What is the smallest offense that people should be sued over?

FourKing Hell · #1 08-06-2005, 01:01 PM

This question was inspired by Steve's zipper thread (link) . Everybody seemed to agree that an exchange of words (that may or may not have occured) was ground for a sexual harassment suit. My position is that it's ridiculous to sue somebody over a few words, however offensive. It's a waste of resources (lawyers, court costs etc.) no matter who pays. And should any financial compensation be awarded, this would be totally undeserved.

We've all heard the stories of ridiculous lawsuits. Hot coffee at McDonald's, dog in microwave, you name it. A lot are probably exaggerated or not true.

But the fact remains that, mostly in the US, people can and often will sue each other over everything. And often demanding staggering amounts of money as compensation.

What's your take on this? What's the 'minimum' that a person should be sued over?

Hamish McBagpipe · #2 08-06-2005, 01:26 PM

Maybe 10 years ago there was the case of the store employee who sued his fellow store employee because the guy was saving up his farts and only letting them off by him. Mental anguish and suffering or something. This has not been topped in my book.

shadow29 · #3 08-06-2005, 04:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe 10 years ago there was the case of the store employee who sued his fellow store employee because the guy was saving up his farts and only letting them off by him. Mental anguish and suffering or something. This has not been topped in my book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did this case reach a jury trial? Unlikely. Rather, I bet that it was dismissed.

Regardless, anecdotes are worthless to any real discussion of the issues.

djoyce003 · #4 08-06-2005, 01:31 PM

well what steve said could be construed as sexual harrassment. Unfortunately, any sexual related talk in the workplace can be...that is the definition. Now the context of what steve said it *might* not have been as offensive as it sounds to an outside observer who just heard the one part, but believe me, I wouldn't want to have to repeat what he said to his subordinate on a witness stand in court. In my opinion if Steve were to fire this guy for his "you are a queer" crack, then the dude would be completely within his rights to sue, and in fact probably should seeing as how the guy doing the firing committed an act worse than the one that he got fired for. If both parties were fired, I don't think either should sue because they both got what they deserved.

Personally, the lamest things I can think of for suing are the people that do something moronic and then they or their relatives sue. Example...where I live a guy was driving a jet-ski down a channel and jumping boat wakes with it. Great fun i'm sure. He sees a big boat wake...jumps the wake to where he lands behind the boat that was leaving the wake...problem being, another boat right behind that one runs right into him and killing him deader than a hammer. His family sues the guy driving the boat that killed him. The boat that killed him didn't do anything wrong, and couldn't see him or stop in time no matter what they tried to do....don't know how the case came out, but it's a prime example of someone doing something stupid, and then not accepting any responsibility for what they did.

TStoneMBD · #5 08-06-2005, 01:35 PM

the court system is retarded. people should only be able to sue for serious issues, and in general when someone slips and breaks their neck because of a wet spot it should be considered tough luck instead of having an honest man liable for her million dollar compensation.

youre right, the current court system is a waste of lawyers and judges. however, thats idiot america for you. we need people to have jobs that serve no beneficial purpose so that they are not on unemployment and more importantly, those useless jobs allows money to be retaxed.

american capitalism is retarded. the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, but these ridiculous lawsuits are one of few forms in which the poor get richer and the rich get poorer.

politicians have been talking about court reform for a long time, but i dont think it will ever be reformed to the level that it needs to be simply because american politics are based on the belief that the constitution resembles the perfect government and therefore the constitution does not adapt properly like it should. just because a few smart guys sat down and wrote a document 250 years ago doesnt mean that it doesnt have flaws.

after reading my post it seems that this thread belongs in politics :P

threeonefour · #6 08-06-2005, 05:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the court system is retarded. people should only be able to sue for serious issues, and in general when someone slips and breaks their neck because of a wet spot it should be considered tough luck instead of having an honest man liable for her million dollar compensation.

[/ QUOTE ]
losing your abilitiy to walk and have a 'normal' life is tough luck? hell no. I am not sure if you realize this, but that honest man has insurance for his business for a reason. And its not putting an honest insurance business out either, since their entire job is to pool risks, they are 'bankrolled for such downswings' in poker-speak.

in the slick spot example, i am not saying they whoever broke their neck should get compensation. i am just saying depending on how it went down i could seee the store owner being say 10% liable. (so if the jury thinks this injury deserves a 1,000,000$ award if someone else was totally to blame, then the defendant would end up getting 100,000$ since he(broken neck guy) was in fact 90% liable)

FourKing Hell · #7 08-06-2005, 05:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure if you realize this, but that honest man has insurance for his business for a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that reason sure as hell shouldn't be paying off these claims. While it is indeed prudent to pool money to cushion the financial blow, it should not come from store owners insuring against this crap. Even if the hypothetical guy is 0% liable and couldn't have prevented the accident, why should this make somebody else liable? That is the attitude I have a problem with.

His losses should be compensated by health insurance, whether he pays for that himself, his country has free health care, whatever. People focus too much on putting the blame on somebody these days.

threeonefour · #8 08-06-2005, 05:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure if you realize this, but that honest man has insurance for his business for a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that reason sure as hell shouldn't be paying off these claims. While it is indeed prudent to pool money to cushion the financial blow, it should not come from store owners insuring against this crap. Even if the hypothetical guy is 0% liable and couldn't have prevented the accident, why should this make somebody else liable? That is the attitude I have a problem with.

His losses should be compensated by health insurance, whether he pays for that himself, his country has free health care, whatever. People focus too much on putting the blame on somebody these days.

[/ QUOTE ]

no actually insurance is held exactly for this reason(among others of course). to cover potential liabilities of the owner that he or she can't manage alone.

" why should this make somebody else liable? " I never implied one person not being liable makes another liable. i have no idea where you get this from, it makes absolutely no sense. so i guess i agree with you there.

furthermore keep in mind that not everyone has health insurance. and that saying health insurance should be liable you are just shifting liability... of course there is nothing wrong with it. especially if you think its more fair or whatever. but at the end of the day there is no free lunch and they guy with the broken neck has taken a huge loss.

EDIT: also this guy lost a lot more than just his health, he probably lost a big chunk or all of his income, as well as his quality of life. and health insurance probably shouldn't be the place to go to compensate for those losses. there is disability insurance for lost wages, but even fewer people have that in this country.

if someone other than the guy with the broken neck was liable. that person should compensate this guy relative to the injury and how liable he or she was. of course determining liability is the very tricky part

dtbog · #9 08-06-2005, 01:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's a waste of resources (lawyers, court costs etc.) no matter who pays. And should any financial compensation be awarded, this would be totally undeserved.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're in a situation where you feel like you have "nothing to lose" (e.g., your husband is killed while doing something stupid that's clearly his own fault) then you don't care about wasting resources.

That's why it sucks.

FatOtt · #10 08-06-2005, 04:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]

We've all heard the stories of ridiculous lawsuits. Hot coffee at McDonald's, dog in microwave, you name it. A lot are probably exaggerated or not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

The McDonald's lawsuit was not at all ridiculous. Check out these facts about the case.

You can find some of the others at snopes.com: Some urban legend lawsuits