OT: Bad Mojo
 

A week ago I sold one of my quads. Today I was served papers. I am being sued because the guy I sold the quad to was drunk when he rode it, and ran over some guy Last week. *Shakes Head* Since I have insurance for this kind of thing, and a bill of sale, the lawyer I talked with today said I should be ok. However they are claiming that I failed to inform them that the quad was modified with a pipe kit. (This makes no differance because he operated it under the influance).

It will cost me nothing to have this matter thrown out of court, but I thought it sufficently horrible enough to post here.

What will they sue for next. (And yes, they paid with cash and I will report the sale on my taxes to be safe.

[ July 21, 2004, 07:25: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

People will sue you for thier breaking a nail from slipping on an ice cube that fell from your soda. It is just another source of free money to people. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

What next? hmmm, can you sue him for wrongfully suing you? Can someone file a class action suit against lawyers who file wrongfull lawsuits? (After all they should know better and only make the problem worse.) How about changing the law to where every lawyer has a licence with a maximum of three demerits, once he/she looses all three demerits (by wrongfully suing someone and wasting the courts time) he/she gets disbarred?

I know it's wishfull thinking, but it would give the good lawyers more work and get rid of the bad ones.

nuf said.

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

I remember a case over there where a yank sued McDonalds for making him fat

Like Kevin said, its just another source of free money
The lazy People of the world are always looking for the quick buck
Granted, we all dream of becoming rich overnight, but personally I find earning my money more rewarding

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

Isn't this a USA related phenomenon?
Atleast where I live any civil court sue would not give any imaginary sums as a law suit in USA can give,
Here we talk about hundreds of dollars for most stuff, so it's not worth filing law suits...
And most people are quite happy with that, I know I am.

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

Dam AT you get the bad luck. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

A few months ago an old worker of my dads tried to sue him and his business because he cut his hand open on a roof (My dad is self employed and does industrial cladding and basically roofing for big buildings http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ) The guy tried to sue my dad because even though it was raining and therefore slightly hazardous conditions (not extremely, with a harness and some common sense it was completely safe), never bothered to put a safety harness or anything on and then slipped slicing his hand open, things this worker knew from working for a few years in the industry tried to pin it on may parents some way. It was thrown out of court after a few months, the fact that he went on a drunken rampage and assaulted 6 paratroopers with a group of friends on a night out a few months later kind of suggested his hand wasn't as badly damaged as he had been claiming. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I hope it all works out in the end AT http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

I am tired of people not taking responsibility for their actions. Instead they point and pawn the problem off to someone else.
Its pretty sad when suing someone due to self negligence leads to social class gain, more stupid people with new found money ... bastards.

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It was thrown out of court. They told him that he had to prove that McDonalds and the other defendants actually mislead him and that the food was more harmful than he was lead to believe. If he can prove this, he has a case.

Litigation has turned into a weapon in this country. Hopefully something will be done, but in the meantime, it's sue city.

Don't worry, AT. It doesn't sound like this guy has a case.

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

We have to put up with warning labels everywhere that try to think of every possible contingency, as if we're all a bunch of imbeciles, and we all pay higher prices for everything, and insurance companies won't let anybody have any fun anymore, just so a few people and their attorneys can "win the lottery." It has to stop.
There are several fairly simple solutions to the overabundant lawsuit problem:
1) Do not allow attorneys to get paid a percentage of the damage award. (I think Canada does this.) Or, to make it more fair to non-rich people who otherwise might not be able to sue (even when they should), put a cap on the amount that attorneys can collect. Or, allow juries or judges to determine the attorney's payment from the award.
2) Allow juries the power to penalize someone who brings a ridiculous lawsuit. They can decide if the suer or his attorney should pay.
3) I like that demerit idea also.
4) Do not allow people to sue an entire corporation because of the actions of one person or one store or one franchise. For example, a woman tried to drive away from McDonald's with hot coffee between her legs. The cup came open, she got badly burned down there, and she sued McDonald's, Inc. What would she have been awarded if she had sued the McDonald's employee who was working at the drive-in that day (on the basis that he neglected to remind her that the coffee was hot)? Nothing, of course! How about the manager (on the basis that he didn't train the employee properly)? Little or nothing. How about the franchise owner (on the basis that he ordered the coffee temperature set too high)? Maybe her medical bills, but no pain and suffering. But because McDonald's is a big company, and the jury felt sorry for her, they awarded her something like a million dollars.
5) Give the defendant home-field advantage. If a multi-state corporation gets sued, they should get to pick the location where the suit takes place. Currently, the plaintiff picks the location, and of course attorneys always pick places with a history of big damage awards or where the defendant is disliked. If you are suing Microsoft for destroying your future because Windows allowed your little sister to delete your entire 50-page term paper and you think Windows should have warned you to make a backup, then I think Microsoft should at least be allowed to have the trial in Seattle, or even Redmond.

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

Deh!

If he was legally intoxicated at the time he ran over this guy I don't see how he can escape responsibility. What in the world is a 'pipe kit'? Some sort of super-charger that makes it more powerful? Presumably this could 'surprise' someone and make it more difficult to control properly. Unless this outing where he was drunk was the very first time he'd ridden the thing I don't see how that matters, but even if so I doubt it's enough to get him off the hook.

That's the other incentive besides money for suing everyone for everything you can think of. You can at least claim in court that you are not responsible when you have claims against someone else. But when your claims fail to win the case, I think you are left with responsibility for your own actions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Yes, there are sanctions for 'frivolous' lawsuits. The definition of 'frivolous' varies from state to state, but a lawyer who files to many stupid lawsuits can be accused of 'barratry' and subject to fines, suspension of license to practice law, or outright revocation of license to practice law. The problem is how difficult it is to get a state bar to decide that a lawsuit is 'over the top' these days.

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I disagree.

2. Who would decide what makes a lawsuit rediculous? If anyone were going to make that determination, the jury would be the Last choice on my list. Besides, I don't think you could ever get this method to be seen as constitutional.

4. In the McDonalds case, it was company policy. So the company was responsible. In this country, when you are at work, you represent your company, so they are liable for you actions. Hopefully, reason can still prevail in most cases, but wouldn't most companies start blaming a single employee in this case, allowing them to break laws and then hold the employee responsible? I don't think anyone wants that.

[ July 21, 2004, 18:37: Message edited by: sachmo ]

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

What irritates me about courts is when the government uses it against you. My in-laws lost their house that way. The town wanted to widen the creek for flood control (which my in-laws had never had a problem with). Of course a "reasonable price" was offered for the property but it was way below market value so my father-in-law sued. He was quickly told by his lawyer that the price offered was nearly EXACTLY the market value minus the cost of taking it to court so he can sue and win but it would end up as the same money. Apparently thats a common tactic.

By the way, he did it anyway just cause he was pissed about it.

[ July 21, 2004, 19:21: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

Really is not that bad of luck. It is the society we live in.

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

Land of the free, eh….

Isn’t the ability to live a normal life without fear of being prosecuted (sued) a basic human right?
You could always sue the government for letting this happen to you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

When the sun comes up and it's hidden by fog.
I know the day is going to be a dog.

I'm being followed by Bad Mojo, Bad Mojo, Bad Mojo.

When my first cup of tea has a spoonfull of coffee.
I know things are heading into the doom valley.

I'm being followed by Bad Mojo, Bad Mojo.

When my first post today is a silly little limerick.
I know that I'll soon be able to beat it.

I'm being followed by Bad Mojo.

When grumpy old clouds are chasing me around.
I sing a happy tune and my happiness is found.

The Bad Mojo has faded away, away, away.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

That's how I chase the blues away, and how no cloud stands in my way.
I make the day bend to my will, and always manage to crest that hill.

I know it's a silly post, but it's all about adjusting my frame of mind. I feel much better now. This is going to be a great day.

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This type of rip-off was featured recently on 60 Minutes. (Non-US FYI: That's a well-respected news show in the US; normally too liberally slanted for my blood, but generally reliable.) One example was a town condemning a group of perfectly sound houses. Why? They had a picturesque view, and the town intended to sell the condemned property to a developer to build big expensive houses that would bring in more tax income for the city. The houses of the town mayor and council members did not meet the new code under which the condemnation was taking place, yet the mayor actually tried to defend the action as "progress." The good news is that the people sued and won.

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Currently, the jury decides whether or not a lawsuit is NOT ridiculous. So why not let them also decide that a lawsuit IS ridiculous? It is the same exact system as what we have now, except that it gives the jury a third option. It is also much more fair, since in the current system only the accused has to face the jury -- the accuser has nothing to lose. There are leeches who make a fine living out of accusing one moneyed person/company after another. Sure, they strike out a lot, but they have an endless number of at bats, so eventually they hit a home run.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What is unconstitutional about it? It protects the fundamental right of property, a principle included in the Constitution, and which actually predates the Constitution in American thought by several centuries. It also protects the idea of equal justice and equal punishment for all. People should not get free chances to throw darts at you, hoping to find a chink in your armor, just because you are rich. That is unAmerican.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It was company policy to give customers what they demanded: piping hot coffee. Now, all because of this one case, all coffee sold in the US is barely hot enough to burn your finger in when you buy it, so it quickly becomes lukewarm. Plus, insurance companies raised their rates for all places that sell coffee, making it more expensive. This is just one, fairly trivial, example of how all of us are suffering from the current tort system. (Correction: almost all of us. Trial lawyers and occasional home-run clients are doing quite well.)
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That never used to be a valid argument, it ought not to be, and increasing acceptance of this argument by juries is crippling American business. Should a delivery company get sued because one of its drivers gets drunk and has a bad accident? What if the driver has a heart attack? stroke? seizure? suicide attempt? road rage? playing with the radio? daydreaming? How much should a company monitor all of its employees' actions, both on and off the job? If you give them the responsibility, then you must give them the right. Do you really want corporate America to be Big Brother to all of its employees, continually monitoring you, telling you how to live, what to eat and drink, with instant access to all of your medical, psychiatric, financial, and criminal records? NO? Then don't hold companies responsible for everything their employees do.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This has nothing to do with my proposal. Companies try to pass the buck now, even when they are clearly at fault. My complaint is that companies get sued even when it is not their fault, just because they have deeper pockets than the at-fault employee, and (this is the key point) there is no risk to the suer to try this tactic.

[ July 22, 2004, 20:47: Message edited by: dmm ]

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

david. If the court determines that it is a wasteful court case... The defendents representation fees are paid for as a fine for waisting the courts time.

Also a lawyer can lose his bar if it is seen that he/she is not up to snuff.

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

Atrocities,

GL with your case, are you going to take that person to small claims court to get your money back for defending yourself?

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">We have 60 minutes in Australia as well. I don't watch it but its fair enough.

Edit: removed a bit of a rant about Australian current affairs programs which on second thought have nothing to do with the topic.

[ July 23, 2004, 11:27: Message edited by: Randallw ]

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">1) Having to pay opponent's court costs is a very small risk compared to the potential payoff. There ought to be at least the possibility of punitive damages for causing the defendant needless pain and suffering. And the accuser's lawyer (and his firm) should be liable as well, since usually the accuser doesn't have a pot to pi$$ in.
2) Lawyers almost NEVER get disbarred, as long as they win occasionally and don't do anything clearly illegal. This is the fox guarding the henhouse.

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That never used to be a valid argument, it ought not to be, and increasing acceptance of this argument by juries is crippling American business. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Why do you think companies go overseas? To get away from unions, minimum wage, and frivolous lawsuits! *sigh*

[ July 23, 2004, 21:14: Message edited by: Yimboli ]

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

[quote]Originally posted by Yimboli:

Quote:

Why do you think companies go overseas? To get away from unions, minimum wage, and frivolous lawsuits! *sigh*

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Some of that is true, but most companies go over seas to get away from the double corporate tax.

Bleh, I couldn't explain it good enough so here is a blurb from Boortz

BoortzCorp, U.S. Since BoortzCorp is a U.S. corporation federal tax regulations will require BoortzCorp to pay federal corporate income taxes on every single penny it earns. It doesn't matter whether that money is earned in the U.S. or not. If BoortzCorp earns $15 Million in Belgium it will not only have to pay whatever taxes are due on those earnings in Belgium, but in the United States as well. Now the U.S. tax laws will allow a credit to BoortzCorp in the amount of the taxes paid to Belgium, but since U.S. corporate income taxes are generally higher than most other nations, there will be additional taxes due to Washington. In some enlightened foreign countries there are no corporate income taxes at all. In that case, the U.S. collects the full amount.
BoortzCorp Bermuda. The corporate management of BoortzCorp is getting a bit tired of paying income taxes to the feds on earnings of overseas subsidiaries. BoortzCorp could expand its business and hire additional people if the earnings could be reduced by lowering the tax burden. So BoortzCorp reincorporates in Bermuda. The home office stays in the U.S., as do all but about five employees. But now the tax laws are different. The BoortzCorp subsidiary operating in the United States will pay corporate income taxes to the U.S. government on earnings made in the U.S. The BoortzCorp operation in Belgium, however, will pay income taxes on earnings realized in Belgium, but will owe nothing to the U.S. government for those earnings. That will leave BoortzCorp with additional cash that can be used to hire additional people, expand the business, or pay dividends to shareholders, many of whom, by the way, live in the United States.

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

Taxes should be paid depending on where the money is earned.

Warning label: If you do not comprehend and accept the idea of personal responsibility, you may not use this product. If you do not understand this warning label, you may not use this product.

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

Civil lawsuits can be filed for any reason. Juries go overboard anymore with punitive fees and such. Unless the pipe kit or whatever greatly modified the behavior of the vehicle significantly, you're safe.

Re: OT: Bad Mojo
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">My point is that there should never be a risk in suing a company, and it should always be left up to a judge to determine if the case has merit enough to be heard, and up to a jury if the company is indeed at fault.

I do not have a problem with damage limits, though. Some of the awards in these cases boggle the mind.

[ July 25, 2004, 03:18: Message edited by: sachmo ]