World

10° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C
Popular Topics

The ten most ridiculous lawsuits

By John Costello

Wednesday, 17 June 2009

budweiser

1. Beers 'n' babes

During the 1990s Budweiser ran a series of adverts where two beautiful women appeared in front of two truck drivers drinking the brew.

Michigan man Richard Overton promptly bought a case of the beer, drank it and waited -- but no hot babes appeared. Cue lawsuit. Overton cited emotional distress and mental injury due to false advertising and wanted over $10,000 in damages.

Thankfully, the court realised it would take a hell of a lot more than a case of Budweiser to get this loser a date and they decided to dismiss the case.

Blame Stella Liebeck. It was her ridiculous lawsuit against McDonald's that started the avalanche. Back in 1992, 79-year-old Stella spilled a cup of McDonald's coffee on her lap and burned herself. Everyone laughed when she declared she was suing McDonald's, until a jury awarded her $2.9m.

Now outrageous lawsuits are a fact of life no matter how farcical.

The latest involves ex-con Dawud Yaduallah, who is suing a prison nurse in the US after she sent him to his cell even though medication had given him a painful 55-hour erection that wouldn't go away.

It seems that particular dose of "hard" time was just too much for Yaduallah. But even his legal action isn't so harebrained when compared to the Ten Most Ridiculous Lawsuits Of All Time.

Click the image to the right to launch the guide

This article originally appeared in the Irish Independent

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

( Leave a comment )
#6 typo
[info]scurra_games wrote:
Wednesday, 17 June 2009 at 12:07 pm (UTC)
While I am sure that "pubic pressure" did indeed contribute to those dents on his car, I'm not sure that was the reason he dropped the case.

A fun list.
| Reply | Thread
Re: #6 typo
[info]j_riley wrote:
Wednesday, 17 June 2009 at 12:27 pm (UTC)
Good spot - just amended that entry for the sake of our more fragile readers' constitutions.

Jack
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]andrewthomas10 wrote:
Wednesday, 17 June 2009 at 12:26 pm (UTC)
I don't think the claim against Natural Born Killers is "ridiculous" in any way. Those "two thugs on a crime spree" might well have been influenced by the movie.
| Reply | Thread
[info]fastguyeddie wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 11:37 am (UTC)
So why not sue the state who educated theses morons or their parents; since clearly they had failed to distinguish fiction from reality - otherwise they could be a massive class action against the maker of Tom and Jerry
| Reply | Parent | Thread
THE 7Th on the way
[info]famulla wrote:
Wednesday, 17 June 2009 at 01:47 pm (UTC)
The was war farced from the beginning. Tony Blaire and Bush coked up these wars. BBC had to come in and so did Andrew Gilligan who let the job with many. Colin Powel too went after showing glue, the yellow powder or and the stickiest tape he got from China he could ever find. Helped the post. Now here is the question. We know we are spending foolishly. We are aware that we are broke. Can?t we all unite in the parliament that the expenditures Even Tony Cook and Sarah resigned over this? Don?t we ever learn AND we call ourselves as British albeit following the USA policies. Is that it? Who is the winner Bush Obama I do not care USA is the winner today if you guys fight over the wars expenditures. IT IS NO. No more expenses on the boxes to be brought to UK ,with the dad soldiers wrapped in the flag of UK and 21 guns salute They cannot hear you we hear you. You lost the wars you are losing roads. All of you. Fight id you want to someone is laughing at you who USA
Take Tony to court. This suit is a faulted as no one walks to walk the plank
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla
| Reply | Thread
[info]stevejones1234 wrote:
Wednesday, 17 June 2009 at 06:40 pm (UTC)
Stella Liebeck's lawsuit wasn't ridiculous in the least. She was severely burned and McDonalds was quite aware of the fact that the temperature they served their coffee at would cause burns but decided to continue because they reckoned the cost of lawsuits would be less than those of lost sales. It was this attitude that caused the punitive damages. But expecting a journalist to check his facts is indeed ridiculous.
| Reply | Thread
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Thursday, 18 June 2009 at 05:50 pm (UTC)
So because McDonald served hot coffee, rather than cold coffee, a $2.9 million lawsuit is justified because someone was too stupid to realise that a hot drink is hot? What insane planet do you live on?
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]stevejones1234 wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 03:55 pm (UTC)
If we go to the link msdimple points out we see this information:

"Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee."
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]stevejones1234 wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 03:30 pm (UTC)
The coffee wasn't hot it was scalding, and it is you who are too stupid to know the difference. McDonalds was quite aware that the temperature it was serving the coffee at could cause severe burns, and that people drinking coffee in their car in paper cups are likely to spill it but did nothing to reduce the temperature.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
Stella was a great target for those who prefer headlines to facts
[info]swagv wrote:
Wednesday, 17 June 2009 at 07:33 pm (UTC)
To what stevejone1234 said, most people are lazy and prefer to leap to conclusions at the headline and can't be bothered with the mundane details of the underlying factors. It makes a better story that way -- one with legs that others will retell. But it also presumes that the jury were mindless idiots incapable of more than drooling on themselves -- which is almost the bigger ludicrous story here.

But folklore is entertainment propagated by complicit ignorance, nothing more. Otherwise, you have to assume that McDonald's has zero accountability for the temperature of the beverages they serve.
| Reply | Thread
Stella Liebeck case
[info]migwetchall wrote:
Wednesday, 17 June 2009 at 11:16 pm (UTC)
Thanks for resurrecting one of the top ten most ridiculous Myths that will Not Die. In fact Ms. Liebeck was awarded less than $600,000 after suffering third-degree burns on six percent of her body (and lesser burns over a wider area), requiring a week hospitalization, skin grafting, and two years of continued treatment.
| Reply | Thread
Stella Liebeck Lawsuit
[info]smokeymoss1957 wrote:
Thursday, 18 June 2009 at 12:50 pm (UTC)
While I'm sure that Ms. Liebeck suffered just as stevejones1234 wrote, a good cup of "hot" coffee is brewed by running boiling water through roasted coffee beans that have been finely ground. It can not be made with cool or lukewarm water. Also one must take in to account that to get a "fresh" cup of coffee it must be served very soon after it is brewed. Considering the traffic that McDonalds has each and every morning one must realize that the coffee will most assuredly be fresh and therefore hot (as in boiling hot). If I were to purchase a cup of freshly brewed coffee from McDonalds or any other vendor and then proceed to dump it upon myself the ONLY entity that is to blame IS myself, irregardless of the pain, suffering, or medical bills. All McDonalds did was to serve exactly what they advertise, a "fresh" "hot" cup of coffee. I do have sympathy for her injuries but McDonalds in no way did anything wrong. Details be damned! They don't matter! The lady bought a hot cup of coffee, spilled it on herself, and injured herself. PERIOD!! McDonalds was the victim in this case. And to swagv...that jury WAS a bunch of mindless idiots that were incapable of doing much more than drooling on themselves!
| Reply | Thread
Re: Stella Liebeck Lawsuit
[info]ourmaninferney wrote:
Thursday, 18 June 2009 at 06:13 pm (UTC)
Worse, she was holding the cup between her legs in a moving vehicle and had taken the top off the cup to add sugar and milk. The final settlement, after the award was reduced to $480,000 on appeal, is not in the public domain, thanks to a secret deal between McDonalds and the plaintiff.

It's also worth remembering that a lot of lawsuits that start out in the millions actually end up in the thousands after appeal, even if juries initially award a ridiculous sum in damages. Appeal judges seem to have more common sense that populist juries, thank goodness.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
Hit and Sue
[info]will28 wrote:
Thursday, 18 June 2009 at 01:18 pm (UTC)
When I was 10 (some 37 years ago) I was hit by a car that carried me along the curb and I was knocked unconscious. The woman who knocked me down complained to my mother that I had dented her bumper! Her reaction to the complaint was "tough"
| Reply | Thread
[info]marky123 wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 01:48 am (UTC)
Hello
What utter rubbish.Not a single mention of the human rights act?What sort of frivolous lawsuit top ten is this????
MARK
| Reply | Thread
Happy days
[info]happybabe1987 wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 06:23 am (UTC)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am a nice man. In the past I was always seeking my love. A friend told me a platform-========Cougar Circle . com =========where I knew my ideal match, a beautiful and gentle woman. I hope more and more people can get happiness there. I believe "All shall be well, and Jack shall have Jill".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| Reply | Thread
Funny...
[info]mickey_modster wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 06:36 am (UTC)
After a case full of beer, beautifull women always appear in front of me, then, as if by magic, they disapear again
| Reply | Thread
McDonald's Coffee Spill Case
[info]msdimple wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 06:56 am (UTC)
I am sick to death of the misinformation that is spread about the Stella Liebeck case. If anyone would do a simple search of the internet they could find the facts. Here is one link:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Could there have been a disinformation campaign to make it seem as if McDonald's was the victim here? Also, the amount finally awarded amounted to about 2 days profit on McDonald's coffee sales. Oh poor McDs!
| Reply | Thread
most ridiculous lawsuites
[info]jonek wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 01:15 pm (UTC)
the heading includes 'of all time'.
1. law has existed for several thousand years, with cases reported back to mesopotamia. i see no case here older than my own lifetime.
2. all cases are centered om the West, and particularly USA. there is nothing to report from, say, indonesia ?
i think i might sue you over the title !
jek
| Reply | Thread
What about royalties?
[info]pksampso wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 01:28 pm (UTC)
Ever sat without saying anything for 4'33"? Then you "performed" 4'33". You probably owe Cage's estate royalties.

Oh wait, the rest of the world doesn't have the avant-garde music community's tolerance for pretentious and narcissistic BS.
| Reply | Thread

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date