M-13 - When the law doesn't work

[Zachary1993]

There are a few cases that I have heard of in the news and from my friends that I find very dumb.

Case # 1

A woman goes to her office party and she gets drunk. Her friends tell her that she should not be driving and she does anyways. She gets into an acciednt and gets hurt. She sues her company for letting her driving drunk and she wins.

Case # 2

Another man breaks and enters into a house through the skyroof. He makes a hole in the glass. The glass breaks and he falls down through the glass and breaks his legs. He sues the owners and wins.

Case # 3

A woman orders a coffee from McDonalds and orders a coffee. She gets into her car and spills it on her lap. She sues McDonalds for being burnt with their coffee. She tells them if they don't have enough money to pay her she will take money from their children's charaties. She wins the law suit.

Case # 4

Someone leaves their garage door open. A few days ago they had broken glass in the garage. They had sweeped it up and put it in a nice pile. A child walking home from school in first or second grade who has no business going in the garage goes in and gets cut on the glass and the parent sues and surprise surprise she wins.

Case # 5

The Janitor is cleaning up a spill at a store. A woman with her children walks near the spill. The spill is a soap spill and is very slipperly. The janitor tells the people to stay away. She orders her kid to walk in the soap knowing fully well that he could get hurt. The janitor tells her that he child can't walk in there and she tells the janitor that it is her child and he will listen to her then she orders him to walk in and says if he does not she will smack him in the face. The child falls and breaks his arm. The mother sues for the child's injuries and even though the janitor and several customers say that the women purposely put her child in danger just to get the law suit payment the mother won. Later on that case was used against her in a child abuse case. THis and some other stuff. They said she was putting her child in danger for self profit. And the kid's dad got soul courtsey to the father. That means the mom can only see the kid with a social worker and if the father allows it because the father makes all the decisions for the kid.

Case # 6

A woman claims that someone ran over her foot with heavy something heavy and he was from the store. She has a child in the hand and did not even drop the child. She hops on of foot and asks to speak to the manager and tries to sue the store. When the manager comes she says one of his worker ran over her foot. I notice she is limping on the other foot and I say y to her loud and if front of everyone.
"I thought you hurt your other foot"
She says to me "shut up it is none of your business"
I say "well they can check the camera and find out"
She says "never mind I don't want trouble but he should be more careful" and leaves the store.

And there are cases where people purposely stepped in front of cart's or people mopping and sued some cases they won and some they lost depending on the judge and jury.

Heres is why I think these cases are stupid.

Case # 1

The Woman's workers told her she could not drive and she refused to listen to them. She got in her car anyway. She was a grown woman and just did not know how to stop drinking. It was her that made the decision in the first place to get drunk and drive. Therefore she should have been charged with the accident no one was driving for her. And they could not even fire her for suing them because then she could sue for that also and being greedy she would. Also for some reason they were the ones that gave her the drink so they were responsible for her decision to drink and drive. Like she was not old enough to say no and know her limits.

Case # 2

I don't even need to tell you how dumb this case is. Come on he broke into the house. He should be charges with break and enter. He should have been the one charged not the owners. He had no business up on the sky roof in the first place. He should not be breaking into peoples house because that is against the law. And I don't think he was breaking in just to chill and relax. He was breaking in to steal stuff.

Case # 3

That woman would have to be so dumb to not know that coffee is hot. Come on now I am only ten and don't drink coffee and I know that coffee is HOT. The worst thing about this case is that this woman wanted money even from their charaties. That money is used for taking children with life threatening illness such as cancer or AIDS to Disneyland or where ever they want to go because their families can't afford to get these things for their kids because of the medical bills. How greedy can that woman be to even take money out of their hands like that. I have a few words about her that I will not use because then I would be banned.

Case # 4

The woman who sued is lucky that the owners did not file a tresspassing suit on her child. And she should have thought her child that you do not go into other people's houses without their permission for two reasons. 1. because it is wrong to go to someone elses house without being invited. 2. They are complete strangers, and you don't know who they are. They could have tried to hurt the kid or something.

Case # 5

This case is also bad. I mean the kid was lucky that he only broke his arm. He could have hit his head real hard and dies or got a concussion or become parallized. The mother had no concern of her child's safety. She was even later charged with child endangerment with this and because she did this to her child in different stores (Wal Mart Zellers, Bay ) They realised that she was trying to get her child hurt for money. If she wanted to to sue for injuries the least she could do is make sure it was her that got hurt and not an her child. But she did not want to suffer the pain so she made her child suffer the pain and kept the money until later it was turned to the father. I am glad that she lost her children to her divorced husband because I don't think she should make money off of their injuries when she purposely gets hurt.

Case # 6

This did not got that far because I pointed out that she had hurt her other foot. She thought that since I was only ten she could get away with a fake law suit but when I said that the other foot was hurt and that they can check the camera she knew that I knew she was faking. I knew from the start because she had a child with her and the way she was limping if the cart really ran over her foot she would have dropped the child. Plus she was so dumb that she did not even claim the same foot was run over. I mean if you are going to claim someone hurt your foot and can't walk and lie about it atleast know which foot you are going to lie about. I think because I pointed this out she get scared and did not sue.

Please tell me your input on these cases. Why do you think it is stupid or if you think it is acceptable why do you think so. You don't have to answer all these cases just the ones that you have input on. Thanks.

[Confessor]

The law is pretty much what society deems is acceptable, so the law isn't really 'not working', but only 'not working to your specifications.'

In the first case, the company was liable. It's exactly like a party-host being liable for accidents caused by whatever substance is distributed. Case #2 is just stupid. In Case #3, it could just be what the customer expected - that the coffee, being from fast food, would not be that hot; still, it's a pretty stupid thing. Case #4, however, is not stupid. Tha garage should have been closed, not left open with dangerous materials.

[JofpGallagher]

I think there is a thread covering this somewhere. I have to look and search so don't be surprised if this one is closed.

[Wab]

Case # 3

A woman orders a coffee from McDonalds and orders a coffee. She gets into her car and spills it on her lap. She sues McDonalds for being burnt with their coffee. She tells them if they don't have enough money to pay her she will take money from their children's charaties. She wins the law suit.

Check out the reality of this case.

"During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees."

"McDonald's coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat."

http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx

[Zachary1993]

Check out the reality of this case.

"During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees."

"McDonald's coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat."

http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspxI guess that is true but this other women told them that if they could not pay for the law suit themselves then they should give money from their children's charaties because they make over a million dollars in that and all that if free money. And I find that replulsive that she would want money from those that don't have anything. Now that's just wrong. That tells she just sued for the money and did not care about who she got it from and that's just sad and greedy. This was after 1992 when they made impovments on the temperature.

[Azimuth]

Case # 2

Another man breaks and enters into a house through the skyroof. He makes a hole in the glass. The glass breaks and he falls down through the glass and breaks his legs. He sues the owners and wins.


This was in the movie Liar Liar starring Jim Carrey. I don't think it's an actual case.

I think that whatever country those cases happened in really needs to sort out it's legal system. How can you possibly justify going into someone else's house for no reason (Case 4)? I can't imagine how the people that sued won. There's just no logic - what happened to every person in those incidents was entirely their own fault.

[Angora]

Case 1: I agree with Confessor, the company was probably liable, because it was a company party.

Case 2: I also am not sure this happened, but there have been cases in real life where a robber has hurt himself and sued the people he was robbing. There are rules that it has to be safe for people to approach your house without hurting themselves no matter who they are. I'm not sure how that would apply to a skylight.

Case 3: Wab already pointed out how she had a case - and it doesn't matter where the money comes from, it's up to McDonalds to figure that part out. Technically, she wouldn't be taking money from charity, McDonalds would be taking money from charity by screwing up with their coffee so that they had to pay her.

Case 4: I agree with Confessor again. It's like having a fence around your pool; you have to keep the door closed.

Case 5: Clearly she got caught eventually, and I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say that nobody had any way of knowing what she was doing until then.

Case 6: I don't know, I wasn't there. But I think it's reasonable to complain to the manager if an employee carelessly hurts you.

[Zachary1993]

Case 1: I agree with Confessor, the company was probably liable, because it was a company party.

Case 2: I also am not sure this happened, but there have been cases in real life where a robber has hurt himself and sued the people he was robbing. There are rules that it has to be safe for people to approach your house without hurting themselves no matter who they are. I'm not sure how that would apply to a skylight.

Case 3: Wab already pointed out how she had a case - and it doesn't matter where the money comes from, it's up to McDonalds to figure that part out. Technically, she wouldn't be taking money from charity, McDonalds would be taking money from charity by screwing up with their coffee so that they had to pay her.

Case 4: I agree with Confessor again. It's like having a fence around your pool; you have to keep the door closed.

Case 5: Clearly she got caught eventually, and I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say that nobody had any way of knowing what she was doing until then.

Case 6: I don't know, I wasn't there. But I think it's reasonable to complain to the manager if an employee carelessly hurts you.\

Yeah but she is greedy and unconsiderate to even think of taking money form those that have nothing. I mean how sick do you have to be to offer to take that money. Hopefully she will be in a situation one day where she needs the money and some greedy person wants her money and sues and she has nothing. The will learn just how greedy she is. She has a right to the McDonalds money but not to the charity and this woman not the on on the case study said she did not know that coffee was supposed to be served hot.

[Mireille]

Here is the thread that Jofp is talking about. Lawsuites against fastfood... (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=13676) They are very similar.

[mafiawizard]

Case number 1

I remember that case. my friend and I saw it in the newspaper and we really made fun of her. We put a beer in one hand and a cigarette in the other and gave her this nice tattoo on her arm. Then in captions we put. " I am a pathetic drunk and I don't know when to stop drinking". I think she should have been fired because they told her not to get in the car and then she did anyway and sued. She should have listened to them but they are a little bit responsible if they thought that she was that drunk then they should have taken away her keys or if she got away called the police on her. Unfortunately since they worked with her they did not expect anything to happen so they did not call the police because they did not want her to get her into trouble. Also many drunks think I am not drunk I can handle it. But suing them after she was told she was too drunk to drive was stupid and she should have been fired for that. I mean she sues the company that pays her.

Case # 2

Like people said there are a lot of these cases where people break into houses and sue the person if they get hurt and win which is dumb. I mean what kind of sence does that make if I were the officer I would arrest that person for breaking and entering. A lot of these people are charged with the crime and they counter sue (sue the person that was suing them for damages or whatever you can find to sue them with). They get the while they are in prison or after they leave or it goes to their families.

Case # 3

Actually it was stated that this was another case not the main case study that was described from the article. From what I have read she claimed she did not expect the coffee to be hot. This woman that Zachary is talking about knew about that case that the lady won and she decided that she could do the same thing. Knowing how much money they make for MaDonalds House charity and it is all charity money so they are from other people she thought she would try to get the money from them. The coffee was regularly hot because this happened later after 1992. In the paper she stated that she knew about the Liebeck case and thought she could get the money. She said that I don't care how you get it even if you have to take it out of your charities I want that money. And she got the money even thought the coffee in this case was reasonably hot. She claimed she was shocked to find the coffee hot she thought that restaurants used old coffee and served it slightly hot. There was even specilation that she puroposely dropped the coffee on herself. She did not get burns on her body like Liebeck. Obviously from what I read she was just out to make money.

Case # 4

Maybe you guys are right about the garage door not supposed to be open but obviously they forgot. But then if I were the person getting sued I would embarasses the parent in the courtroom. I would point out that obviously if the kid is walking home from school and goes into strangers garage than that parent is not doing their job in teaching the children to respect other people's proporty and they are not teaching them that they should not go into stranger's garages because it is dangerous. If the parent came up to me I would tell them well if you are going to do that I will charge your child with trespassing or I will make you look like a bad parent who does not teach your kid to respect other people's property and if they don't know that you should do that for safety reasons the parent should be walking with the child. No parent would want to have their child charged with a crime and they certainly would not want to look like they are not doing their job so hopefully they will drop the suit. In any case of a first/second grader the parent should be walking home with the child for safety reasons.

case 5

Now if the parent wanted to make money for purposely putting someone in danger then she should put herself in danger of getting hurt(not that this is right either) and not her child. But Zachary you were wrong about this case. She did not lose her child because of this. It was counted against her but she later lost her child due to physical abuse and this case was counted against her. Also this particular woman was stealing and getting them to steal so the was also in once case that eventually got her arrested when the kid was nine the kid had told her "mom no that is stealing and I don't want to steal." right in front of the security guard (plainsclothes so she did not know) Anyways the mother threatened to smack the kid in front of everyone if he did not steal. The child did and he was not arrested because he was only nine years old and his mother forced him to steal. So to clear that up that is what actually happened.

case # 6

I was there like I said Zach is my brother. And I was laughing at her because I also saw that she forgot which foot she was claiming to be hryt. Like Angora said It is reasonable to complain to the manager if the company hurts you. But obviously she was not hurt. I laughed because she was scared out of the store by a ten year old who she obviously thought would not be taken seriously until he said check the camera we asked later they did not check but they said obviouly Zach was right otherwise she would have stayed and sued.. She probably realised that made a mistake and tried it somewhere else. There are a lot of people that like to sue big Companies like Wal Mart and Zellers because they know they make $1000 a day in each store and can afford to pay that $100 000 which is like 50 cents to them and to get them to come back they will gladly give them the money and they will not be affected by it. Unfortunity these false claims make prices go up so as a customer if you think someone is making a false claim like that lady was then speak up like my brother Zachary did because that prevents them from making their prices higher. (You should also do the same thing if you suspect someone is stealing ask to speak to the manager and tell what you saw)

[Wab]

Law is a reflection of society so ultimately the problem is American society.

[Zachary1993]

Actually these cases that I am talking about Happened in Canada so we have a problem with our law system to.

[Confessor]

Actually these cases that I am talking about Happened in Canada so we have a problem with our law system to.

Canada. Maybe I should have been more thorough in my reading.

I'll assume that since you have two cases 1-6 that they've been updated and aren't entirely different, so my post for cases 1-4 still stand. Case 5, that was probably a whole slew of misunderstandings. It's a civil case, which means it's up to one person (the Justice (note: Canadian civil court judges are called Justices; just so you all know)) to settle it. If the plaintiff sounds more convincing than the defendant, then the plaintif will win; unless, of course, the defendant has a fairly large amount of evidence to the contrary, which, as it sounds, the defendant in this particular case did not have.

And for case 6, that's not a case of the 'not working', since the law was never brought into it; or, if it was, then only in passing. If you want tog et really technical, then this could count as mediation, as you (I'm assuming it was you by your wording) were the third party who settled it.

Maybe you guys are right about the garage door not supposed to be open but obviously they forgot. But then if I were the person getting sued I would embarasses the parent in the courtroom. I would point out that obviously if the kid is walking home from school and goes into strangers garage than that parent is not doing their job in teaching the children to respect other people's proporty and they are not teaching them that they should not go into stranger's garages because it is dangerous. If the parent came up to me I would tell them well if you are going to do that I will charge your child with trespassing or I will make you look like a bad parent who does not teach your kid to respect other people's property and if they don't know that you should do that for safety reasons the parent should be walking with the child. No parent would want to have their child charged with a crime and they certainly would not want to look like they are not doing their job so hopefully they will drop the suit. In any case of a first/second grader the parent should be walking home with the child for safety reasons.


You've got some misconceptions here. You aren't taking contributory negligence into account. The parents were partially reponsible, and so only got half, or less, of what they asked for.

[PhoenixUK]

It's part of the idea of a compensation culture. People don't accept mistakes or apologies any more, they want financial reward for any suffering they have. I guess the idea of biting your lip and continuing is long gone :sigh:.

[Schlubalybub]

that one about the bloke breaking in thru the roof, that happened to someone i know, he used to own a garage and it got broken into, it was a corrogated metal roof and the bloke got in thru the roof and the police said that he should have had a sign saying that the roof was unsafe, cos it was to stand on, and the bloke who broke in could have sued for having no sign up.

Another thing i know that happened was my grandparents next door neighbours, the girl walked in and some bloke walked in behind her and my Taid got it all on his CCTV cos it covers their house too, anyway the bloke was trying to sue my taid although he was trying to rob from his next door neightbours house, cos of invasion of privacy, cos the CCTV was covering more than just my Taids house, and another person tried to sue him for the same thing cos my taid caught them on his CCTV trying to break into the car across the road. Madness, i tell you!

[Wab]

that one about the bloke breaking in thru the roof, that happened to someone i know, he used to own a garage and it got broken into, it was a corrogated metal roof and the bloke got in thru the roof and the police said that he should have had a sign saying that the roof was unsafe, cos it was to stand on, and the bloke who broke in could have sued for having no sign up.

Knowing a lot of cops through worK I wouldn't take their word for it as they love to take the piss. But had a workman been up there for whatever reason he could have been in a world of insurance grief.

[mafiawizard]

Take this case for instance.

A mother drops her 18 month old off at the babysitters. The babysitter has a few other children to look after. The mother gets a call that the baby is unconscious because the baby drank some kind of chemical. The baby goes to the hospital and makes but he has to have his stomach pumped and it is very painful for the mother to watch the baby suffer like that. Later she learned that the chemical is in the family room on the ground where it is easily accessable to children. She talked to the babysitter about it who did not even apolise She presses charges of child endangerment. She takes it to court. She loses because the court said that it was not a case of child endangerment because the babysitter did not pour it out in a glass and give it to the child to drink.

I find that this is stupid because when you work in a daycare, or babysit any child five and under you have to keep chemicals out of their reach. As a babysitter with several children under five she should have put the chemical in a safe place because children under five put anything and everything in their mouth. They don't know it is poison. Infact they don't think anything can harm them. By knowing that she had children and keeping the chemical where children can reach it it should be a case of child endangerment. It's like leaving your keys in the car with the car running with your five year old alone in the car. They child does not know any better and cold get hurt. Luckily that child survived but what if the next child she babysits does not. Hopefully she will learn from her mistake but still by not apolising she showed that she did not care. I mean a child in her care almost died. She should be held accountable after all the child was trusted in her care.

[strwznbrry]

That whole baby sitter scenario sounds horrible. If I were the mom I would be telling everyone what a horrible babysitter she was so that she couldn't endanger another kids life. Of course if I did that the unconcerned babysitter would probably sue me for slander or something.

I think the whole suing for stupid reasons thing has gotten way out of hand and its only getting worse. I was told that if you have a dog and even if you have a sign up that says BEWARE OF DOG and the dog is in your house and someone breaks into your house and the dog bites the intruder that the intruder can sue you for having been bitten. Can you believe that. A person comes into your home and your dog is protecting you from someone that could potentially kill you and you have to pay this stranger money for the dog. I was also told that sometimes you may even have to put the dog down to sleep cause its then considered a dangerous animal. Is that a bunch of **** or what?!

[Zachary1993]

Take this case for instance.

A mother drops her 18 month old off at the babysitters. The babysitter has a few other children to look after. The mother gets a call that the baby is unconscious because the baby drank some kind of chemical. The baby goes to the hospital and makes but he has to have his stomach pumped and it is very painful for the mother to watch the baby suffer like that. Later she learned that the chemical is in the family room on the ground where it is easily accessable to children. She talked to the babysitter about it who did not even apolise She presses charges of child endangerment. She takes it to court. She loses because the court said that it was not a case of child endangerment because the babysitter did not pour it out in a glass and give it to the child to drink.

I find that this is stupid because when you work in a daycare, or babysit any child five and under you have to keep chemicals out of their reach. As a babysitter with several children under five she should have put the chemical in a safe place because children under five put anything and everything in their mouth. They don't know it is poison. Infact they don't think anything can harm them. By knowing that she had children and keeping the chemical where children can reach it it should be a case of child endangerment. It's like leaving your keys in the car with the car running with your five year old alone in the car. They child does not know any better and cold get hurt. Luckily that child survived but what if the next child she babysits does not. Hopefully she will learn from her mistake but still by not apolising she showed that she did not care. I mean a child in her care almost died. She should be held accountable after all the child was trusted in her care.
The babysiter should be more careful. How would she like it if someone put something out for her kid and drank it or ate and was hurt or got real sick. She should not be allowed to babysit and they should tell the parents of the other kids what happened. If I were that parent then I would not send my child there. Since it sounds like she does not care she probably would do the same thing again. The parent of the child should make an excuse to go back and see if she put the chemical out of reach of children. The childrproof lids don't work because I had a childproof lid to asprain. I was just playing with the bottle. I was not pressing down on the lid and matching the arrows like you are supposed to be and in less than a minute it was open. Now imagine a three year old does the same thing and takes even one asprain to taste 3even that could kill or make a kid that small sick. So the best thing to do would be to keep it where they can't reach it. I bet if that parent went back to the babysitters house a month later the chemical would still be there. She should tell all the other parents what happened to her baby and how the babysitter because like they said the next kid may die. She should have been charged with something atleast. I mean what kind of judge would put the children in danger like that. If she had a criminal record and parents wanted to find it then they could and their children would not be in danger.

[Zachary1993]

That whole baby sitter scenario sounds horrible. If I were the mom I would be telling everyone what a horrible babysitter she was so that she couldn't endanger another kids life. Of course if I did that the unconcerned babysitter would probably sue me for slander or something.

I think the whole suing for stupid reasons thing has gotten way out of hand and its only getting worse. I was told that if you have a dog and even if you have a sign up that says BEWARE OF DOG and the dog is in your house and someone breaks into your house and the dog bites the intruder that the intruder can sue you for having been bitten. Can you believe that. A person comes into your home and your dog is protecting you from someone that could potentially kill you and you have to pay this stranger money for the dog. I was also told that sometimes you may even have to put the dog down to sleep cause its then considered a dangerous animal. Is that a bunch of **** or what?!
Those dogs are trained to attack intruders to protect you. It is kind of like when a police officer has to kill someone who is holding someone hostage and is treatening to kill them. I saw on America's Most Wanted a case where the police killed a man because he was holding the person hostage and he had killed before and would kill again and the only way to shoot the person without having the trigger go off would to make a deadly shooting. The same would go with the dog. If someone comes to break into your house and they find you there they would want to hurt you or kill you to make sure there are no witnesses. The dog is protecting you just like the police was protecting that woman. The dog is probably not dangerous but when it sees that the owner or the owner's property is in danger then they respond. It is not like they kept the dogs on the street and did not tie it up and it attacked any innocient person. The dog attacked an introder. It is like when the other case when the guy falls through the sunroof and breaks his legs and sues the owner and wins. It is silly.

And like I said about the case with the baby who drank the poison she could tell there other parents that she knows what happened. If she did not she would be in trouble too because she knew what happened and did not say anything to the other parents. I am sure she did to make sure that their children don't suffer as much as her child did. If she didn't even if she was not held accountable by the law and something happened to another child because of the same thing she would feel bad about herself. So by posting it even if she is charged with slander then she should still tell to keep the kids safe.

[Crystal]

This was in the movie Liar Liar starring Jim Carrey. I don't think it's an actual case.

.

It has happened in the UK. The burglar was in prison at the time and even got legal aid (the taxpayers paid the lawyer) I'm not sure if he won or not. There was amove afoot to try to stop this sort of abuse of the system but I don't know what happened to it!

[Angora]

In the (possibly fictionalized) example on the buglar on the skylight, it says that the skylight collapses after he purposely damages it himself. So there would be a question of whether the skylight was structurally sound prior to his doing that.

In the case of the chemicals and the baby - I'm not familiar with Child Endangerment, but it sounds like negligence, which might be a sperate crime/violation. So, ruling that it wasn't Child Endangerment doesn't necessarily mean ruling that it was okay, but it might mean that before you try to sue somebody or charge somebody, you should make sure it's for the right thing.

As for whether someone who told everyone not to use that babysitter could end up in trouble for slander, it's usually necessary that you say something that isn't true, while knowing that it isn't true. If the mother stuck to the truth and said, "The babysitter allowed by child to drink a harmful substance while in her care" it shouldn't be a problem.

I find it interesting that here, and in other threads like this, there's all this special stress put on whether or not the person apologized or felt bad about it - something that's actually pretty irrelevant to the case. That's a trend that you see a lot in people - so much so that they like to interpret the justice system as a punishment system that's meant to make people feel bad about what they did. That could also explain where a lot of these petty types of lawsuits come from in a world where our relationships to each other are increasingly cold and impersonal, and we become more isolated emotionally from each other, we want people to acknowledge our pain and feel sorry for us, and that's something that we often can't get except in very shallow terms, as when we force people to pay for burning us with coffee. I'm just guessing, but I'd bet in a lot of instances, it's not about the coffee and not about the money - it's about having someone external to you concretely verify that you have been wronged in life, and the particular issue that they choose to verify this over isn't too important.

[Confessor]

In the case of the chemicals and the baby - I'm not familiar with Child Endangerment, but it sounds like negligence, which might be a sperate crime/violation. So, ruling that it wasn't Child Endangerment doesn't necessarily mean ruling that it was okay, but it might mean that before you try to sue somebody or charge somebody, you should make sure it's for the right thing.



It's called contributory negligence. It's when the plaintiff has partial responsibility for what they're filing for. If the Justice is convinced you are part of the problem - but most of the responsibility lies with the defendant - then you only gain a certain percentage of the original amount. In that particular case, a nuiscance suit could have been filed as well.

[mafiawizard]

This is another crazy case that we were discussing at school. A woman shoots and kills her husband. The case goes to court and she says she was insane or somethig because whe had her period. She got off because of PMS which she claimed made her commit the crime. This just opens a gateway to any women who are mad at their husband and want to kill them they could plan it during that special time of the month when "Aunt Flo" visits and pretend to be insane like that other woman did.

[Weatherby]

All laws have imperfect systems. People fall through the cracks all the time or they take advantage of loopholes. That's why we need the police force to be as ethical as possible so evidence isn't thrown out.
I'm not overly concerned with these trivial lawsuits for money. It's up to them settle or waste money in court. The system isn't failing these people except for those who break into someone else's home and sue.

You know who the system really screws over are the so-called accessory to crimes. Grandmothers can be thrown in jail because the kid shoplifts while she's in the car.
Or those who can give up criminals getting off and those who can't being sent to jail.
These examples given are quite trivial in comparison.

[Wab]

A person comes into your home and your dog is protecting you from someone that could potentially kill you and you have to pay this stranger money for the dog. I was also told that sometimes you may even have to put the dog down to sleep cause its then considered a dangerous animal. Is that a bunch of **** or what?!

And what if a person entered your property for a perfectly innocent reason and the dogs got at them?

[dumbleedore]

With case #1, the company I work for found ourselves in a tight spot. Some employees had taken to having alcohol with meals when they went away for the company, meaning the company was paying. We could have been up for workers comp had they injured themselves- so we banned them from buying it on company money- if they want it, they have to pay for it.

And at the Christmas party, we were supplying the alcohol, but we made it quite clear that if they were planning on drinking they had to have reasonable transport home.

The current state of legal matters, where someone farting in public could just about be sued, is just plain ridiculous. And people are taking advantage of it- as highlighted in cases 5 & 6. Sueing is easy money a lot of the time.