The Stella Awards...2007

[kevbo]

Oh my fucking god.

The 1st place one makes me weep very hard for humanity.

 

[gsdx]

Kaching Kaching.

Let that cash register ring!

 

[kevbo]

Money: It's a hit
Don't give me that do goody good bullshit

 

[gsdx]

You know, it is stories like these that make me want to move to Canada and curl into a fetal position in the snow and freeze to death.

That would never happen. There's plenty of bodies up here to keep you warm.

 

[mhbm1012]

Does anyone have any of the previous years? I remember there was a funny one about a guy trying to fly himself in a chair with balloons. Haha

 

[winterknight]

Sorry, but NOT A SINGLE ONE of these lawsuits is actually real. They're all made up.

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

As the article says, it's not to hard to find stupid lawsuits. But this list is a complete fabrication.

 

[justjw]

Okay, so we have seven morons here.

What's réally frightening though is that these seven morons were awarded damages by a jury (of what is it? 10? 12? people) each......


*edit: flwng Winterknight's post : insert "if these cases were real"

 

[kevbo]

Wow.

Snopes really DOES ruin the fun.

 

[winterknight]

Okay, so we have seven morons here.

What's réally frightening though is that these seven morons were awarded damages by a jury (of what is it? 10? 12? people) each......

No, we don't, because THIS IS NOT A REAL LIST.

 

[justjw]

No, we don't, because THIS IS NOT A REAL LIST.

Yep, saw that! Have edited my post!

 

[winterknight]

If you want real cases, take a look at http://www.stellaawards.com.

Here's last years winners:

#5: Marcy Meckler. While shopping at a mall, Meckler stepped outside and was "attacked" by a squirrel that lived among the trees and bushes. And "while frantically attempting to escape from the squirrel and detach it from her leg, [Meckler] fell and suffered severe injuries," her resulting lawsuit says. That's the mall's fault, the lawsuit claims, demanding in excess of $50,000, based on the mall's "failure to warn" her that squirrels live outside.

#4: Ron and Kristie Simmons. The couple's 4-year-old son, Justin, was killed in a tragic lawnmower accident in a licensed daycare facility, and the death was clearly the result of negligence by the daycare providers. The providers were clearly deserving of being sued, yet when the Simmons's discovered the daycare only had $100,000 in insurance, they dropped the case against them and instead sued the manufacturer of the 16-year-old lawn mower because the mower didn't have a safety device that 1) had not been invented at the time of the mower's manufacture, and 2) no safety agency had even suggested needed to be invented. A sympathetic jury still awarded the family $2 million.

#3: Robert Clymer. An FBI agent working a high-profile case in Las Vegas, Clymer allegedly created a disturbance, lost the magazine from his pistol, then crashed his pickup truck in a drunken stupor -- his blood-alcohol level was 0.306 percent, more than three times the legal limit for driving in Nevada. He pled guilty to drunk driving because, his lawyer explained, "With public officials, we expect them to own up to their mistakes and correct them." Yet Clymer had the gall to sue the manufacturer of his pickup truck, and the dealer he bought it from, because he "somehow lost consciousness" and the truck "somehow produced a heavy smoke that filled the passenger cab." Yep: the drunk-driving accident wasn't his fault, but the truck's fault. Just the kind of guy you want carrying a gun in the name of the law.

#2: KinderStart.com. The specialty search engine says Google should be forced to include the KinderStart site in its listings, reveal how its "Page Rank" system works, and pay them lots of money because they're a competitor. They claim by not being ranked higher in Google, Google is somehow infringing KinderStart's Constitutional right to free speech. Even if by some stretch they were a competitor of Google, why in the world would they think it's Google's responsibility to help them succeed? And if Google's "review" of their site is negative, wouldn't a government court order forcing them to change it infringe on Google's Constitutional right to free speech?

And the winner of the 2006 True Stella Award: Allen Ray Heckard. Even though Heckard is 3 inches shorter, 25 pounds lighter, and 8 years older than former basketball star Michael Jordan, the Portland, Oregon, man says he looks a lot like Jordan, and is often confused for him -- and thus he deserves $52 million "for defamation and permanent injury" -- plus $364 million in "punitive damage for emotional pain and suffering", plus the SAME amount from Nike co-founder Phil Knight, for a grand total of $832 million. He dropped the suit after Nike's lawyers chatted with him, where they presumably explained how they'd counter-sue if he pressed on.

 

[gsdx]

#4: Ron and Kristie Simmons. The couple's 4-year-old son, Justin, was killed in a tragic lawnmower accident in a licensed daycare facility, and the death was clearly the result of negligence by the daycare providers. The providers were clearly deserving of being sued, yet when the Simmons's discovered the daycare only had $100,000 in insurance, they dropped the case against them and instead sued the manufacturer of the 16-year-old lawn mower because the mower didn't have a safety device that 1) had not been invented at the time of the mower's manufacture, and 2) no safety agency had even suggested needed to be invented. A sympathetic jury still awarded the family $2 million.

Of course, it's not the 'money'. It's the 'principle'.

 

[JackFTwist]

So much bullshit.

It is possible to spin anything to make it sound stupid. But these are all good decisons based on the evidence (not the spin of those who mock people who suffer).

Lets take the child run over by the lawn mower, as mocked above.

Ron and Kristie Simmons sued lawnmower manufacturer MTD Products Corp. on a products liability theory for the wrongful death of their 4-year-old son Justin who died in April 2004 after being run over by a lawnmower at his Daleville, Virginia day care center. Plaintiffs contended that MTD knew that the lawn mower's blade would keep cutting if the clutch was depressed, but did nothing to address the problem.

http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=Unknown&s=VA%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&d=31630

how did this child die?

Lawn mower maker's attorney attacks $2 million verdict
MTD Products is asking for the verdict, awarded after the death of a 4-year-old boy in Daleville, to be set aside.

By Mike Allen
981-3236

A lawn mower maker has asked a judge to set aside a controversial $2 million verdict, arguing that the jury in the case acted out of passion and sympathy rather than a reasonable consideration of the facts.

At the end of a weeklong trial in June, a Roanoke jury determined that mower manufacturer MTD Products was responsible for the death of 4-year-old Justin Simmons, who was killed when a riding lawn mower rolled over him in 2004. They awarded $500,000 to each of the boy's parents, Ron and Kristie Simmons, and $1 million to Justin's younger brother Josh.

At the time of the verdict, jurors said they wanted to send a message to the lawn mower industry about safety problems with its products.

Wednesday, MTD attorney Erik Nadolink attacked the verdict from three angles. First, he argued that the evidence presented at the trial wasn't sufficient to support the verdict. The Simmonses' attorneys relied on expert testimony to contend that MTD could have anticipated that an operator would keep the mower in neutral when rolling backward down a hill, which keeps the blade spinning, rather that putting the mower in reverse, which shuts the blade off.

No evidence was presented that MTD's riding lawn mowers could be designed differently, Nadolink said. "An alternative design is not feasible simply because an expert says it is."

Second, he said the $1 million award to Josh Simmons, who was a year old at the time of his brother's death, was excessive and was proof that the jury acted out of sympathy.

Third, he asserted that the Simmonses' attorneys conspired with the attorneys of Orville and Roberta Reedy, the owners of the mower, "to make MTD the bad guy."

Brent Brown, an attorney for the Simmonses, said there is no such agreement. His clients and the Reedys still have not reached a settlement, Brown said.

The Simmonses' attorneys have asked Judge Clifford Weckstein to finalize the verdict exactly as the jury specified it.

The boy's death happened at a day care operated at the Reedys' house in Daleville.

As Orvil Reedy trimmed his lawn with a riding mower on April 22, 2004, Justin played in the yard. Roberta Reedy, who had been watching Justin, his brother and two other children, went inside to change Josh's diaper. Moments later, she heard her husband scream. As he'd tried to mow up a slope, the mower had rolled backward and run over Justin.

Originally, Justin's parents had sued both the Reedys and MTD for $6 million. But as presentation of evidence at the trial drew to a close, the Simmonses dropped the Reedys from the case, leaving MTD the only defendant.

During Wednesday's hearing, Weckstein asked attorneys on both sides for opinions on a hypothetical situation: If a judge finds that a $1 million verdict for a 1-year-old is excessive under Virginia law, can the judge do anything other than order a new trial to set a new damages amount?

Nadolink replied that the entire case should be retried.

Weckstein did not rule Wednesday. He will issue his decision as a written opinion, he said.

The June verdict attracted attention in national legal circles.

"This $2 million verdict is going to be passed along to the consumer," said Ted Frank with the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

"When you're punishing the manufacturer for user error, all you're doing is increasing the cost to the manufacturer," he said. "The money just gets passed on to consumers in terms of higher costs."

The verdict against MTD doesn't appear too outrageous when compared to similar cases, said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.

"In this case the jury found that MTD could have designed the mower in a safer fashion," Turley said. "If their design does not protect against foreseeable misuse, it may be defective."

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-78511

Now I wonder - if it were your child, your sibling, your niece/nephew, and a lawn mower ran over your relative slicing your child relative into many small pieces because the lawn mower's blade kept cutting when the clutch was depressed, but did nothing to address the problem - how would you mock things then? If it were your child? Because of faulty product design, not the twisting that internet goons put on it?



Note: the goons I refer to are not the one who posted it here - but taking anything at face value is risky - by goons I mean the sick bastards who twist reality to make websites that mock children cut into pieces by a lawn mower.

 

[star-warrior]

So much bullshit.

It is possible to spin anything to make it sound stupid. But these are all good decisons based on the evidence (not the spin of those who mock people who suffer).

Lets take the child run over by the lawn mower, as mocked above.



http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=Unknown&s=VA &d=31630

how did this child die?



http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-78511

Now I wonder - if it were your child, your sibling, your niece/nephew, and a lawn mower ran over your relative slicing your child relative into many small pieces because the lawn mower's blade kept cutting when the clutch was depressed, but did nothing to address the problem - how would you mock things then? If it were your child? Because of faulty product design, not the twisting that internet goons put on it?



Note: the goons I refer to are not the one who posted it here - but taking anything at face value is risky - by goons I mean the sick bastards who twist reality to make websites that mock children cut into pieces by a lawn mower.

I'm sorry that the child died after the lawn mower shredded him.

Had the mower stayed in the shed when the children were out to play then, it wouldn't have mauled the child. Had the child care workers waited until the children were inside before cutting the lawn, the same. This boils down to the choice made by the people of the childcare to use the mower when children were present. It was their negligence that caused the death of the child.

The verdict is still unjust, because the people whose negligence resulted in the death of the child are free from blame and haven't been punished. That, Jack is the what mocks all sense of decency.

 

[kevbo]

Now I wonder - if it were your child, your sibling, your niece/nephew, and a lawn mower ran over your relative slicing your child relative into many small pieces because the lawn mower's blade kept cutting when the clutch was depressed, but did nothing to address the problem - how would you mock things then? If it were your child? Because of faulty product design, not the twisting that internet goons put on it?

I'm sure that if it were my child, sibling, niece or nephew, I would also be thinking so illogically that I'd have a list of other people to blame other than myself as well...

Also, I'm not saying the faulty lawnmower ISN'T to blame, I'm just saying it is a little irresponsible to let a child play in the lawn while one is mowing it. I certainly was punished if I kept going in the yard when Dad was mowing it as a child.

 

[JackFTwist]

kevbo, I love ya guy but I don't buy what you say in your post at all


a power mower that does not disengage - or can only be used when no one is around - what is illogical and irrational is that unsafe products be on the market

well, I gotta go any buy some Made in China toys for the kids in my family...

 

[winterknight]

The lawnmower in question was sixteen years old at the time of the accident. so it wasn't exactly "on the market" at the time.

 

[JackFTwist]

The lawnmower in question was sixteen years old at the time of the accident. so it wasn't exactly "on the market" at the time.

so?

a defective product is a defective product

16 years means more time to have had a recall

you think juries just get high and do silly things because they are buzzed?

they have heard the facts of the case - not the internet summaries of right wing anti plaintiff business apologists

 

[valis23]

Sorry, Jack, but I'm not going to depend on the government to be my nanny. I'll take responsibility for my actions. If I have a lapse in common sense and do something damaging to others, I'm on the line. If someone else has that lapse and harms me, they are responsible -not the guys who made the widget they used to harm me. This is too much like the idiots who want to hold gun manufacturers liable for people being shot.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Yo, Jack!

I'm not sure that you can legitimately argue that it was the effect of a defective machine in the first place; after all, you have kids in the same yard as an operating mower, you are asking for something bad to happen.

Sorry; I can normally see the case, even in the case of the McDonald's coffee, but I'm simply amazed that the manufacturer was even sued in this case. It's not that I don't sympathize with the parent's pain, but the childcare center should have been the one sued in this case...

RG