Stella's

[Theophylact]

Just to show there's no hard feelings, here's today's frivolous lawsuit:

Quote:

Customer suing over Shoney's soup gets just $407
By Bill Douthat, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 28, 2004

WEST PALM BEACH -- A customer who sued a Shoney's restaurant for serving him the wrong soup can't blame the restaurant chain for his nightmares over the incident, a jury decided Tuesday.

Donald Johnson sought $55,346 from the restaurant chain, saying his allergic reaction to the clam chowder left him with psychological and sleep disorders.

Instead, the jury calculated his damages at $407 for medical bills, rejecting Johnson's claims for pain and suffering.

"I thought it was a silly case," Shoney's attorney Charles Rice said after the verdict. He said the restaurant chain offered Johnson $1,000 in 1999 as a "nuisance settlement."

Johnson, 64, said he went to an emergency room with breathing problems in 1995after he tasted what he thought was potato soup at the restaurant on Lake Worth Road.

The six-person jury decided that Johnson was 90 percent negligent, reducing Shoney's share of the medical bills to $407.

During the four-day trial, Rice argued that the anxiety and sleep disorders claimed by Johnson could have resulted from his traumatic life, including a prison term for sexual activity with a child under age 12 and his public listing as a sexual predator.

Johnson, of suburban Lake Worth, may face more anxiety because he recovered less than the 1999 settlement offer.

The law allows Shoney's to take Johnson back to court to recover its legal fees.

[MTAtech]

Can I sue wallie-x for pain and suffering after read his posts?

[M_Six]

I understand the whole reasoning behind the McDonald's verdict, but one thing is still painfully (pardon the pun) clear; this woman took something VERY hot and put it between her legs. Dumb, dumb, dumb. If it had been a knife and she had cut her groin instead of burning it, would the manufacturer of the knife have been liable for making it too sharp?

[Mickwish]

Hey, everyone, here's the True 2003 Stella awards!!!

And the winner is......

Quote:

And the winner of the 2003 True Stella Awards: The City of Madera, Calif. Madera police officer Marcy Noriega had the suspect from a minor disturbance handcuffed in the back of her patrol car. When the suspect started to kick at the car's windows, Officer Noriega decided to subdue him with her Taser. Incredibly, instead of pulling her stun gun from her belt, she pulled her service sidearm and shot the man in the chest, killing him instantly. The city, however, says the killing is not the officer's fault; it argues that "any reasonable police officer" could "mistakenly draw and fire a handgun instead of the Taser device" and has filed suit against Taser, arguing the company should pay for any award from the wrongful death lawsuit the man's family has filed. What a slur against every professionally trained police officer who knows the difference between a real gun and a stun gun! And what a cowardly attempt to escape responsibility for the actions of its own under-trained officer.

Suits and counter-suits!!

Cheers
Mick

[MTAtech]

Quote:

Originally posted by M_Six
I understand the whole reasoning behind the McDonald's verdict, but one thing is still painfully (pardon the pun) clear; this woman took something VERY hot and put it between her legs.

That is true. That is why the court lowered the award - because they found her partially negligent . Moreover, the documents discovered in the case showed that McD's coffee was the proximate cause of the hazard because it was hotter than what anyone would ordinarily expect.