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.

djoyce003 · #3 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 · #4 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

dtbog · #5 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 · #6 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

shadow29 · #7 08-06-2005, 04:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The misconceptions about lawyers and torts are so ridiculous these days.

Controlling for population, the number of torts in 16 states tracked by the National Center for State Courts, tort fillings have declined by eight percent from 1975 to 2000. source

(Also Data for the early years of that period may not be complete, but that would only sharpen the finding of a decline. See Brian J. Ostrom, Neal B. Kauder, and Robert C. LaFountain, eds., Examining the Work of State Courts, 2001: A National Perspective from the Court Statistics Project (Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts, 2001), with accompanying spreadsheets available at www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/csp/2001_Files/2001_ Tort-Contract_Tables.xls.)

Furthermore, many people think that torts fill up the court system and clog justice, tying up companies and the ever-so un-liable doctors from doing real work. Not true. In FY 2000 41,696 tort cases that were terminated, only 3% were decided in trials. (from the CBO source listed above).

Furthermore, the NCSC says that, "[t]he vast majority of all [state] tort cases are disposed through some form of settlement, with only 3 percent of all tort matters resulting in a jury trial." (Kauder, Examining the Work of State Courts, p. 2.)

Also, the magnitude of monetary awards is furthermore blown out of proportion. From the CBO report:

Also, I see that another poster has corrected the "McDonald's fallacy".

So please, before you start bashing lawyers, torts, the courts, and America, do your homework.

shadow29 · #8 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.

threeonefour · #9 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 · #10 08-06-2005, 05:09 PM

It wasn't my intention to bash America or its judicial system. I'm commenting on a certain phenomenon, which may or may not primarily occur in the US - I don't care.

I also stated in my original post that the most common stories told are likely untrue or exaggerated, and not as ridiculous as they are made our to be.

But it wasn't the ridiculous occurences that I meant to point out - mainly the attitude.

My keyboard has a sticker on it warning me against RSI. Big trampolines are sold with warnings on them that you shouldn't do flips on them or you might break your neck. Companies get sued if they do not issue those warnings, even in the not-so-ridiculous McDonald's case this played a role:

From http://caoc.com/facts.htm , the website linked to earlier:
[ QUOTE ]
The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you ask somebody in a suggestive manner if he or she wants to have sex with you, next thing you know you're staring down the barrel of a lawsuit. (Better hope (s)he says 'yes' [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img])

Where is the common sense in this world? I understand that there is a price for any judicial system, as it can never be perfect. There needs to be legal room for people with legitimate claims. One or two people getting away with a frivolous claim does not matter much in the big scheme, unless it's a common situation and a precedent is set.

One person filing a sexual harassment suit because somebody else said 'do you want to [censored] me' won't clog up the system and interfere with 'real' justice. Nevertheless, it is still a waste of resources. Even if it only costs a few grand, that could have been spent on better things.