Frivilious Lawsuits:12-5-03 Woman trampled unconcious for DVD player deal at Wal-Mart has done stunt before!

[dmcowen674]

Post here with other insane Lawsuits you know of making a laughing stock out of the U.S. Judicial system and the U.S. as a whole:

Frivilious Lawsuits:

12-5-2003 'Trampled' Wal-Mart Shopper Has History Of Injury Claims

An investigation by WKMG-Local 6 reveals Vanlester has filed 16 previous claims of injuries at Wal-Mart stores and other places she has shopped or worked, according to Wal-Mart, court files and state records. Her sister, who accompanied her Friday on the visit to Wal-Mart, has also filed a prior injury claim against Wal-Mart, with Vanlester as her witness, a company spokeswoman said yesterday.

Vanlester has for years complained of head, back, neck, leg or arm pain caused by slipping and falling, objects falling on her and other accidents, according to medical records in a public court file examined by WKMG-Local 6. In fact, her sister says she was wearing a neck brace at the time of last Friday's incident because of injuries from a years-old car accident.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This woman has claims dating back to 1987. This woman should be in JAIL!!!


11-8-2003 Illegal Immigrant Workers Sue Wal-Mart

Nine illegal immigrants who worked as janitors at Wal-Mart until they were arrested during federal raids last month have sued the company, accusing it of discrimination.

The nine say they were paid lower wages and offered fewer benefit because they are Mexicans, and they accuse Wal-Mart and its cleaning contractors of failing to pay for overtime, withhold taxes or make required workers' compensation contributions.

According to the lawsuit, Wal-Mart employed cleaning contractors "with full knowledge" that they paid illegal immigrants less than legal workers.

"Wal-Mart must have known about these violations," the immigrant's lawyer, Gilberto Garcia, told The New York Times. "If these people are going to work at Wal-Marts, then Wal-Mart and its contractors should abide by the labor laws."

10-22-2003 Parents Sue Sony & Walmart Over Grand Theft Auto Game Linked to Shooting

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. - A $246 million lawsuit was filed against the designer, marketer and a retailer of the video game series "Grand Theft Auto" by the families of two people shot by teenagers apparently inspired by the game.

The boys told investigators they got the rifles from a locked room in their home and decided to randomly shoot at tractor-trailer rigs, just like in the video game "Grand Theft Auto III."

In a suit filed Monday in Cocke County Circuit Court on behalf of the victims, Miami lawyer Jack Thompson and local lawyer Richard Talley alleged the game "inspires and trains players to shoot at vehicles and persons."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we go again, let's not blame the kids, let's not blame the parents, let's blame it on the Video game and let's blame it on Guns. The Game and the Guns pulled the trigger.

10-19-2003 Guy sues Pat Sajak, Sony & Wheel of Fortune for hugging him.

I don't have a link for this yet but the guy with his attorney were interviewed on NBC this morning. The guy says that when he won his $18,000 and Pat came over and hugged him so hard that he incapacitated for life with chronic Back problems since and sueing for Millions.

The now Infamous McDonalds Hot Coffee Lawsuit - I'm surprised we all don't have to endure being served cold Coffee.

others....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit 11-29-2003 : Now here is a Lawsuit not so Frivilous:

Welcome to Wal-Mart, how can I help you? Would like a DVD player with the footprints on your back?

11-29-2003 Woman Trampled Unconscious While Shopping At Wal-Mart

Patricia VanLester had her eye on a $29 DVD player, but when the siren blared at 6 a.m. Friday announcing the start to the post-Thanksgiving sale, the 41-year-old was knocked to the ground by the frenzy of shoppers behind her.

"She got pushed down, and they walked over her like a herd of elephants," said VanLester's sister, Linda Ellzey. "I told them, `Stop stepping on my sister! She's on the ground!'"

Ellzey said some shoppers tried to help VanLester, and one employee helped Ellzey reach her sister, but most people just continued their rush for deals.

"All they cared about was a stupid DVD player," she said Saturday.

Paramedics called to the store found VanLester unconscious on top of a DVD player, surrounded by shoppers seemingly oblivious to her,

"She's all black and blue," Ellzey said. "Patty doesn't remember anything. She still can't believe it all happened."

Ellzey said Wal-Mart officials called later Friday to ask about her sister, and the store apologized and offered to put a DVD player on hold for her.

Wal-Mart Stores spokeswoman Karen Burk said she had never heard of a such a melee during a sale.

"We are very disappointed this happened," Burk said. "We want her to come back as a shopper."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh she'll be back as a shopper alright, spending millions of Wal-Marts money 😉

 

[CaptnKirk]

I think we should all sue them for a display of more letters from Vanna White.
We want to see more of her T's and A's !

 

[PatboyX]

those other fast food lawsuits seem rather stupid as well.

 

[her209]

i bet wouldn't mind vanna white hugging him that hard.

 

[Miramonti]

and how tall is Pat, about 5'2? 😕

 

[Zebo]

Discusting.

Looser pays would fix all this. No lawyer in his right mind would bring such a suit if it were to come out of his pocketbook. Half the judges would be unemployed too.

 

[CanOWorms]

Actually, if you read the details about the McDonald's coffee lawsuit it doesn't sound so ridiculous.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Actually, if you read the details about the McDonald's coffee lawsuit it doesn't sound so ridiculous.

Actually - yes it does. Whoever doesn't know coffee is hot yet still puts themselves in a position to do as she did, does so at their own risk. Coffee is hot wether it is 125degrees or 175(or whatever the temps were in her case).

She's dumb - period.

CkG

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Actually, if you read the details about the McDonald's coffee lawsuit it doesn't sound so ridiculous.

Actually - yes it does. Whoever doesn't know coffee is hot yet still puts themselves in a position to do as she did, does so at their own risk. Coffee is hot wether it is 125degrees or 175(or whatever the temps were in her case).

She's dumb - period.

CkG

You have no idea what your talking about. The 73 year-old woman suffered major trama. McDonalds knew their coffee was too hot and they ignored the problem.

Here's some facts.

Some more.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Actually, if you read the details about the McDonald's coffee lawsuit it doesn't sound so ridiculous.

Actually - yes it does. Whoever doesn't know coffee is hot yet still puts themselves in a position to do as she did, does so at their own risk. Coffee is hot wether it is 125degrees or 175(or whatever the temps were in her case).

She's dumb - period.

CkG

You have no idea what your talking about. The 73 year-old woman suffered major trama. McDonalds knew their coffee was too hot and they ignored the problem.

Here's some facts.

Yes I do know what I'm talking about. The woman was stupid - period. SHE spilled the coffee not McDonalds. What would you say if they served their coffee just a tad cooler but she still spilled it on herself - which even at "average" temps could cause serious burns. SHE spilled it.
The case was ridiculous. End of discussion.

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Actually, if you read the details about the McDonald's coffee lawsuit it doesn't sound so ridiculous.

Actually - yes it does. Whoever doesn't know coffee is hot yet still puts themselves in a position to do as she did, does so at their own risk. Coffee is hot wether it is 125degrees or 175(or whatever the temps were in her case).

She's dumb - period.

CkG

You have no idea what your talking about. The 73 year-old woman suffered major trama. McDonalds knew their coffee was too hot and they ignored the problem.

Here's some facts.

Yes I do know what I'm talking about. The woman was stupid - period. SHE spilled the coffee not McDonalds. What would you say if they served their coffee just a tad cooler but she still spilled it on herself - which even at "average" temps could cause serious burns. SHE spilled it.
The case was ridiculous. End of discussion.

CkG

That case has been discussed adnausium because of the fact she won, let's not discuss that particular one anymore.
Although that particular case may be shown in history to be the turning point of the Judicial system in the United States in what certainly appears to be a downward flat spin like an airplane that it is nearly impossible to get out of the spin and will crash.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Actually, if you read the details about the McDonald's coffee lawsuit it doesn't sound so ridiculous.

Actually - yes it does. Whoever doesn't know coffee is hot yet still puts themselves in a position to do as she did, does so at their own risk. Coffee is hot wether it is 125degrees or 175(or whatever the temps were in her case).

She's dumb - period.

CkG

You have no idea what your talking about. The 73 year-old woman suffered major trama. McDonalds knew their coffee was too hot and they ignored the problem.

Here's some facts.

Yes I do know what I'm talking about. The woman was stupid - period. SHE spilled the coffee not McDonalds. What would you say if they served their coffee just a tad cooler but she still spilled it on herself - which even at "average" temps could cause serious burns. SHE spilled it.
The case was ridiculous. End of discussion.

CkG

It's not the end of the discussion 🙁 I remember reading that they were fined several times for serving their coffee way over the maximum temperature. If they were within the limit, then I would be against the case. They broke the law, they paid for it.

 

[Gaard]

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

Who's dumb?


Anymore news on that fast food lawsuit?

 

[Orsorum]

CkG - that is not the end of discussion, and you know it. If you can't argue any further than "she's dumb", then stop arguing period.

 

[her209]

people die in car accidents because they are stupid. its not because the car company make unsafe cars.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: her209
people die in car accidents because they are stupid. its not because the car company make unsafe cars.

But if a car company knows that the airbag deploys with too much force and it breaks someone's neck during a fender bender, then their liable.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
CkG - that is not the end of discussion, and you know it. If you can't argue any further than "she's dumb", then stop arguing period.

Does hot coffee burn - yes. I'm not saying action wasn't warranted - it's just that this lady was responsible for spilling the coffee on herself. The coffee was 20degrees over the AVERAGE, even if it would have been 165deg - she still would have been burned. SHE was responsible for spilling the coffee - PERIOD. Until people start taking personal responsibility for their own actions - these sort of things will keep spinning out of control. Should McDonalds have lowered their temp -sure, but that old woman was still "dumb" and was 100% responsible for spilling her coffee.
Yes it is the end of the discussion because it's been hashed and rehashed here before and some people just can't(won't) see the personal responsibility side of the equation.

Are we going to start selling dull knives at the store so the manufacturer isn't responsible for someone cutting themselves? Think about it.

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Orsorum
CkG - that is not the end of discussion, and you know it. If you can't argue any further than "she's dumb", then stop arguing period.

Does hot coffee burn - yes. I'm not saying action wasn't warranted - it's just that this lady was responsible for spilling the coffee on herself. The coffee was 20degrees over the AVERAGE, even if it would have been 165deg - she still would have been burned. SHE was responsible for spilling the coffee - PERIOD. Until people start taking personal responsibility for their own actions - these sort of things will keep spinning out of control. Should McDonalds have lowered their temp -sure, but that old woman was still "dumb" and was 100% responsible for spilling her coffee.
Yes it is the end of the discussion because it's been hashed and rehashed here before and some people just can't(won't) see the personal responsibility side of the equation.

Are we going to start selling dull knives at the store so the manufacturer isn't responsible for someone cutting themselves? Think about it.

CkG

We disagree on a bunch of issues but in 110% agreement on this one and it is not just on the lady that puts HOT coffee regardless of the tempature between her legs and not expect to get burned.

"Are we going to start selling dull knives at the store so the manufacturer isn't responsible for someone cutting themselves?"

It's already gotten to that point literally, was in the store the other day looking at Chinaware sets as ours is pretty old and beat up and on a nice looking set they specifically said that the knives "need to be sharpened to customer specifications" for use. It didn't say why they make the set needing to be sharpened out of the box but I can guess why. This is so fvcking stupid, 2003 and we're nothing but a bunch of morons and getting dumber everyday.

 

[PainTrain]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Orsorum
CkG - that is not the end of discussion, and you know it. If you can't argue any further than "she's dumb", then stop arguing period.

Does hot coffee burn - yes. I'm not saying action wasn't warranted - it's just that this lady was responsible for spilling the coffee on herself. The coffee was 20degrees over the AVERAGE, even if it would have been 165deg - she still would have been burned. SHE was responsible for spilling the coffee - PERIOD. Until people start taking personal responsibility for their own actions - these sort of things will keep spinning out of control. Should McDonalds have lowered their temp -sure, but that old woman was still "dumb" and was 100% responsible for spilling her coffee.
Yes it is the end of the discussion because it's been hashed and rehashed here before and some people just can't(won't) see the personal responsibility side of the equation.

Are we going to start selling dull knives at the store so the manufacturer isn't responsible for someone cutting themselves? Think about it.

CkG

Holy geez, you've got something fierce against "dumb" people eh? I suppose if the planet were as smart as you, it woudn't accidentally burn itself with hot coffee. But does that imply everyone would substantiate their arguments with name calling or am I just "dumb" for asking? 😛

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: PainTrain

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Orsorum
CkG - that is not the end of discussion, and you know it. If you can't argue any further than "she's dumb", then stop arguing period.

Does hot coffee burn - yes. I'm not saying action wasn't warranted - it's just that this lady was responsible for spilling the coffee on herself. The coffee was 20degrees over the AVERAGE, even if it would have been 165deg - she still would have been burned. SHE was responsible for spilling the coffee - PERIOD. Until people start taking personal responsibility for their own actions - these sort of things will keep spinning out of control. Should McDonalds have lowered their temp -sure, but that old woman was still "dumb" and was 100% responsible for spilling her coffee.
Yes it is the end of the discussion because it's been hashed and rehashed here before and some people just can't(won't) see the personal responsibility side of the equation.

Are we going to start selling dull knives at the store so the manufacturer isn't responsible for someone cutting themselves? Think about it.

CkG

Holy geez, you've got something fierce against "dumb" people eh? I suppose if the planet were as smart as you, it woudn't accidentally burn itself with hot coffee. But does that imply everyone would substantiate their arguments with name calling or am I just "dumb" for asking? 😛

You think it's right that the rest of the world should suffer because of the acts of "dumb" people? Bullsh1t.
What are you the Mother Theresa for the Dumb?

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: her209
people die in car accidents because they are stupid. its not because the car company make unsafe cars.

tell that to the policemen who died when the gas tanks in their unsafe crown victorias exploded. Or the people who died driving on firestone tires.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: her209
people die in car accidents because they are stupid. its not because the car company make unsafe cars.

tell that to the policemen who died when the gas tanks in their unsafe crown victorias exploded. Or the people who died driving on firestone tires.

Those lawsuits aren't frivilous

 

[PainTrain]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: PainTrain

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Orsorum
CkG - that is not the end of discussion, and you know it. If you can't argue any further than "she's dumb", then stop arguing period.

Does hot coffee burn - yes. I'm not saying action wasn't warranted - it's just that this lady was responsible for spilling the coffee on herself. The coffee was 20degrees over the AVERAGE, even if it would have been 165deg - she still would have been burned. SHE was responsible for spilling the coffee - PERIOD. Until people start taking personal responsibility for their own actions - these sort of things will keep spinning out of control. Should McDonalds have lowered their temp -sure, but that old woman was still "dumb" and was 100% responsible for spilling her coffee.
Yes it is the end of the discussion because it's been hashed and rehashed here before and some people just can't(won't) see the personal responsibility side of the equation.

Are we going to start selling dull knives at the store so the manufacturer isn't responsible for someone cutting themselves? Think about it.

CkG

Holy geez, you've got something fierce against "dumb" people eh? I suppose if the planet were as smart as you, it woudn't accidentally burn itself with hot coffee. But does that imply everyone would substantiate their arguments with name calling or am I just "dumb" for asking? 😛

You think it's right that the rest of the world should suffer because of the acts of "dumb" people? Bullsh1t.
What are you the Mother Theresa for the Dumb?

Perhaps I'm just not blinded by an overwhelming sense of insecurity with regard to my intelligence (or lack thereof) like some people in this thread appear to be.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: PainTrain

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: PainTrain

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Orsorum
CkG - that is not the end of discussion, and you know it. If you can't argue any further than "she's dumb", then stop arguing period.

Does hot coffee burn - yes. I'm not saying action wasn't warranted - it's just that this lady was responsible for spilling the coffee on herself. The coffee was 20degrees over the AVERAGE, even if it would have been 165deg - she still would have been burned. SHE was responsible for spilling the coffee - PERIOD. Until people start taking personal responsibility for their own actions - these sort of things will keep spinning out of control. Should McDonalds have lowered their temp -sure, but that old woman was still "dumb" and was 100% responsible for spilling her coffee.
Yes it is the end of the discussion because it's been hashed and rehashed here before and some people just can't(won't) see the personal responsibility side of the equation.

Are we going to start selling dull knives at the store so the manufacturer isn't responsible for someone cutting themselves? Think about it.

CkG

Holy geez, you've got something fierce against "dumb" people eh? I suppose if the planet were as smart as you, it woudn't accidentally burn itself with hot coffee. But does that imply everyone would substantiate their arguments with name calling or am I just "dumb" for asking? 😛

You think it's right that the rest of the world should suffer because of the acts of "dumb" people? Bullsh1t.
What are you the Mother Theresa for the Dumb?

Perhaps I'm just not blinded by an overwhelming sense of insecurity with regard to my intelligence (or lack thereof) like some people in this thread appear to be.

Insecurity? JohnnyJohnjohn is that you? Why you be hiding behind the pain?😉

CkG

 

[yellowperil]

McDonald's case is a close one IMO. Since arguments for McDonald's has been pretty well represented, let me play the other side. If you run a business selling your own products, especially on a mass scale, you have a pretty high duty to disclose to your potential customers any inherent or hidden dangers in it and attempt to fix them, and you are liable for punitive damages if you actually know of them but refuse to do anything. McDonald's did not have to stop selling their coffee at X degrees higher than their competitors, but they did have a duty to disclose any danger of the higher temp. I believe some experts testifying at the trial said the extra temperature exacerbated the injuries and would cause burns much faster than competitors' coffee. Of course experts are just paid to say whatever the side wants them to say...no doubt McD's had their own experts saying the opposite but ultimately the jury believed the other side. Also not discussed is the fact that the McDonald's coffee had a defective lid that came off too easily, and McDonald's knew about this and did not fix it.

So yes, a reasonable person would know that spilling coffee on yourself causes burns, but the issue was about McD's liability. You could argue contributory negligence but was it forseeable to McD's given the defective lid that people would spill coffee on themselves? Pretty clear that it was. And it's also clear McD's had a duty to warn and fix the dangers, yet after numerous complaints they did nothing. So it the light of the circumstances I don't think it was necessarily a 'frivolous' suit.

I can't comment on the Wheel of Fortune one because I haven't looked at it. It would be nice if an actual complaint & response was posted instead of a blurb.