|
|
Post by Phil on May 3, 2007 12:51:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dannyboy on May 3, 2007 20:21:53 GMT -5
That is just damn ridiculous.
Unless there was a lot of money in the pockets of the pants.
How expensive can a suit even be never mind the darn pants
Not even a whole suit and it's over 60 million bucks?
Frivolous lawsuits are just annoying. It gets excessive a lot of times.
Its not likely these cleaners or their insurance company is prepared to payout in excess of $60 million.
There's no use in this at all except to make other people think they have a case if something stupid happens to them. The judge is saying the pants were not the right ones he brought to be cleaned so this is a breech of ethics.
That may be true but no lawsuit of property damage only should exceed twice the value of the item. That's being generous but that allows for the idea that you couldn't go to a job interview because your suit wasn't ready on time and whatever. That's all you'd ever get from me if you weren't injured.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blastgirl on May 4, 2007 0:35:33 GMT -5
Yeah It's almost like the hot coffee and McDonald's from years ago. I hate it because a lot of times lawsuits get excessive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blix on May 4, 2007 5:32:04 GMT -5
<<WTF>> that would never happen in Norway. >< here we judge by reason! |
|
|
|
Post by Jersey on May 4, 2007 13:08:45 GMT -5
Typical case of a money grubbing, ridiculous child. This man truly has something wrong with him. This sounds to me like a personal vendetta. 65 million for pants? PULEEZE.  |
|
|
|
Post by Geekthras (The Gizmo of Yore) on May 4, 2007 14:31:06 GMT -5
Unless there was a lot of money in the pockets of the pants. How expensive can a suit even be never mind the darn pants Apparently, this is his reasoning: Customer protection laws state that he must be paid 1,500 dollars per day per violation. He is quoting 12 violations over a period of about 750 days, with 3 defendants. So he is multiplying 1,500*12*750*3, or about 40 million dollars. |
|
|
|
Post by Phil on May 4, 2007 15:40:11 GMT -5
I read that too but that's still stupid in my book.
I like Dan's idea that the maximum value is twice the value of the lost item.
Metal, I'm glad it wouldn't happen in Norway and it doesn't happen often here either. That's what makes this news.
|
|
Kimm
Moderator 
Posts: 2,993
|
Post by Kimm on May 5, 2007 1:59:32 GMT -5
Thats just stupid.
Things like this shouldnt even be considered by the courts. I suppose in a legal society fair judgment is that at least a judge hears the case even if he or she ends up dismissing it. Does it turn out to be detrimental to judicial system if a case is not at least heard before a judge?
I say no if the litigation is this dumb but from a legal point of view they probably have to hear the case no matter how stupid it is. Waste of time and effort.
|
|
cactus1
Junior Member
Poked
Hmm.. It looks like I set my birthday off by a year... Oh well. I've done dumber things.
Posts: 84
|
Post by cactus1 on May 5, 2007 18:50:34 GMT -5
If it is a jury trial, the judge should easily lose the law suit by majority. If he somehow wins, why doesn't the coffee shop distribute the 65 million over several centuries?
|
|
|
|
Post by Blastgirl on May 5, 2007 21:17:11 GMT -5
I would hope a jury would reject this case.
Someone told me (I don't know how proven this is) but they encourage businesses not to
divulge if they have insurance coverage or not. That is because some juries would just
go ahead and award the payment figuring the insurance is paying and not the business owners.
However the business owner may end up being dropped by his/her insurers or have premiums raised through the roof over that very thing.
So I would have to say it's not just an insurance issue.
|
|
