Space Empires V or ridiculous lawsuits? What is the connection?

[Fyron]

I am not quite sure you entirely understand what an appeal is. An appeal is when you lose a case in a lower court and then submit it for a re-ruling to a higher court. No method of ruling on a case can ever in any way shape or form prevent someone from filing an appeal. The only thing that can (and does) prevent some cases from being appealable is when it is ruled on by the highest level of court that will see such a case. So, if you are a US citizen, a case in which you are suing someone can't very well be appealed to the US Supreme Court (unless you are making a suit that would begin there, which is a special case) because it does not hear petty (as in, not against government officials or government agencies (or states themselves ) law suits. I hope I explained that correctly. IANAL, afterall (and if you don't know what that acronym means, not my problem - search on Shrapnel ).

Judges do use common sense. But, common sense is entirely subjective, and what seems common to you is not necessarily common to everyone.

[Fyron]

But yeah, it would be great if more judges had more common sense. Common sense is seldom bad.

Unfortunately, common Sense is rather rare.

See previous post about common sense.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

1: is i 0.5 inch long, 0.1 inch deep cut on your finger a:
a: miner cut
b: hospital emergency
c: reason to sue

2: if you do something stupid, is it:
a: your fault
b: not your fault
c: reason to sue

3: if someone says something irritating to you, is it:
a: time to say "that's irritating"
b: horrible
c: reason to sue

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Judges do use common sense. But, common sense is entirely subjective, and what seems common to you is not necessarily common to everyone.

That causes the same effect (perhaps just very similar effect) as it being rare.

[Fyron]

That post has nothing to do with what we were talking about (appeals)...

Also, it is impossible to write absolute guidelines for whether a case is "courtworthy" or if it should be allowable in court. And again, all judges exercise their Version of common sense. You can not possibly expect to absolutely codify something as subjective as common sense.

There is no absolute guideline possible for when something you did is stupid or not. It might have been, but again, "stupid" is fairly subjective. What is stupid to you is often not stupid to others. It can be, but it is not necessarily the case.

Also, someone irritating you is actually a valid grounds for suing them, if they constantly bother you day after day after day and you always tell them to leave you alone. Get a restraining order slapped on them (not all suits have to do with money, you know).

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Judges do use common sense. But, common sense is entirely subjective, and what seems common to you is not necessarily common to everyone.

That causes the same effect (perhaps just very similar effect) as it being rare.

---

But the point is that it is not rare. It is only your specific Version of common sense that is rare.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

if it hurts and your not exercising, it's probably stupid.
perhaps i didn't make it clear, that option for telling them it's irritating was for the first time.
sleep now.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
But the point is that it is not rare. It is only your specific Version of common sense that is rare.

Which is the same effect (or very neraly so), which is what I said.

[ May 30, 2003, 09:40: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[Gryphin]

I believe McDonalds eventualy won that case.

If they gave a test for common sence I would flunk it.

[geoschmo]

A search of the internet turns up scads of links all pretty much saying the same thing:

1. McDonald's lost the case
2. Initial damages were levied at 200,000 in consempatory damages and 2.7 million in punitive damages.
3. The decision was not overturned, but the awards were lowered to 160,000 and 480,000 respectivly.
4. McDonalds WAS pretty reckless in their behaivior before the accident and callous towards the injured afterwards.
5. Contrary to popular opinion this case maybe wasn't a frivilous lawsuit after all.

Makes you wonder what else we all have wrong, doesn't it?

Geoschmo

[ May 30, 2003, 13:59: Message edited by: geoschmo ]