work as well as you suggest. Why is that a problem?
The Professor

[LincolnMcGrath]

64. Its no problem dude

And yes, I spray like a tom cat. lol Here in my end of IL papers spew the same crap.

If a Judge throws out 15 percent, does that mean x amount got through? Or could it mean that in fact only 15% were worthy of being tossed. Using percentage of cases tossed does not mean anything to me.

The judicial review in small claims is the Judge himself. I lost a civil case to a carload of high school hotties. (I won the criminal case)The old perv. was drooling for the whole procedure.

Alas, I am not ready to toss the baby out with the bath water.

[KFC]

50. Lawsuit mentality

There are dipshits among us that are quick to sue for everything. This loser is one - blame others for your problems.

As in this case, they often don't even want to go to trial, just force a settlement. Pathetic. There needs to be a mechanism to send these people to jail.

[Buffler]

57. Bingo!

As in this case, they often don't even want to go to trial, just force a settlement.

What would be cheaper for Charter, defending themselves against this suit or giving the guy $5,000 (or 3 computers) and internet access?

If Charter decides to settle this, I suggest they opt for the 3 computers. Give the guy 3 Commador Vic 20s.

Of course, the guy would probably sue saying that the computers they gave him werent good enough.

[LincolnMcGrath]

62. Yes lets jail the losers.

NO company should settle a bogus case. Every on the job fatality I witnessed over my years in the steel mill resulted in 6 or 8 company lawyers raking us over the coals for hours before we were allowed to go home. The company was even threatened by Federal marshals for not allowing the coroner on the property to investigate accidents. You know why they held the coroner out? You guessed it, NO ONE EVER DIED ON COMPANY PROPERTY. GAME over. NO settlement.

[tom_paine]

55. That's horrible. Frivolous lawsuits at their worst.

Are we ourselves responsible for anything anymore?

Though it wouldn't surprise me if this was a Bushevik (they are certainly immune from hypocrisy and shame and conscience), this is in fact the type of thing that is used to falsely smear Democrats, as if the Party Platform was Pro-Frivolous Lawsuits or something.

[LincolnMcGrath]

58. Ya Think?

Ever wonder why there is an outcry over the occasional loser, while the real cases fly under the radar? Why do we still hear about the multi million dollar hot coffee case, yet we never hear about the true facts in that case.

[Nevernose]

61. That hot coffee lady suffered third degree burns

She was eighty, and the coffee was hot enough to melt her polyester panties to her crotch, causing third degree burns and a month in the hospital. McDonald's determined that keeping the coffee at boiling would prevent spoilage...and an eighty year-old woman paid for it.

[Buffler]

63. wrong

and the coffee was hot enough to melt her polyester panties to her crotch

She was wearing cotton sweat pants.

[LincolnMcGrath]

65. Pants or panties?

MC Ds ignored the law.

[LincolnMcGrath]

67. Tell us how many times MC Ds

Was cited for breaking the safey laws! This lady had burns inside her vagina!

[Nevernose]

70. "From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people"

Rather long post regarding the incident in question, and I admittedly can find no confirmation regarding the type/condition of the lady's pants, other than to say I am acquainted with one of the paralegals who worked on the case:

http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

"The “McDonald’s coffee” case. We have all heard it: a woman spills McDonald's coffee, sues and gets $3 million. Here are the facts of this widely misreported and misunderstood case:

Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement. According to Stella Liebeck’s attorney, S. Reed Morgan, the jury heard the following evidence in the case:

By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;


Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;


Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;


The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;


McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;


From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;


Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;


At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;


Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature;


McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;


McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;”


McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;


Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.
Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald's behavior “callous.” Moreover, “the day after the verdict, the news media documented that coffee at the McDonald's in Albuquerque is now sold at 158 degrees. This will cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds , the margin of safety has been increased as a direct consequence of this verdict.” Id. "

[Loonman]

71. Baloney

Stop making stuff up.

[Nevernose]

72. Read my above post, number 70

Or click the link. It also lists it's sources.

[LincolnMcGrath]

73. ?

The facts of the case are clear. McDs got what they deserved. Less than they deserve if you ask me, after the settlement was reduced.

[Pithlet]

75. Some cases are indeed frivolous

and I used to think the McDonald's Coffee was one of them until I found out more about the case. I do think McDonald's was liable. There is no reason to serve coffee so hot that it causes such horrific burns. I don't get their coffee for that reason. It tastes good, but I burned my mouth so badly once that I had a blister on the end of my tongue and roof of my mouth(I take it black, which makes it worse). Never again.

[Nevernose]

59. Think of the phrase "trial lawyers"

ALways associated with Democrats. In fact, I can think of one "smeared" with that label almost every day (John Edwards).

[LincolnMcGrath]

68. YEP

Is if the corporate whore repugs are not owned by big business.

[NicoleM]

78. For Pete's sake.

Some nut is THREATENING to sue a cable company in small claims court, at least according to this particular source. Nothing has actually happened here as far as I can tell. But if he actually does file, and if it doesn't actually get kicked out of court immediately, this is so easy to defend against: "Mr. Dumouchel, what's the difference between being a lazy fatass sitting in front of the TV versus being a lazy fatass sitting in front of one of your three computers?"