Date: 2/11/2005 4:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 43015
i hate it when people dont use common sence... like i think the reason why most things have dumb warning labels is because some person that doesnt have any common sence decided to sue them just because it didnt say so *rolls eyes* like when this one person sued this one company becuase it never said to take the baby out of the stroller before folding it up...*shakes head*  |
Date: 2/11/2005 4:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 10245
like the tag on my curling iron: "this product can burn eyes". Was someone trying to curl their eyelashes with one?  |
|
Date: 2/11/2005 4:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 10245
And in answer to your question... yes it is right to sue at times: When negligence is involved. Not because you're too stupid to use a product correctly. |
Date: 2/11/2005 4:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 62675
Yes but frivious lawsuits where the person lacked commen sense should be thrown out. I also think there should be a maximum allowance for punitive damages  |
Date: 2/11/2005 4:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 3835
I agree, there are times when it really is a necessary thing to do, but for the most part.. people are doing it just to get money for a pressing need and carry it way to far.. waaaaaaay too far..  |
Date: 2/11/2005 4:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 16845
There are times when it's appropriate yes....but unfortunately some people tend to be a bit sue happy...out for a quick buck I guess...  |
Date: 2/11/2005 4:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 53284
Like the warning on my toilet brush "Not for personal hygine"  |
|
Date: 2/11/2005 4:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 10245
ouch! |
Date: 2/11/2005 4:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 62579
I heard once that a guy broke in a house and got hurt by falling. He had a law suite and won!  |
Date: 2/11/2005 5:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 35720
They're called frivilous lawsuits.. it's really disgusting what our country is coming to.  |
Date: 2/11/2005 5:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
It all depends upon the situation..like you said, some of the suits are just silly and not worth the time and money that it takes..but others are very much necessary and sometimes even set important precedents in law.  |
Date: 2/11/2005 5:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 52141
some people are so crazy.. makes me wonder what goes through there head when they think oh hey i'm gonna sue this product just because it didn't say not to do it and i did it and got hurt.. *sigh* just throwing money down the drain  |
Date: 2/11/2005 6:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
the arbritation exists for good purpose-- a legal means of ensuring that people are reimbursed for losses due to someone else's wrongdoing. Frivolous lawsuits are an unfortunate drawback, but might I remiind everyone that just as many times people can't get a justifiable case to court or the little guy loses because he can't afford the best lawyer, so it goes both ways. Yeah the system is screwy. Only the lawyers seem to come out on top. I don't know what the answer is. Putting on cap on payouts is only going to hurt the little guy to help out the big companies. I wish there were a better way of determining what constitutes frivolous. Honestly, I don't understand why judges and juries can hear cases like this and ever rule in thier favor. It seems like we need to examine these cases very closely to see what gaps in the system allow juries to give unfair awards, to determine where changes need to made.  |
Date: 2/11/2005 8:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
Several years back, my mom was one of the top winners in a class action lawsuit against an insruance company. She had taken out a cancer policy in the 60s. The company changed the policy several times between then and the 90s, always stating that the policy was better than before. When she had to use the policy for my dad, she found out, as did many others, that the insurance company had lied about what it would cover, and what the amounts were. In the end, the insurance company not only paid compensatory damages, but also punitive damages for their lies and deciet. Sometimes it is necessary to file suit, especially when big business tries to take adavantage of the little person.  |
Date: 2/11/2005 8:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 14464
I don't think the people are stupid just very petty. And the sad thing is that the people who lie to get money from a company or the people who sue for really stupid things win. Then we have people like you said who are injured by someone and have medical bills to pay and I doubt they'd win a case. I thinkthe lawyers who try this cases have too much time on there hands!  |
Date: 2/11/2005 11:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 42945
there are so many people who rort the system and they spoil it for the genuine people who have a genuine case to sue...everyone is labelled the same and its not always the case....  |
Date: 2/12/2005 8:45:00 AM
From Authorid: 55967
About your dog story: It is sad but true that there is a law whereby if anyone is injured on your property (even if they are not invited and are just walking across your lawn), then they can sue you. Why? I don't know. But it's true. An exception, I guess, would be if the person is breaking the law, like trying to rob you. Now, as for me and suing, I think that generally it should be allowed, but at a reasonable level. I mean, if someone's dog bit me on the street, I would like to think that I could get coverage for any medical cost, and any loss of work due to the incident. But people should not sue the crap out of people for millions and so forth, no.  |
Date: 2/12/2005 1:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 57074
ah so many typos..sorry about that!  |
|
Date: 2/12/2005 1:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 57074
This reminds me..I remember hearing about a man who sued the milk company because their milk was soo good that he could not stop drikning it..not sure if he won but the point it..thats just plain STUPID to sue someone because their product is soooo good! |
Date: 2/12/2005 4:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
This post annoys me. I'm going to sue you!!!   |
Date: 2/12/2005 4:18:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 62146
lol @ dark phoenix.  |
Date: 2/12/2005 8:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 51070
I agree there are stupid people who will sue just for looking at someone wrong. :P It makes me think of the cases on Judge Judy.  |
Date: 2/13/2005 6:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 36967
There are times when it is definetly right to sue, but many cases, but most people take it way to far.  |
Date: 3/14/2005 11:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 63013
A famous example of a ridiculous lawsuit is "Mayo v Satan", where the man sued satan for leading him down the wrong path in life. The judge dismissed the case because it couldn't be proved that Satan lived in the jurisdiction. As for someone sueing you if they get injured on your property, people are legally classified as either a licensee, invitee, or a trespasser, and their right to sue and your duty owed to them is determined by which class they fall under.  |
