Man sues Jordan/Nike

[MrAsterisk]

But her lawsuit costs McDonals money which is passed to the customer, and can lead to peopel being laid off. Nobody ever thinks of teh consequences of these friviilous lawsuits that just make lawyers rich.

First of all, there is no way in all Hell that the lady is going to win the lawsuit.

Secondly, the amount of money that McDonald's would lose in such a lawsuit would make such a negligible dent in their income that customer would likely see none of it. Even then, it's up to the franchises to make the price change.

And finally, what's wrong with lawyers being rich? They worked their butts off in school for six years; they work their butts off in their firms for decades. Moreover, if they argue well enough to actually convince either one experienced judge or twelve whole people that McDonald's singlehandedly made someone fat, then they deserve it.

[NJTank]

I rather have rich Doctors who dont have to worry about high malpratcice lawsuits so they dont take chances and do teh bear minimum in care because t hey are scared of lawsuits.

[MrAsterisk]

I rather have rich Doctors who dont have to worry about high malpratcice lawsuits so they dont take chances and do teh bear minimum in care because t hey are scared of lawsuits.

That's an entirely different issue. I was talking about Joe Schmo vs. Big Business (by the way, I don't care who of the two wins).

To a certain degree, I agree that malpractice has gone a little over the edge.

[NJTank]

Ok let me put it this way this lawsuit is a waste of time the McDonalds lawsuit is a waste of time, a carless company that does deserve to get sued and lose cant get on the docket and the family needing the lawsuit to get their life in order has to wait becuase of these wasteful suits.

[zig]

heres a solution for him... Grow hair or get rid of that earing.

Or plastic surgery

[Gregmond]

Innocent untill proven guilty is great.

Tell that to David Hicks, who's been sitting in Guatanemo in Cuba for four years now without any sign of ever going to trial ... yep, your system Rocks!

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I rather have rich Doctors who dont have to worry about high malpratcice lawsuits so they dont take chances and do teh bear minimum in care because t hey are scared of lawsuits.

You really do fall hook, line and sinker for that stuff, huh?

Ask a million doctors about their opinions on the high costs of doing business and you'll get a million different opinions. I'm not buying the Republican Party's view of how malpractice insurance works.

I believe in redress for the common man. I don't see why that's a point of debate. I also think that the justice system, as now, is imperfect. However, I don't believe in capping penalties. I don't believe in taking away a person's right to sue. And I don't believe that McDonald's is getting seriously hurt by fat people looking to blame someone else.

I don't get this big business/rich person sentimentality. Corporations very often exploit the general public. The best example of this is tobacco. Decades ago, they insisted their cigarettes were fine when they knew they weren't. People shouldn't have the right to pursue greviances against those corporations that hurt them?

[pcgd]

I rather have rich Doctors who dont have to worry about high malpratcice lawsuits so they dont take chances and do teh bear minimum in care because t hey are scared of lawsuits.

You really do fall hook, line and sinker for that stuff, huh?

Ask a million doctors about their opinions on the high costs of doing business and you'll get a million different opinions. I'm not buying the Republican Party's view of how malpractice insurance works.

I believe in redress for the common man. I don't see why that's a point of debate. I also think that the justice system, as now, is imperfect. However, I don't believe in capping penalties. I don't believe in taking away a person's right to sue. And I don't believe that McDonald's is getting seriously hurt by fat people looking to blame someone else.

I don't get this big business/rich person sentimentality. Corporations very often exploit the general public. The best example of this is tobacco. Decades ago, they insisted their cigarettes were fine when they knew they weren't. People shouldn't have the right to pursue greviances against those corporations that hurt them?

Yes they should, when its a legitimate reason like being lied to about the dangers of cigarette smoking. If someone that is any age under 35 tried to sue, they should NOT be allowed to seek retribution from the tobacco companies. They have been told time and time again the dangers since the 70s/80s, plenty of time to not start.

This case should never make it to the court. Tank is not saying they shouldn't be ALLOWED to sue, only that these rediculous cases not make it before an actual judge. Someone should review the case before hand to make sure it has merit, and something like this, doesn't.

Just cause he's a republican doesn't mean he might not be right once or twice.

And I could be wrong, but I think someone actually did win a lawsuit against mc donalds for making them fat. Maybe I'm wrong but I remember shaking my head over something similar a few years ago...

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Just cause he's a republican doesn't mean he might not be right once or twice.

And I could be wrong, but I think someone actually did win a lawsuit against mc donalds for making them fat. Maybe I'm wrong but I remember shaking my head over something similar a few years ago...

Well, you know, polarized times, hating the enemy and all that. But really, for me it's just his constant parrotting of talking points. Verbatim, really. Straight from Hannity onto these boards. It's pretty incredible.

Are you confusing the McDonald's coffee case with the fat girls? As I recall, two large girls in New York wanted to sue McDonald's for making them fat, but that didn't work. I'm ambivalent on the coffee thing. Of course coffee will be hot, but it should cause third degree burns. Anyway, some old lady got super-rich and McDonald's put labels on their cups. Everyone wins.

Finally, some record labels (I can't provide sources so you'll just have to take my word for it) sue their consumers for putting up official logos on personal fan websites, not recognizing their potential for spreading free, word-of-mouth advertising. If Sony can be so stupid to sue its customers for something like that, then I fully support someone (hypothetically) suing Sony for being made deaf by Sony headphones.

Tit for tat, and all.

[Brauny1280]

This has got to be one of the most idiotic cases I've heard of. The guy just wants attention as does the lawyer the took the case for him. If I was advising him I tell him to do one of the following:

?Move to Vegas and become a Jordan look-a-like.

?Grow hair.

?Stop wearing Jordan footwear.

?Plastic surgery.

?Shut up and stop crying.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

For what it's worth, I also think this case is incredibly stupid. Clearly, this person is just trying to make a buck. $832M of them, in fact.

If it's any consolation, Nike and MJ might countersue and this guy will be super-broke afterwards. Seems like the conservatives among us might enjoy that approach.

[leopard88]

This is why we need tort reform lawsuits like thsi shoudl be laughed out of the court before ever being filed

Amen, Tank. Better yet, we need some sort of pre-trial panel to sit on The Board of Common Sense. If your proposed suit makes the panel laugh, your case is thrown out, not allowed to be tried, and you should have to pay some kind of fine for insulting the intelligence of the nation.

Since I thought of it, I want to chair this board. I'm searching for my gavel and powdered wig as we speak.

Today, class, we will discuss the Motion to Dismiss. If all of the facts plead in the Complaint, if assumed to be true, still are not sufficient to state a legally viable claim, the Complaint can be dismissed well before it ever gets close to trial (or, for that matter, before the discovery process begins). Also, if the trial judge finds the suit to be frivolous, sanctions can be imposed against the Plaintiff and/or the attorney filing the suit.

If that does not occur, the Defendant still has the hammer of the Motion for Summary Judgment. That procedure allows a judge to enter judgment in favor of the Defendant if all undisputed material facts, as uncovered during litigation, do not, when again assumed to be true and construed in the Plaintiff's favor, state a legally viable claim.

The bottom line is that there are already mechanisms in place to address this concern. So a separate review board would add an unnecessary layer to the system.

As for this suit, without reading the actual Complaint filed by the Plaintiff, I cannot see how a viable claim can be made that anyone took any defamatory action toward that particular individual or otherwise harmed him. In fact, if I was a betting man, my guess is that the first pleadings filed by by Nike and Jordan would be . . . Motions to Dismiss.

[VitaminD]

Today, class, we will discuss the Motion to Dismiss.  If all of the facts plead in the Complaint, if assumed to be true, still are not sufficient to state a legally viable claim, the Complaint can be dismissed well before it ever gets close to trial (or, for that matter, before the discovery process begins).  Also, if the trial judge finds the suit to be frivolous, sanctions can be imposed against the Plaintiff and/or the attorney filing the suit.

If that does not occur, the Defendant still has the hammer of the Motion for Summary Judgment.  That procedure allows a judge to enter judgment in favor of the Defendant if all undisputed material facts, as uncovered during litigation, do not, when again assumed to be true and construed in the Plaintiff's favor, state a legally viable claim.

The bottom line is that there are already mechanisms in place to address this concern.  So a separate review board would add an unnecessary layer to the system.

As for this suit, without reading the actual Complaint filed by the Plaintiff, I cannot see how a viable claim can be made that anyone took any defamatory action toward that particular individual or otherwise harmed him.  In fact, if I was a betting man, my guess is that the first pleadings filed by by Nike and Jordan would be . . . Motions to Dismiss.

Aw, but that's no fun! Think about it - we get all the blowhards on daytime TV - Dr. Phil, Judge Judy, Jerry Springer - to don black robes and sit around the person who is attempting to file suit. They rip them to shreds on syndicated TV. Then, R. Lee Ermey comes out and yells in their ear for 10 minutes. I'd watch.

Of course, the show itself could be sued for mental anguish, which would be ironically metaphysical. Or metaphysically ironic. Either way...

As far as the coffee thing goes, that woman deserved ZERO dollars. Coffee is hot. It's served in Styrofoam to keep it hot. If you're dumb enough to put a hot beverage in your lap and it's not in your infant's Sippee-Cup - which means hot liquid may, in fact, scald your crotch - you get what you deserve. People like these proved Charles Darwin right. Now, instead of allowing idiots to voluntarily remove themselves from the breeding pool, we protect them, and at times award them millions of dollars because they're too ing stupid to apply basic common sense and reasoning to everyday situations.

Am I testy about this? You betcha! At my job, I have to practice defensively and make nicey-nice with people whose insurance compensates me for a fraction of what I do, because I could get sued. And it doesn't matter if the suit has no merit, or if it even goes to trial; my name's on the suit, it costs me in malpractice insurance. So I work in a system where people with no medical training tell me what I can and cannot do for a patient seeking my assistance to keep their expenses down, but yet I do things I know I shouldn't have to in an attempt to avoid a potential lawsuit, often times from patients WITHOUT insurance for whom I am working for FREE!

Tort reform would go a long way toward solving the issue. Yeah, it's wonderful that in America, the little guy CAN sue the big companies. But until people learn to temper the zealousness with which they rattle the litigation saber, something must be done to dissuade people from exercising this right indiscriminately. They're hurting the people trying to help them (fewer people going to med school, doctors leaving areas prone to jackpot malpractice suits, fewer doctors willing to help patients or speak off the record or treat patients).

[winters in buffalo]

Innocent untill proven guilty is great.

Tell that to David Hicks, who's been sitting in Guatanemo in Cuba for four years now without any sign of ever going to trial ... yep, your system Rocks!

Not in our country, not subject to our legal system.