Jump to content
slonezp

Frivilous Lawsuit

Recommended Posts

That thing shouldn't even be allowed into the court. There is no way you could say that someone willingly went into a verbal contract while at knifepoint and being threatened with at least bodily harm. It's a waste of time but you know he'd make a big deal about it as soon as he feels like the courts are taking to long with his case. They should hit him with another charge for trying to waste the courts time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this earlier today.

Not worth the print.

I don't think you need to be concerned about this one.

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even a written contract is contestable when made under duress. The couple didn't shoot him, the police did, not that they should be sued instead. As a prisoner I would think the taxpayers would be paying his medical..................can't see any foundation for suit, calling this suit frivolous is giving it more merit than it deserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's media hyping some case that will be tossed. Any case can be brought forward - it's one of our civil liberties. Hopefully we elected judges smart enough to toss the frivolous cases out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice mullet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should cover it nicely.

CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE

Under the clean hands doctrine, a person who has acted wrongly, either morally or legally - that is, who has 'unclean hands' - will not be helped by a court when complaining about the actions of someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's media hyping some case that will be tossed. Any case can be brought forward - it's one of our civil liberties. Hopefully we elected judges smart enough to toss the frivolous cases out.

Clearly you have not experienced the 9th Circuit. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly you have not experienced the 9th Circuit. :blink:

or the 15th :lol: ... But sadly, like J mentioned, anyone can file a suit for any reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right along the lines of hot coffee at Mc D's!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should cover it nicely.

CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE

Under the clean hands doctrine, a person who has acted wrongly, either morally or legally - that is, who has 'unclean hands' - will not be helped by a court when complaining about the actions of someone else.

That doctrine didn't apply to this case: http://overlawyered.com/2006/09/the-burglar-and-the-skylight-another-debunking-that-isnt/

The laws are CRAZY!!! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oy! Didn't see the pics.......... My mistake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The woman at McD's wasn't young and more than likely her motor skills were diminished abit.

I have experienced similar coffee problems at Dunkin. I seldom dronk coffee in the car, but when I do I always go inside and add my cream and sweetener at a a table, the cup is always filled right to the brim. I spill some out as I don't want to have an accident, I don't know how people do it in their cars without spilling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oy! Didn't see the pics.......... My mistake

One of the main points of the lawsuit was also that McDonald's performed a cost benefit analysis and determined that it was cheaper to pay for medical care for people who spilled their coffee on themselves than it was to lower the temp to something that one can actually drink. They served it hotter so that it took customers longer to drink and they had to give away less free refills.

What's the jury supposed to think when the company makes a decision that they're A-OK with burning people in order to slow down free coffee refills?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the main points of the lawsuit was also that McDonald's performed a cost benefit analysis and determined that it was cheaper to pay for medical care for people who spilled their coffee on themselves than it was to lower the temp to something that one can actually drink. They served it hotter so that it took customers longer to drink and they had to give away less free refills.

What's the jury supposed to think when the company makes a decision that they're A-OK with burning people in order to slow down free coffee refills?

My professor told us the decision to make coffee hotter was base on a marketing survey that the people like their coffee hot. He was using this case as an example when a management decision goes bad. He also told us the woman asked McDonald's nicely to just cover her medical bills and when they refused she took it public and sued them for a lot more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • fishing forum

    fishing

    fishing rods

    fishing reels

    fishing forum

    fishing

    bass fish

    fish for bass
    fish

×