Litigation Gone Mad?

[filcee]

Roof fall dancer tenant sues

Thought I'd resurrect this thread for this little gem...

Roof fall dancer tenant sues

Monday, March 26, 2007 - A tenant is suing her landlords after falling through a skylight while dancing on the roof.
Anna Mayers was celebrating her 24th birthday party at the flat she rented with university friends when the near-fatal accident happened.
Although she has recovered from severe head injuries, she is seeking damages from Piyush and Naginbhai Patel, of Hendon, North-West London.
Mrs Mayers, now 29, used a window to get on to the roof of a garage attached to her flat in Islington in February 2002, the High Court in London heard.
She and friends had gone out to dance but she stepped backwards on to the glass skylight, falling through it.
The garage was not part of the property she was renting. The outcome of the hearing could affect the warnings landlords have to give their tenants about dangers in and around their properties.

source

At this rate, I may have to re-write the tenancy agreement for my tenant (if I ever get one):

Para. 1. No activities of any kind are to be carried out by the tenant, or any guests thereof, without specific written consent of the landlord...

 

[ramonmercado]

It does happen. I was at a party where some people were on the roof of the kitchen/bathroom. One of them stepped on the glass ceiling and came crashing through.

Another person got more injuries than the dumb hefty paratrooper. There was a danger that the injured party below might sue, but she didnt in the end.

 

[Min Bannister]

Much as I feel for the guy and the injuries he suffered, I can't help feelingthis case pretty much sums up the subject of this thread..

A MAN who was paralysed when he fell from scaffolding during a prank is suing the firm which put it up.

Ross Campbell broke his back when he plummeted 30 feet from the Dean Bridge four years ago after a night out celebrating a friend's 18th birthday.

He admits he will rue his actions for the rest of his life - but wants the company that put up the scaffolding to accept its share of the blame.

The accident has left him paralysed from the waist-down and he now lives in a specially-constructed house built in his parent's garden in East Lothian.

The 21-year-old claims that Loanhead-based K2 Specialist Services made the scaffolding too accessible and unsteady.

Now his family are appealing for a mystery member of the public who helped Mr Campbell to come forward.

They believe he can help them prove their case when it goes before Edinburgh Sheriff Court next week.

Mr Campbell, who has recently returned to the second year of a media studies course at Queen Margaret University, said: "I shouldn't have been able to get to that scaffolding. There shouldn't have been that access and it should have been safer.

"I regret what's happened but I've had no option but to deal with it."

He added: "I don't think 100 per cent blame can be placed on anyone but I want to know where the share of the blame lies and I believe the company has to take a share of that blame."

The accident happened in March, 2003 as Mr Campbell and three friends were making their way home from a nightclub, following a birthday dinner.

Mr Campbell climbed on to the ledge of the Dean Bridge and attempted to step on to the scaffolding, which was on the Dean Parish Church below, but he lost his balance and plummeted to the ground, breaking his back.

 

[Novena]

Erm...

"I shouldn't have been able to get to that scaffolding. There shouldn't have been that access and it should have been safer"

Mr Campbell climbed on to the ledge of the Dean Bridge and attempted to step on to the scaffolding, which was on the Dean Parish Church below, but he lost his balance and plummeted to the ground, breaking his back.

So in actual fact it wasn't accessible - it was him trying to access it which caused the accident.

He added: "I don't think 100 per cent blame can be placed on anyone..."

Yes it can... :headbutt:

 

[kirmildew]

WOOP WOOP WOOP
There goes my moron radar.
YOU tried climbing into a clearly precarious area, where YOU knew you shouldn't go. YOU were pissed up and royally ruined your life. But it's not 100% your fault.
YES IT IS
That is all.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I always think they should be offered the cash on the condition that they commit themselves to a long programme of Spazz Prevention including not being allowed on the grounds of fecklessness, spoon feeding and not being allowed to watch tv in case they copy what they see. I'd also make them wear garish knitted jumpers with some sort of div emblem, like a boss eyed moon, saying 'Keep Away' when they have to be taken out in public.

Honestly, why do we financially reward idiocy in this country? Is it not enough that we let them on reality television?

 

[Min Bannister]

Hopefully it will just get thrown out of court though the fact that it got there in the first place is worrying enough.

So in actual fact it wasn't accessible - it was him trying to access it which caused the accident.

That's the bit that gets me the most though even if it had been "accessable" anyone who chose to climb on it would still be entirely responsible for their own actions. Words pretty much fail me really..

 

[Xanatico]

For these people they should employ older women to spend all their time with them nagging them, telling them not to do anything dangerous and generally acting like their mom.

 

[rynner2]

Re: Roof fall dancer tenant sues

At this rate, I may have to re-write the tenancy agreement for my tenant (if I ever get one.

Many moons ago, I and a couple of other young men rented a house.

We were amused to see that the tenancy agreement prohibited
"Immoral acts in or upon the property.." :shock:

 

[Mythopoeika]

Well, I'm glad this guy lost his court case:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6238364.stm

It's backfired on him.

$54 m is way too much for a pair of trousers...

 

[Xanatico]

If that guy had been some average joe I would be happy it was dismissed. But seeing as the guy is a judge, I want him disbarred because of him having displayed such amazing lack of perspective.

 

[tastyintestines]

Michigan Woman Claims Starburst Candies Are Dangerously Chewy in Lawsuit

Wednesday, June 27, 2007



MyFoxDetroit.com

Victoria McArthur

Starburst Fruit Chews are exactly as their name would indicate: chewy. But one Michigan woman says the candies are so chewy, they should come with a warning label.

Victoria McArthur, of Romero, Mich., is suing Starbursts' parent company, Mars Inc., for more than $25,000 for "permanent personal injuries" she claims she sustained after biting into one of their yellow candy in 2005.

"I don't know, maybe about 3 chews and it literally locked my jaw … and it just literally pulled my jaw out of joint," she told MyFoxDetroit.com.

• Click here to view a video report from MyFoxDetroit.com.

McArthur's lawyer, Brian Muawad, says the candies caused her to develop a condition known as temporal mandibular joint dysfunction. McArthur says she has had trouble chewing, talking and sleeping since the incident.

Muawad says McArthur offered to negotiate a settlement with Starburst's insurer to pay for her rehabilitation, but the company said no way. A spokesman for Mars refused to comment.

(

McArthur says she just wants to make sure nobody else meets the same end she did when she decided to indulge her sweetooth.

"I don't want to see anybody else have to go through what I have gone through from eating a piece of candy that was supposed to be soft chew," she said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286855,00.html

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Michigan Woman Claims Starburst Candies Are Dangerously Chewy in Lawsuit

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

MyFoxDetroit.com

Victoria McArthur

Starburst Fruit Chews are exactly as their name would indicate: chewy. But one Michigan woman says the candies are so chewy, they should come with a warning label.

Victoria McArthur, of Romero, Mich., is suing Starbursts' parent company, Mars Inc., for more than $25,000 for "permanent personal injuries" she claims she sustained after biting into one of their yellow candy in 2005.

"I don't know, maybe about 3 chews and it literally locked my jaw … and it just literally pulled my jaw out of joint," she told MyFoxDetroit.com.

...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286855,00.html

Doesn't sound very funny to me. Ms McArthur could be suffering a potentially devastating food related injury.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6244616.stm

Japan speed-eater's jaw arthritis
BBC News Online. 27 June 2007

A Japanese speed-eating champion's title could be at risk because he is suffering from an arthritic jaw.

Takeru Kobayashi, 29, had been aiming for a seventh consecutive win at the annual 4 July US hot dog eating competition on Coney Island, Brooklyn.

But this week Kobayashi, dubbed "Tsunami", said he was in so much pain he could barely open his mouth.

The champion, who only weighs 11st 11lb (75kg), last year ate a then record 53.75 frankfurters in 12 minutes.

But Kobayashi's hopes of defending his coveted Yellow Mustard Belt at Nathan's Famous Fourth of July Hot Dog Eating Contest next month now look in doubt.

Earlier this week, he said on his website that his "jaw has abandoned the frontline" during his training for this year's event.

"Already I can't open my jaws more than just a little bit," he wrote. "There's no pain only if I open my mouth about enough for one finger. More than that is painful and I can't open it."

...

Let's hope Mr Kobayashi was fully insured. Perhaps, he could testify in court on Ms MacArthur's behalf?

 

[rynner2]

US Florist sued after red roses lead to divorce
By Graeme Baker
Last Updated: 1:26am BST 15/08/2007

Leroy Greer is a bit of a romantic. He sent a dozen roses and a teddy bear to his girlfriend, with a card reading "Just wanted to say I love you".

Unfortunately the florist sent the receipt to his wife.

Now the luxury car salesman from Missouri City is suing the firm for $1 million for "mental anguish" caused by the mix-up and his resultant divorce.

The affair was laid bare after his wife received a receipt from 1-800-flowers.com.

Bereft of bouquet, she called the company and requested more information, which not only included the damning card message but the girlfriend's name and address. :shock:

She faxed the receipt to her husband at work with her own note: "Be a man! If you got caught red handed then don't lie."

Divorce proceedings followed swiftly.

Mr Greer blamed the florist for his divorce and insisted it had told him no receipt would be sent to his home.

The company said it took "all matters relating to our customers seriously", adding, however, "we are not responsible for an individual's personal conduct".

http://tinyurl.com/33qyc9

 

[escargot]

:lol:

Reminds me of a bloke who tried to sue his kids' school when his wife got pregnant for the umpteenth time.

The school's sports day was on the same day as his vasectomy was scheduled, so he naturally went to that instead, and within the year Junior No. 11 or whatever showed up. That was obviously the school's fault, so he took legal advice.

This is true - I can name all the parties and was a governor at the school concerned at the time.

 

[meowfur]

Well, I'm glad this guy lost his court case:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6238364.stm

It's backfired on him.

$54 m is way too much for a pair of trousers...

It gets worse - he's APPEALING! And it's being allowed! And the appeal has "no new arguments." I'm just waiting for the judge in the appeals court to waste this moron with a contempt charge, and fine him really big bucks. It's outrageous that the dry cleaner's owners have to have their lives so disrupted.

Flaming jackass. Or possibly insane. Or both. Yet he still sits on the bench himself.

http://www.examiner.com/a-881817~Judge_ ... ppeal.html

 

[UsernameHere1]

I'm not so sure that they're idiots as opportunitsts, frankly. Like the old woman that spilled hot McDonald's coffee on herself while driving, then sued because it was hot? If she is so gone mentally she didn't know coffee was served hot, she shouldn't have been behind the wheel to begin with. Of course, she knew it was hot; if it hadn't been served hot, I'm certain she would've complained it was cold. I think, in essence, she had to outright lie in court to win; that, or she went to a "special needs" driving school.

This is a bit old, but you've got the facts of the case a bit wrong. One, she wasn't the driver. Two, the coffee was served at dangerously hot temperatures, far hotter than it could be drunk at and hot enough to cause third degree burns through clothing. Three, McDonald's had received hundreds and hundreds of complaints about the coffee being served at just below boiling temperatures, often due to serious personal injury, and not only had they not taken any action to fix that, they had actively covered up those reports.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

It certainly is old.

However, here's the Wikipedia entry on the case (Ah! Law of 'Tort', that takes me back.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case

...

During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit (82-88 degrees Celsius). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 degrees Celsius), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's.

Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 degree coffee like that McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds (as a reference, the boiling point of water is 212 degrees Fahrenheit). Lowering the temperature to 160 degrees Fahrenheit would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false.[10]) Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that, because those who purchased the coffee typically wanted to drive a distance with the coffee, the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[4]

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burnt by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[4]

McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 degrees constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[11]

...

 

[rynner2]

Gambler lawyer loses all and sues casinos
By Catherine Elsworth in Los Angeles
Last Updated: 2:46am GMT 10/03/2008

A former lawyer who gambled away nearly £500,000 has lodged a £10 million lawsuit against seven casinos, claiming that they had "a duty of care" to spot her compulsive behaviour and intervene.

Arelia Margarita Taveras, 37, once a rising star of the New York legal community earning nearly £250,000 pounds a year, began going to the gambling hub of Atlantic City in neighbouring New Jersey to relax.

Soon, however, she found herself spending days on end at the tables, using disposable wipes to clean her teeth so she would not have to take a break.

"They had a duty of care to me. Nobody in their right mind would gamble for four or five straight days without sleeping," said the former lawyer, who once wrote a guide for women chasing ex-partners for child support.

According to her suit, she would play seven hands of blackjack simultaneously so she could have the entire table to herself, losing money at a rate of £2,500 per hour.

During one stint in June 2005, she survived on nothing but orange juice and chocolate bars fed to her by staff. On the fifth day, Miss Taveras said a dealer told her to go home because she appeared too exhausted to keep track of the cards.

"It's like crack, only gambling is worse because it's mental," said Miss Taveras, who now works in a call centre in Minnesota since spending nearly a year in clinics to treat her addiction.

After losing her apartment, her parents' home, and being left owing nearly £30,000 in tax, Miss Taveras said she contemplated suicide.

She was debarred last June after admitting taking money from her clients' accounts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ino110.xml

 

[escargot]

This is the bit that confuses me:

she would play seven hands of blackjack simultaneously so she could have the entire table to herself,

yet she still didn't win!

losing money at a rate of £2,500 per hour.

 

[misterwibble]

But each of those seven games is individually weighted in favour of the house. Playing seven hands means you are more likely to win overall, but it also increases your chances of losing as well. In fact, playing seven hands simultaneously just means you lose money at seven times the rate you would if you only played one hand.
Casinos are for mugs.

 

[rynner2]

A former lawyer who gambled away nearly £500,000 has lodged a £10 million lawsuit against seven casinos, claiming that they had "a duty of care" to spot her compulsive behaviour and intervene.

So each of these seven casinos was supposed to know she was also playing (and losing) at the other six...?

If it was just one casino, her case might have had a chance.

Seems to me this is just a case of a lawyer in trouble trying to find someone else to blame (and sue)....

PS: Claiming twenty times her losses seems a bit extravagant too.

Even if the casinos have 'a duty of care', it seems clear that she herself was a big contributory factor in her own downfall, so I can't see any jury allowing damages of this amount.

 

[CarlosTheDJ]

But each of those seven games is individually weighted in favour of the house. Playing seven hands means you are more likely to win overall, but it also increases your chances of losing as well. In fact, playing seven hands simultaneously just means you lose money at seven times the rate you would if you only played one hand.
Casinos are for mugs.

Yep I went to one the other week for a mate's birthday, played roulette for ten minutes, lost £10, got bored, sat at the bar drinking really cheap booze until 3am with the wife and a bunch of mates.

So actually, casinos are only bad if you bet.

If you don't, you can get pissed for next to nothing. Brilliant!

 

[OneWingedBird]

maybe the booze is so cheap because people's judgement gets worse when they've had one or two (or more)