Frivolous lawsuits, the U.S. courts are filled with them. people who believe that their own stupidity is grounds to collect. Here is a list of my favorite “get rich quick” lawsuits.

Here is my ridiculous and plain stupid lawsuit list… they are good for a chuckle since most were thrown out, however, a few of these did get judgments in their favor. 

_________________________________

We all remember this one, the burgler who robbed the wrong establishment. After being robbed many times the owners set a trap, they put a sign in the window telling would-be robbers that they may be electrocuted if they attempt to rob the place, some dumb ass did break in to rob the place and was killed by the trap. The family of the robber sues the store owner for trying to protect THEIR OWN property against robbers. The store payed the family 75k for being robbed. WTF?

In 1997, Larry Harris of Illinois broke into a bar owned by Jessie Ingram. Ingram, the victim of several break-ins, had recently set a trap around his windows to deter potential burglars. Harris, 37, who was under the influence of both alcohol and drugs, must have missed the warning sign prominently displayed in the window. He set off the trap as he entered the window, electrocuting himself. The police refused to file murder charges. Harris’s family saw it differently, however, and filed a civil suit against Ingram. A jury originally awarded the Harris family $150,000. Later, the award was reduced to $75,000 when it was decided Harris should share at least half of the blame.

_________________________________________________

Hey, can I simply sue myself for my problems and ask the state to pay since I really can’t afford it! Seems I can. So how much can I sue myself for… hmmm, 5 million sounds cool.

In 1995, Robert Lee Brock, a Virginia prison inmate, decided to take a new approach to the legal system. After filing a number of unsuccessful lawsuits against the prison system, Brock sued himself. He claimed his civil rights and religious beliefs were violated when he allowed himself to get drunk. After all, it was inebriation that created his cycle of committing crimes and being incarcerated. He demanded $5 million from himself. However, since he didn’t earn an income behind bars, he felt the state should pay. Needless to say, the case was thrown out.

__________________________________________________

It seems that the automaker may in fact be responsible for a woman getting very drunk, driving very drunk (almost 2x the legal dui limit). Driving her car into a lake while drunk and drowning because she could not undo her seatbelt wasted, under water. Yep, it seems Honda is the culprit here, NOT the woman driving drunk, NOT the state for having seat belt laws to begin with. Now it does surprise me that these people did not go after the state for the seat belt law, had the law not been in place, she would not have had a seat belt on and would have flown out the windshield to begin with… having never drowened! WTF.

Amazingly, a jury found that Honda was 75% responsible by not anticipating that a drunk driver sitting under water at the bottom of a lake needs an “auto” release button that they can operate while intoxicated… maybe something with flashing lights.

In 1992, 23-year old Karen Norman accidentally backed her car into Galveston Bay after a night of drinking. Norman couldn’t operate her seat belt and drowned. Her passenger managed to disengage herself and make it to shore. Norman ’s parents sued Honda for making a seat belt their drunken daughter (her blood alcohol level was .17 – nearly twice the legal limit) couldn’t open underwater. A jury found Honda seventy-five percent responsible for Karen’s death and awarded the Norman family $65 million. An appeals court threw out the case.

______________________________________________________

The truth in advertisement, this man found that beer companies lied to him in the ads that displayed social drinking and being able to pick up girls easier when drunk… also, drinking beer made him feel a bit sick, instead of simply not drinking, he sued.

In 1991, Richard Harris sued Anheiser-Busch for $10,000 for false advertising. Harris (no relation to the above-mentioned burglar) claimed to suffer from emotional distress in addition to mental and physical injury. Why? Because when he drank beer, he didn’t have any luck with the ladies, as promised in the TV ads. Harris also didn’t like that he got sick sometimes after he drank. The case was thrown out of court.

__________________________________________________________

What is illiteracy worth in Ohio? about 8 million!

In September 1988, two Akron, Ohio-based carpet layers named Gordon Falker and Gregory Roach were severely burned when a three and a half gallon container of carpet adhesive ignited when the hot water heater it was sitting next to kicked on. Both men felt the warning label on the back of the can was insufficient. Words like “flammable” and “keep away from heat” didn’t prepare them for the explosion. They filed suit against the adhesive manufacturers, Para-Chem. A jury obviously agreed since the men were awarded $8 million for their troubles.

_____________________________________
The case of my job didn’t pay me enough so I was forced into armed robbery tomake ends meet, rather than simply finding a better job like the rest of… what is it worth? 300k from the employer and 10 years prison from the state for the robbery confession. Well, he’ll have plenty of money to buy candy bars in prison now.

In 2003, Richard Schick sued his former employer, the Illinois Department of Public Aid. Schick sought $5 million plus $166,700 in back pay for sexual and disability discrimination. In fact, Shick was so stressed by this discrimination that he robbed a convenience store with a shotgun. A jury felt his pain and awarded him the money he was seeking. The decision was then reversed. Unfortunately, the $303,830 he was still awarded isn’t doing him much good during the ten years he’s serving for armed robbery.

_____________________________________

Ohhh, and we really can’t forget this gem. Your honor, The girl at the strip club I went to was so hot that I strained my neck trying to get a better look at her giant fake boobs. I now have pain in my neck. It’s not my fault for paying women with giant fake boobs to sit on me sticking the silicone watermelons in my face… No, its the clubs fault for hiring strippers with giant melons to begin with!

In 1996, Florida physical therapist Paul Shimkonis sued his local nudie bar claiming whiplash from a lap dancer’s large breasts. Shimkonis felt he suffered physical harm and mental anguish from the breasts, which he claimed felt like “cement blocks” hitting him. Shimkonis sought justice in the amount of $15,000, which was denied.

______________________________

This is another great one for the dumb ass litigation archive.

Can’t I just sue people for not listining to my opinions and ramblings and having a point of view that contradicts mine… seems you can if you are a Dartmouth college professor,. This fool sued students for having opinions of their own that contradicted hers! Ahhh, Say What? Independent thought in college classes is cause for a lawsuit? But, wait, isn’t that what learning is about?

Independent thought is not allowed im my class under penalty of silly litigation and wasted time!

A Dartmouth College professor made headlines when she threatened to sue seven of her former students for harassment after they disagreed with her in class, saying that their “anti-intellectualism” in asking questions and contradicting her opinions violated her civil rights.

Priya Venkatesan, also a 1990 Dartmouth alumna who graduated with advanced degrees in genetics and comparative literature, taught freshman English at the college. She has stated that certain students were very unresponsive to “French narrative theory,” thus resulting in hostile working conditions. Also preparing lawsuits against her superiors at Dartmouth for not taking her allegations seriously, she has publicly stated that she is also writing a book where she will “name names.” She alleges that she voluntarily left the job last month because she was subjected to “inappropriate and unprofessional behavior” at the college after management disregarded her ridiculous claims.

The students first learned that they were being named in this ridiculous lawsuit via a series of angry, passive-aggressive e-mails sent by Venkatesan, one of which read (sic): “I tried to send an e-mail through my server but got undelivered messages. I regret to inform you that I am pursuing a lawsuit in which I am accusing some of you (who shall go unmentioned in this e-mail) of violating Title VII of anti-federal discrimination laws. The feeling that I am getting from the outside world is that Dartmouth is considered a bigoted place, so this may not be news and I may be successful in this lawsuit. I am also writing a book detailing my experiences as your instructor, which will ‘name names,’ so to speak. I have all of your evaluation and these will be reproduced in the book. Have a nice day.”

Upon realizing that she cannot actually sue her students for employment discrimination, Venkatesan decided to simply name them in a list of grievances in the suit against Dartmouth. The students named in the lawsuit have not been shy about coming forward to share their experiences having had Venkatesan as a professor. These accounts included an incident where Venkatesan cancelled class for a week after the class gave a round of applause to a student who openly disagreed with Venkatesan’s views on post-modernism. Venkatesan claims that the incident caused her “emotional distress.” Seriously? Applause in class, distressing? Was it truly that awful that students in class at an Ivy League school were paying attention and were genuinely interested in the topic at hand? Venkatesan claims she was horrified at the students’ “crime” of intolerance of ideas. Wow, what a horrible thing to have your students care enough to argue.

Being outsmarted by a room full of eighteen-year-olds must be pretty humiliating.

_______________________________
The mother of a Helen Tyson Middle School sixthgrader has sued Principal Curtis Spann and teacher Virginia Hargrove for their decision not to grant her son full credit for reading two Harry Potter books.

Yep, she did

_______________________________

This here is priceless… Judge Roy Pearson is seeking $54 million for a ruined pair of pants

By now, you probably know that Judge Roy Pearson is asking for $54 million in damages because a dry cleaner lost a pair of pants that he took in for alterations. The $54 million includes $500,000 in attorney’s fees, which is a lot since Pearson is representing himself. It’s a ridiculous case, and I half expected Pearson to burst out laughing as he gave testimony.

After questioning eight witnesses, Pearson spent two hours telling his own story, but as he came to the part about when Soo Chung finally told him she had found the missing pants, the tale of the $10.50 alteration that went awry proved to be too much.

“These are not my pants,” Pearson recalled telling Chung when she handed him a pair of gray pants with cuffs. “I have in my adult life, with one exception, never worn pants with cuffs.”

“And she said, ‘These are your pants.’ ”

Pearson paused. He struggled to breathe deeply. He could not continue. Pearson blurted a request for a break, stood up, turned around and walked out of the courtroom, tears dripping from his full and reddened eyes.

When he returned, he called that moment when Chung offered him the wrong pants “a Twilight Zone experience,” and again, he welled up and had to halt the proceedings. Pearson wanted to submit the remainder of his testimony in writing, but Judge Bartnoff wouldn’t hear of it.

That’s not the only amusing testimony that the case has produced. During the trial, Pearson made a couple of hilarious assertions:

In cross-examination, defendants’ attorney Christopher Manning asked Mr. Pearson whether it was reasonable for someone to sue a merchant for millions of dollars for not receiving the satisfaction guaranteed by a sign.

“Without regard to the law, as a human being, as a person, don’t you think it makes sense to interpret merchant signage in a reasonable way?” Mr. Manning said.

Mr. Pearson, who is representing himself, eventually responded, “No.”

Judge Judith Bartnoff spent hours delving into the puzzle of Roy Pearson. Sometimes incredulous, sometimes gently joshing, she lured Pearson away from long monologues about the minutiae of D.C. consumer protection law, but she also let him spell out his odd notions of law. She gave him all the rope he needed.

If a customer demands $1,000 for a lost garment, Bartnoff said, and the merchant truly believes the customer is lying, does a “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign require the shop owner to hand over a check?

“Yes,” Pearson said. The courtroom broke into laughter.

It doesn’t look like Pearson is going to win his lawsuit. But he’s likely earned a place in American folklore, along with that woman who said she found a finger in a bowl of chili from a fast food restaurant and that guy who tried to sue because a dog bit him after he shot it with a pellet gun.

__________________________________

Wait, if you let the wild animals actually live in the wild, I will sue.

This woman had a problem with an untamed goose. Yep, if birds do not follow human law, someone should be responsible.

This woman had a wild goose miffed at her. So who is responsible for wild birds? the county. Yep a woman with a pre-existing back condition got in a scuffle with a 20 lb. goose. since she can’t sue the goose (trust me she would if she thought he had any money) she sues the county for allowing geese in the park… like they can actually stop geese flying overhead from landing in the pond.

Ms. Griffin’s lawsuit claims that Palm Beach County should have removed the bird from Okeeheelee Park long before the incident occurred.

The lawsuit states that the goose had a “history of being territorial (and) demonstrated aggressive behavior” to park patrons and workers, the suit says. Further, the lawsuit cites that no warning signs were posted warning the park visitors to watch out for these fowl tempered birds.

Video taken after the incident shows the bird going after other park patrons.

The county, which denies the charges, said in its response that it had no duty to warn patrons of the “obvious” conditions at the park. The county did pay a trapper $760 to remove approximately 22 geese that had become unruly.

Griffin, a 30-year-old medical assistant, said she tussled with the goose when her son ventured to the park’s pond to look at the fish. There the goose unexpectedly lunged at her child, who had a shunt lodged in his chest for administering medicines.

Griffin jumped in between and told her son to run away. The bird then turned on her. She said she put her foot up to stop the goose, but it bit her foot. Shaken lose, it then lunged again. She said she fell and hurt her back. But she couldn’t stay down.

“He was squawking at me and he looked like he was coming at me again,” she said. She said park workers later told her that the bird was an ongoing problem.

The case resembles a lawsuit filed by two New York retirees from the borough of Brooklyn against the Burt Reynolds ranch in Jupiter. The suit claimed the woman broke some vertebrae in 1985 after “being viciously attacked by Burt’s goose.” Her husband filed an additional suit claiming lack of consortium.

A jury ruled against them and their $200,000 claim. Griffin, who acknowledges a preexisting back condition, seeks more than $15,000.

_____________________________________

Hooters seems to believe they own the rights to all slutty attire…

Hooters Restaurants has made millions touting waitresses in skimpy shorts and T-shirts, but to borrow from the company’s own slogan, it apparently doesn’t have exclusive rights to the “delightfully tacky, yet unrefined” look.

At least according to a U.S. District Court judge in Orlando that ruled Ker’s WingHouse, a Largo, Florida based sports bar chain, did not misappropriate Hooters’ dress and store design by adopting similar concepts.

In its lawsuit filed against WingHouse last year, Hooters argued that WingHouse had copied too many elements from Hooters and was in violation of the state’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Hooters cited in its complaint that WingHouse girls wear skimpy outfits very similar to the Hooters’ girls and that WingHouse had adopted a very similar motif to Hooters with lights strung around its restaurants and wooden wall paneling.

Atlanta-based Hooters of America argued that WingHouse is so similar to Hooters that customers could get the two mixed up or might assume the companies are affiliated.

Hooters sought to prevent WingHouse from infringing on Hooters’ trade dress, and it asked the court to award it about $4 million in lost profits.

No dice said U.S. District Judge Anne Conway, who threw out Hooters’ claims before the case went to the jury.

Conway found that “no reasonable juror” could confuse WingHouse girls, who are dressed in all-black shorts and tops, with Hooters girls, who wear orange shorts and white tops.

Source: Tampa Tribune, “Hooters’ Look Isn’t Exclusive, Judge Rules,” December 3, 2004 .

__________________________________________

Do NOT feed the birds, your neighbors disklike it

They say that birds of a feather flock together. That may be true, but at least a Florida judge has pooh-poohed a man’s attempt to hold his bird-friendly neighbors responsible for excessive droppings in his yard.

After years of chasing birds out of his fruit garden and scraping droppings off his boat, Edward Renna filed a bird brain small claims lawsuit against his neighbors, Marian and Chuck Butler, who reportedly feed neighborhood birds with 40 pounds of seeds each week.

Renna, a contractor, asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the Butlers from feeding the birds. Oh, by the way, he also sought $5,000 in damages to his fruit trees, boat and dock, as well as the mental anguish he purportedly suffered scooping poop.

While Hernando County Judge Peyton Hyslop did acknowledge that the Butlers’ ample bird feedings likely contributed to Renna’s poop problem, he said Renna did not prove that the Butlers were the sole source of the problem.

Hyslop declined to award damages and ordered each side to pay its own court costs.

Source: Court TV, “Man sues neighbors for feeding birds

________________________________________

WOW, I wonder how much of a bad customer you would need to be to have a cook or waiter throw a condom in your soup.  No way anything like this is accedental, but worth emotional distress… hell no… just a small tip in my opinion.

Four women have sued an Irvine restaurant after one of them claims she found a condom in her clam chowder when dining there last year.

One of the women, a Ms. Laila Sultan, said she was eating at McCormick & Schmick’s Seafood Restaurant when she bit into something rubbery.

When she spit it out, Sultan said she discovered it was an unwrapped, rolled-up condom.

She said she spent the next 15 minutes in a restroom vomiting and has since seen a psychiatrist and taken medication for depression and anxiety.

Sultan and her three dining companions, who were all having the clam chowder that day, filed a lawsuit claiming negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On February 26, 2002, Sultan says she and her companions ordered drinks, appetizers and soup, but sent the soup back because it was lukewarm. When she got it back she found the condom.

At the forthcoming trial, the restaurant chain will argue that “there is absolutely no evidence to suggest the restaurant was the source of the condom, or any employee of the restaurant,” said Patrick Stark, the attorney for McCormick & Schmick’s, according to The Los Angeles Times.

“Either it came from (the four women) or it was thrown in as a practical joke by another patron at the restaurant.”

The women said the condom was seized by the restaurant manager and not returned to them.

The women’s lawsuit says the condom was “a possibly used one,” but Stark told The Times that, because it was rolled up, “it was clearly unused.”

Source: AP, Los Angeles Times, “Condom-In-Soup Case Is Resolved in Calif.” Jan. 13, 2004 .

______________________________

And now, who is responsible for bad dates? and idiotic spending on said dates… well in the U.S. someone must answer.

A man named Joe spent more than $330,000 over the past two years trying to woo Mary Toon, a woman he thought would become his bride.

His fourth bride.

She didn’t.

And now he wants his money back.

Do I smell a lawsuit brewing? You betcha.

Bisignano has filed a lawsuit seeking to have Ms. Toon fork over the $129,000 in gifts he gave her plus pay him back the $201,259 in loans and purchases he made for her.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, fraud, breach of contract and “unjust enrichment” if Toon is allowed to keep the fruits of their courtship.

Some of the gifts included a fur coat, a designer wedding dress, artwork, furniture and a 9-plus-carat diamond ring. In addition, Bisignano alleges he loaned Toon $165,000 for an investment and the purchase of a truck.

Getting herself into legal hot water isn’t anything new to Ms. Toon. According to court records, Toon would have lost a substantial amount of her own alimony if she and Bisignano had married.

A 1999 divorce decree says cardiac surgeon Richard Toon is required to pay his ex-wife an amount equal to 40 percent of his gross income. The payments, estimated at approximately $11,666 a month in late 1999, would terminate if Mary Toon remarries or if either party dies (either Toon, that is).

Both Toons are scheduled to be in court later this month as part of a long-standing legal battle. The court fights have included repeated allegations of various unpaid debts and undisclosed income.

_________________________________________

Looks like the city of Chicago has about half a million dollars less after it agreed to a tentative settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of people arrested or ticketed over the past four years for panhandling. Say what?

That’s right, people arrested or ticketed in Chicago for panhandling may have hit the jackpot in the proposed settlement that will cost the city a cool $500,000.

Well, in reality, the panhandlers will do OK while the lawyers bringing the lawsuit will pocket the majority of the loot. Under the settlement terms, panhandlers who were actually arrested can file a claim for $400 while the rest of the class, those who were merely ticketed, can receive up to fifty bucks.

In total, the panhandlers will receive about $99,000 and $375,000 will go to their attorneys.

The preliminary settlement is part of a constitutional battle and debate over Chicago’s panhandling ordinance that was enacted in 1991. Mark Weinberg, the attorney who represented the plaintiffs in the case, filed a lawsuit in 2001 on behalf of three clients and later certified it as a class action. The next year, the ordinance was repealed.

Once the deal is finalized, people will have three months to file a claim, and checks will be cut in April, Weinberg said.

Sources: ABC7Chicago.com, “City agrees to pay panhandlers to settle lawsuit,” November 9, 2003.

_________________________________

DENVER (AP) - Bob Donchez, known as “Bob the Beerman,” was the first licensed vendor at Coors Field in Denver. He trademarked his character in 1993.

But it looks like Bob is going to have to cry in his own beer after a federal judge in Denver ruled that his “Beerman” name isn’t protected.

Bob sued Coors about four years ago over the brewer’s “Beerman” ad campaign. But the judge in the case ruled the term beerman is generic and doesn’t infringe on the rights of Bob the Beerman.

Attorneys for the Bob say they’ll likely file an appeal.

Source: AP, “Coors, Vendor Can Both Use Beerman,” October 1, 2003.

_________________________________________

PITTSBURGH — A western Pennsylvania couple has sued Google Inc., saying pictures of their home that appear on the Web site’s “Street View” feature violated their privacy, devalued their property and caused them mental suffering.

Aaron and Christine Boring bought the home in Franklin Park, a Pittsburgh suburb, in October 2006 for a “considerable sum of money,” according to their 10-page lawsuit filed Wednesday in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court.

“A major component of their purchase decision was a desire for privacy,” the lawsuit said.

The suit targets the Mountain View, California, company over images on its Web site, which allows users to find street-level photos by clicking on a map. To gather the photos, Google uses vehicles with mounted digital cameras to take pictures up and down the streets of major metropolitan areas.

The Borings say the images of their home on the Google site had to be taken from their long driveway, labeled “Private Road,” and that violated their privacy.

“There’s no merit to this action,” Google spokesman Larry Yu said. “It is unfortunate litigation was chosen to address the concern because we have visible tools, such as a YouTube video, to help people learn about imagery removal and an easy-to-use process to facilitate image removal.”

He said Google has links on the Web site that let property owners request that such images be removed if they cite a good reason and can confirm they own the property depicted.

“We absolutely respect that people may not be comfortable with some of the imagery on the site,” Yu said. “We actually make it pretty easy for people to submit a request to us to remove the imagery.”

Yu also said that if the Borings made such a request to Google, especially arguing that the images show a view from their private driveway, he is confident that the image would be removed.

The couple’s attorney, Dennis Moskal, said that is not the point. He said the Borings’ privacy was invaded when the Google vehicle allegedly drove onto their property. Removing the image does not undo that damage — nor will it deter the company from doing the same thing in the future, he said.

“Isn’t litigation the only way to change a big business’ conduct with the public?” Moskal said. “What happened to their accountability?”

Google, however, is not the only Web site with a photo of the Borings’ property.

The Allegheny County real estate Web site has a photo, plus a detailed description of the home and the couple’s name. The site contains similar information, including pictures, of nearly every property in the county. Moskal said the county’s image appeared to have been taken from a public street. “The county’s not trespassing,” Moskal said.

_________________________________

Here’s a great one, do something incredibly stupid, that has almost certain risk of broken bones, and when you get really badly hurt on your dirt bike while doing insane jumps that most people have the sence to never even try… sue the bike builder. It is sad that a man is paralyzed, but those are the risks when doing crazy stunts for that adrenalin rush. I know many people who do the same, break bones ritually, and yes, 1 or 2 have died over it… but that is the price they pay for doing what they want on  a dirt bike. Equipment is not infallible nor can guarantee safety.

A New Lenox man who was paralyzed from the waist down after losing control of his motorcycle while jumping dirt mounds six years ago was awarded $24 million Monday by a Cook County Circuit Court jury.

Anthony O’Brien, 28, alleged during the trial that the carburetor on his 1996 YZ125 Yamaha stuck open as he approached his jump, causing the motorcycle to accelerate, said his attorney, Martin Healy.

O’Brien, who already had made about 10 jumps that day on his friend’s farm outside Manhattan in Will County, landed on his buttocks, fracturing his spine, Healy said.

“We believe that he certainly was capable of doing what he was doing that day,” Healy said. “Yamaha says he gave too much throttle as he was going up the ramp.”

The jury delivered its verdict against Yamaha Motor Corp. U.S.A. and its parent company, Yamaha Motor Co. of Japan. The jury deliberated about five hours Monday after the monthlong trial, Healy said. An attorney for Yamaha declined to comment on the verdict Monday and would not say whether the company would appeal.

O’Brien had owned a smaller motorcycle and rode regularly as a boy and into his early teens. He later rode all-terrain vehicles and other friends’ motorcycles until he bought the Yamaha two weeks before the accident.

Attorneys for Yamaha attacked his riding experience, but Healy said O’Brien had maintained his skill level.

A week before the accident, O’Brien noticed that the motorcycle would hesitate for a few seconds in returning to idle after he released the throttle, Healy said. The hesitation did not occur consistently, and O’Brien and his friends who examined the motorcycle could not determine the cause of the problem.

During the trial, Healy said he presented evidence that showed the chrome plating on the carburetor slide had started to peel, causing the slide to stick open and inject fuel into the engine after the throttle was released.

Yamaha attorneys argued that peeling chrome would not impair the function of the motorcycle, Healy said. However, Healy said he introduced evidence that showed such peeling was a violation of Japanese industrial standards.

On the day of the accident, O’Brien and three friends were jumping a pair of dirt mounds 3 to 4 feet high and about 12 feet apart. When O’Brien crashed, he launched off one mound and landed a few feet past the second one, Healy said.

Chicago Tribune

________________________