Another story from lawsuit-crazy America

[Rover_Wow]

Some students are suing Hooters over their airline. Yep, just another day in lawsuit crazy America.


Ex-Students Sue Hooters Air Over Plan
CHICAGO (AP) - Three former college students are suing Hooters Air, claiming the startup carrier used their business plan from a class project as the blueprint for launching the airline but never compensated them.

The former Southern Illinois University students said Hooters used their "concept, plan and work product" to start the airline in 2003, but never offered them management jobs or a stake in the company, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday in Cook County Circuit Court.

The men contend they presented a detailed business proposal to a representative from Hooters of America Inc., the airline's parent, who "expressed continuous interest in the project" but ultimately passed on the idea in 1999.

Myrtle Beach, S.C.-based Hooters Air started flying four years later, bearing a strong resemblance to the students' business plan, the lawsuit alleges. The airline now flies to 10 cities.

Mike McNeal, vice president of marketing for Hooters of America Inc. -- which operates the Hooters restaurant chain and also is named as a defendant -- said Wednesday that the Hooters' employee the students claim to have spoken to operates several Chicago-area Hooters restaurants and is not a member of Hooters' corporate management team.

The man is employed by Hooters Management Corp., which is also named in the lawsuit, McNeal said.

"He wouldn't have any knowledge about what our plans were relative to the airline industry," McNeal said. He added that Hooters executives knew nothing about a class project and called the lawsuit "factually inaccurate and nothing more than a publicity stunt."

Sean Peirick, Michael Watts and James Johnson were seeking bachelor degrees in aviation management at SIU in 1997 when they were assigned a project to develop a business plan for a commercial airline, according to their suit.

In 2002, Hooters acquired North Carolina-based Pace Airlines and launched Hooters Air the next year.

The plaintiffs claim Hooters Air today mirrors their original business plan, including the airplane logos and the concept of having scantily clad "Hooters Girls" serve beverages on board.

The men claim Hooters broke an "implied contract" and say they should have received management jobs or a stake in the company. They are seeking unspecified portion of profits from the business.

[Eddie G.]

If they actually did steal the bussiness plan then the guys may actually have good reason to sue.

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

On the list of crazy lawsuits I heard of, that's one of the least crazy.
http://www.vikarsrant.net/BStupidNGrowRich.htm

[Stewie]

What makes this lawsuit deserving of a thread with the word "crazy" in the title? Is it because it indirectly involves breasts?

A group of men claim they brought a proposal to a company about a new business venture. The company passed, then enacted a very similar plan without compensating or involving the men. If the two parties cannotcome to an understanding on the issue, involve the courts. It's a perfectly good reason to sue.

I wish this thread wouldn't be about pointing to examples of frivolous lawsuits and talking about how we need to limit the ability of people to sue businesses and each other. Cause that would be stupid. And we've already done it enough.

[RD!]

I find the fact that Rover_Wow isn't an American insulting.

Thailand has to be filled with interesting illegal activities I don't flood this board with.

[Stewie]

I'd also like to add that based on the single "Hooters" I've been to, the chain does not deserve that name. It should be called "Mediocres".

[Fone Bone]

On the list of crazy lawsuits I heard of, that's one of the least crazy. Agreed. And like Strawberry Jam I find Rover Wow's wording of the idea that Americans are lawsuit crazy insulting. It would be ONE thing if he actually used a good example but this is hardly frivolous.



http://www.vikarsrant.net/BStupidNGrowRich.htm
Any of those would have done. Yikes. I really hope all of those people got to appeal.:eek: :ack:

[Nightflower]

That's not a crazy lawsuit. Crazy is something like if a soccer mom sues because her son got corrupted by an R-rated movie that he shouldn't have been watching anyway.

[Wounded_Dragon]

On the list of crazy lawsuits I heard of, that's one of the least crazy.
http://www.vikarsrant.net/BStupidNGrowRich.htm
Bah! I'm disgusted with that site. Not because of the stories, but because it perpetrates the myth that the McDonald's coffee suit was completely unfounded. In that case, the burn wasn't some minor thing, but a full third-degree burn, requiring hospitialization, skin grafts, whirpool treatment, etc, etc. The temperature she was served at only gave her between two and seven seconds before her skin would melt away.

[Chris Wood]

Can you patent a business plan? Why would Hooter's be obligated to compensate students?

[Fone Bone]

Bah! I'm disgusted with that site. Not because of the stories, but because it perpetrates the myth that the McDonald's coffee suit was completely unfounded. In that case, the burn wasn't some minor thing, but a full third-degree burn, requiring hospitialization, skin grafts, whirpool treatment, etc, etc. The temperature she was served at only gave her between two and seven seconds before her skin would melt away.This is true. I had heard the story about the skin grafts as well and the McDonalds suit wasn't frivolous either. It almost makes you wonder how completely biased those examples are although frankly they leave very little doubt by the people's behavior.:shrug:

[Chris Wood]

Bah! I'm disgusted with that site. Not because of the stories, but because it perpetrates the myth that the McDonald's coffee suit was completely unfounded. In that case, the burn wasn't some minor thing, but a full third-degree burn, requiring hospitialization, skin grafts, whirpool treatment, etc, etc. The temperature she was served at only gave her between two and seven seconds before her skin would melt away.

So she was compelled to sue for millions of dollars?? If that's not frivolous what is? If you spill hot coffee on yourself you may well get burned. That's common sense, isn't it?

[Fone Bone]

So she was compelled to sue for millions of dollars?? If that's not frivolous what is? If you spill hot coffee on yourself you may well get burned. That's common sense, isn't it?Coffee should not be so hot as to require skin grafts. Just sayin'.

[Wounded_Dragon]

So she was compelled to sue for millions of dollars?? If that's not frivolous what is? If you spill hot coffee on yourself you may well get burned. That's common sense, isn't it?
A) The other restaurants in the air served their coffee about 30 degrees cooler, which would've given her around a minute to deal with the coffee and making it unlikely that third degree burns would've happened.

B) She didn't sue for millions. When she started, she wanted 20,000 dollars, for hospital fees and to pay the lawyer to sue to get the money to pay the hospital fees. McDonald's offered 800 bucks. It was the jury who decided that she should get the millions as punitive damages, ie, punish the company.

C) Prior to this case, there were around 700 previous cases of serious burns brought against McDonald's because of their coffee.

D) The judge lowered the award anyway to around 640,000.

E) As a result, the McDonald's that was sued now serves their coffee at the temperature that every other fast food restaurant in that city does.

[Wanted]

If they actually did steal the bussiness plan then the guys may actually have good reason to sue.I agree. This story actually sounds legit.

[SSJPabs]

A) The other restaurants in the air served their coffee about 30 degrees cooler, which would've given her around a minute to deal with the coffee and making it unlikely that third degree burns would've happened.

B) She didn't sue for millions. When she started, she wanted 20,000 dollars, for hospital fees and to pay the lawyer to sue to get the money to pay the hospital fees. McDonald's offered 800 bucks. It was the jury who decided that she should get the millions as punitive damages, ie, punish the company.

C) Prior to this case, there were around 700 previous cases of serious burns brought against McDonald's because of their coffee.

D) The judge lowered the award anyway to around 640,000.

E) As a result, the McDonald's that was sued now serves their coffee at the temperature that every other fast food restaurant in that city does.Thank You! It's good to see someone standing up for actual facts in a case rather than media or anti-litigation propaganda. There are lots of crazy lawsuits, but remember most lawsuits are settled out of court. This definitely doesn't qualify as one.

[Tash]

I find the fact that Rover_Wow isn't an American insulting.

Thailand has to be filled with interesting illegal activities I don't flood this board with.I agree. Someone post an article that makes Thailand look bad.

(I'm debating whether or not to add an ":p", because I really want someone to post one.)

[Chris Wood]

A) The other restaurants in the air served their coffee about 30 degrees cooler, which would've given her around a minute to deal with the coffee and making it unlikely that third degree burns would've happened.

B) She didn't sue for millions. When she started, she wanted 20,000 dollars, for hospital fees and to pay the lawyer to sue to get the money to pay the hospital fees. McDonald's offered 800 bucks. It was the jury who decided that she should get the millions as punitive damages, ie, punish the company.

C) Prior to this case, there were around 700 previous cases of serious burns brought against McDonald's because of their coffee.

D) The judge lowered the award anyway to around 640,000.

E) As a result, the McDonald's that was sued now serves their coffee at the temperature that every other fast food restaurant in that city does.

The point remains though that the plaintiff spilled the coffee on herself. How is the restaurant supposed to prevent this?

[Wounded_Dragon]

The point remains though that the plaintiff spilled the coffee on herself. How is the restaurant supposed to prevent this?
*sigh* She bought coffee, looking for a beverage, not liquid acid to burn her skin off. You do realize third degree burns means melting all the skin off?

McDonald's was warned repeatedly that their coffee was too hot and was dangerous. This was far from being their "first offense."

As for the original punitive damages being high? That was supposed to be what McDonald's takes in for coffee...for *two* days.

How was the restaurant supposed to prevent this? They should've heeded warnings and the other lawsuits and lowered the temperature of their coffee...like EVERY OTHER place in that city.

[BrendaBat]

Hooters has an AIRLINE now!? Holy crap! :ack:

Anyway, if those college students really did present that business plan to Hooters before the airline popped up, then they have every right to sue. Hell, I hope they win and that the jerk who stole their idea gets fired! :D



Origionally posted by Wounded_Dragon
A) The other restaurants in the air served their coffee about 30 degrees cooler, which would've given her around a minute to deal with the coffee and making it unlikely that third degree burns would've happened.

B) She didn't sue for millions. When she started, she wanted 20,000 dollars, for hospital fees and to pay the lawyer to sue to get the money to pay the hospital fees. McDonald's offered 800 bucks. It was the jury who decided that she should get the millions as punitive damages, ie, punish the company.

C) Prior to this case, there were around 700 previous cases of serious burns brought against McDonald's because of their coffee.

D) The judge lowered the award anyway to around 640,000.

E) As a result, the McDonald's that was sued now serves their coffee at the temperature that every other fast food restaurant in that city does.I recently heard about that, too. I guess it just goes to show that even some of the stupid sounding lawsuits have their merits.

[William C. Maune]

Not only did it melt her skin, it melted her clothes and skin together. McDonalds can't stop anyone from spilling their coffee, tea, soda or anything else. However, they can make sure their product doesn't seriously injure their customers. When a customer buys something, they have an expectation that it won't be that dangerous. We also covered this lawsuit in my torts class in law school. Wounded Dragon pretty much covered all the details. One of the biggest factors in this case besides the hotness of the coffee was how McDonalds treated the old lady. Initially she just wanted enough to cover her medical bills, not extra money or anything else, and they blew her off. If they would have just compensated her then there never would have been a big lawsuit.

[Chris Wood]

Not only did it melt her skin, it melted her clothes and skin together. McDonalds can't stop anyone from spilling their coffee, tea, soda or anything else. However, they can make sure their product doesn't seriously injure their customers. When a customer buys something, they have an expectation that it won't be that dangerous. We also covered this lawsuit in my torts class in law school. Wounded Dragon pretty much covered all the details. One of the biggest factors in this case besides the hotness of the coffee was how McDonalds treated the old lady. Initially she just wanted enough to cover her medical bills, not extra money or anything else, and they blew her off. If they would have just compensated her then there never would have been a big lawsuit.

Something does not compute however. If the coffee really was kept at such an absurdly high temperature, then where are the thousands of customers suing for having their vocal cords melted? How could anyone possibly drink it?

And there are lots of dangerous products that will harm consumers if they screw up. Home Depot is full of them. There is no way to ensure consumer safety in all possible situations, especially since consumers do crazy things all the time. I don't think companies should be held accountable unless there is obvious negligence.

[solarflere]

Something does not compute however. If the coffee really was kept at such an absurdly high temperature, then where are the thousands of customers suing for having their vocal cords melted? How could anyone possibly drink it?

And there are lots of dangerous products that will harm consumers if they screw up. Home Depot is full of them. There is no way to ensure consumer safety in all possible situations, especially since consumers do crazy things all the time. I don't think companies should be held accountable unless there is obvious negligence. Well actualy there was negligence. The coffee was several degrees higher than it was suppose to be. That should have been regulated but was not.

[William C. Maune]

And there are lots of dangerous products that will harm consumers if they screw up. Home Depot is full of them. There is no way to ensure consumer safety in all possible situations, especially since consumers do crazy things all the time. I don't think companies should be held accountable unless there is obvious negligence.

If you buy a nail gun at Home Depot and you screw up you have a reasonable expectation that you will get a nail through your foot, or worse. If you buy coffee and you spill it you have a reaonable expectation that you may burn yourself, but not that you will melt your underpants and skin together. You are right, there is no way to ensure consumer safety in every possible situation. However, there are situations that are unnecessarily dangerous to put a consumer in. In the case of coffee, it is a product that has to be served hot and thus there are the potential for burns if a consumer mishandles it. However, it is not necessary to keep the coffee so hot that it causes burns requiring surgery. The negligence here was keeping the coffee much hotter than it needed to be.

[Chris Wood]

[William C. Maune]If you buy a nail gun at Home Depot and you screw up you have a reasonable expectation that you will get a nail through your foot, or worse.

However I wouldn't be surprised if nail gun manufacturers include some sort of disclaimer in the product manuals stating that the company is not liable in the event that the consumer fails to properly heed the safety precautions. Why? Because some moron would probably try to sue if he was using the gun without his glasses and nailed his hand to the wall.

A nail gun is an obvious example though. What about a 2x4? If you turn around suddenly you could easily knock someone's teeth out. And yet it's just a piece of wood, so there should be no reasonable expectation of injury, right?


The negligence here was keeping the coffee much hotter than it needed to be.

If true, then yes, but that doesn't make any sense. How could they make any money if the product was burning the hell out of every customer's throat? Companies usually fall into negligence to save money, not to lose it.

[Wounded_Dragon]

If true, then yes, but that doesn't make any sense. How could they make any money if the product was burning the hell out of every customer's throat? Companies usually fall into negligence to save money, not to lose it.
So the company is always right?

[Teo]

However I wouldn't be surprised if nail gun manufacturers include some sort of disclaimer in the product manuals stating that the company is not liable in the event that the consumer fails to properly heed the safety precautions. Why? Because some moron would probably try to sue if he was using the gun without his glasses and nailed his hand to the wall.

A nail gun is an obvious example though. What about a 2x4? If you turn around suddenly you could easily knock someone's teeth out. And yet it's just a piece of wood, so there should be no reasonable expectation of injury, right?McDonald's does print a warning now and they have turned down their coffee. I assume that every warning label I've read, especially the idiotic ones, are the result of a lawsuit. And hopefully the legal system maintains some sembalance of common sense, because there's no way a warning for every misuse of an item can be documented and warned. There are qualitative differences between the perils of wood and a nail gun. If a 2x4 does end up lodged in your brain, it's a freak accident. With a nail gun, it's a much more relevant and likely threat. One can't honestly make that comparisson anymore than they could say that a vallet driver is in the same imminent peril that a dare-devil car driver. They both could die in a firey car wreck, but one has inherent dangers the other doesn't.


If true, then yes, but that doesn't make any sense. How could they make any money if the product was burning the hell out of every customer's throat? Companies usually fall into negligence to save money, not to lose it.Companies also become negligent by being negligent. Their carelessness or reasoning doesn't matter, because in the end it was dangerously hot, and hotter than one could reasonably expect--getting fast food shouldn't have the risk of third degree burns.

And if Hooters really did steal that idea, they should be sued, although there has to be some pretty convincing evidence that the boys' plan was closely implemented and that their presentation did reach the top levels of Hooters. Also, there has to be something that shows that the business plan was novel beyond what would be a natural extension of the Hooter's brand. A company can't be presented with a specific business plan, reject it officially, and then adopt it and profit off the idea. It'll be a tough suit to prove in any case, so good luck if they did get ripped off.

[Chris Wood]

[Teo]McDonald's does print a warning now and they have turned down their coffee. I assume that every warning label I've read, especially the idiotic ones, are the result of a lawsuit. And hopefully the legal system maintains some sembalance of common sense, because there's no way a warning for every misuse of an item can be documented and warned. There are qualitative differences between the perils of wood and a nail gun. If a 2x4 does end up lodged in your brain, it's a freak accident. With a nail gun, it's a much more relevant and likely threat. One can't honestly make that comparisson anymore than they could say that a vallet driver is in the same imminent peril that a dare-devil car driver. They both could die in a firey car wreck, but one has inherent dangers the other doesn't.

The point being why is there a warning on the coffee, and not on the 2x4? Neither one should pose any real danger.


Companies also become negligent by being negligent. Their carelessness or reasoning doesn't matter, because in the end it was dangerously hot, and hotter than one could reasonably expect--getting fast food shouldn't have the risk of third degree burns.

But I ask again (because no one seems willing to answer) is that if McDonalds was previously churning out gallons of dangerously hot coffee, then why were there not thousands of lawsuits from people who suffered horrible burns from actually drinking the stuff?


And if Hooters really did steal that idea, they should be sued, although there has to be some pretty convincing evidence that the boys' plan was closely implemented and that their presentation did reach the top levels of Hooters. Also, there has to be something that shows that the business plan was novel beyond what would be a natural extension of the Hooter's brand. A company can't be presented with a specific business plan, reject it officially, and then adopt it and profit off the idea. It'll be a tough suit to prove in any case, so good luck if they did get ripped off.

Agreed. It seems awfully hard to prove that idea was unique to those students unless it was extremely specific. And students often present business plans to companies for class. They receive grades, but there is no expectation of financial compensation.

[Teo]

The point being why is there a warning on the coffee, and not on the 2x4? Neither one should pose any real danger.

But I ask again (because no one seems willing to answer) is that if McDonalds was previously churning out gallons of dangerously hot coffee, then why were there not thousands of lawsuits from people who suffered horrible burns from actually drinking the stuff?

Exactly, they shouldn't pose real danger, but the coffee did. It's wasn't an exceptional circumstance where burns occurred. It'd be like putting a nail in the board for no reason. It's just incrementally adds danger that shouldn't be there.

Their liability was that the coffee was too hot at all. Even if the chances of a customer recieving burns were 1 in 100 million served, those chances could have been zero had the coffee been cooler. The event wasn't common, but the consequence of spilling coffee shouldn't be third degree burns, especially when it's avoidable and the company created the situation that otherwise wouldn't exist.

Also, people drinking it can add milk, stir it, give it time to cool, and sip it through a teeny straw. The burns came from prolonged, direct contact with a large ammount of super hot coffee. Drinking it normally would be fine, but you'd blister pretty badly if you started gargling with a cup full.

[Chris Wood]

Ex
Also, people drinking it can add milk, stir it, give it time to cool, and sip it through a teeny straw. The burns came from prolonged, direct contact with a large ammount of super hot coffee. Drinking it normally would be fine, but you'd blister pretty badly if you started gargling with a cup full.

How would drinking it be fine? If dripping some on one's skin melts it, then taking a big swig of it is sure to burn the living hell out of one's mouth. Are we to believe that only the one cup of coffee this woman was served was somehow superheated?

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

Their coffee, tea, coco and pies are super hot. My grandpa once screamed when he got burned drinking coco there, and spished it all over the table.

[Tienshin]

The point being why is there a warning on the coffee, and not on the 2x4? Neither one should pose any real danger.



But I ask again (because no one seems willing to answer) is that if McDonalds was previously churning out gallons of dangerously hot coffee, then why were there not thousands of lawsuits from people who suffered horrible burns from actually drinking the stuff?


Here is some background infor ont he infamous coffee lawsuit:

Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement. According to Stella Liebeck’s attorney, S. Reed Morgan, the jury heard the following evidence in the case:

By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;


Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;


Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;


The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;


McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;


From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;


Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;


At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;


Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature;


McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;


McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;”


McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;


Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.

Source (http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm)

______________________________________-

I would argue Mickey D's if anything set themselves up for a lawsuit by ignoring legitimate concerns and documented instances of serious burns previous to Stella's case.

[Teo]

How would drinking it be fine? If dripping some on one's skin melts it, then taking a big swig of it is sure to burn the living hell out of one's mouth. Are we to believe that only the one cup of coffee this woman was served was somehow superheated?That's exactly what I said: doing something stupid like gargling with it would burn you. But when people drink coffee they don't cannonball it (it's really hot). And dripping on skin won't burn because the heat gets dissipated quickly, but spilling a large enough ammount will. The ammount of heat transfered and the time of contact are what burn. People burn their mouths all the time, but there's seldom enough liquid in contact long enough to do severe damage. I'm sure you've been splashed with a droplet of boiling water while cooking but that's certainly not the same as holding your hand in the kettle. The coffee was all the same temperature as always and anyone who'd been in contact with it in the way she was would have had the same results. You're comparing two unlike circumstances because the same temperature coffee is involved, which is missing the point of what actually happened. The truth is is that she got burned using the same coffee everyone else was--there was medical evidence. The phsycial results of the incident are not under dispute.

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

That's exactly what I said: doing something stupid like gargling with it would burn you. But when people drink coffee they don't cannonball it (it's really hot).But if the coffee is hot enough to disintegrate skin on touch, even touching it with your tongue can cause severe or irreversable damage.
If they don't warn you about that then they don't care about your health and are negligent, which is a criminal offence.

[Chris Wood]

Thanks for posting that article, it's good to see the actual details of the case.

Still, this country is undeniably lawsuit-crazy. Check out this nutcase courtesy of Seanbaby:


Mouth and Hands vs. Exploding Sandwich
A woman is suing Wendy’s after a sandwich exploded in her grasp, spreading molten chicken parts and secretive sauces all over her face and hands. She is now demanding no less than $25,000, stating that “a defect in the design of the chicken sandwich” and “failure of employees to warn patrons of the risk of the sandwich’s exploding” make them financially liable for her accident.
The woman claims she had to get X-rays, examinations, treatments, therapy and medication for her sandwich injuries and wants to be reimbursed for all of them. X-rays? Listen, if you ever go to a doctor with a chicken juice burn and they give you an X-ray, you probably could have paid in bananas, because you obviously mistook a chimp in a lab coat for a real doctor.

Chance of Winning: Very good.
Twenty five thousand dollars isn’t enough of a loss that Wendy’s will have to raise the cost of our cheeseburgers, but if this case is successful it’s going to mean the end of our free time. Because as soon as the law requires a high school dropout in a paper hat to warn us of the dangers of bone-shattering sandwich burns, they’ll also have to warn us of all the other possible hazards of their restaurant. “That’s one Junior Cheeseburger and a Biggie Fries. And I am required by law to warn you that either of them may detonate at any time, or perhaps come to life and strangle you.

[BrendaBat]

I remember hearing about two really stupid sexual harassment lawsuits back in the mid-90s. They were so funny that I just have to share them here. :D

Number one is the infamous "Seinfeld Lawsuit". This was the one where a woman asked a male co-worker to explain a joke in a Seinfeld episode (the one where Jerry forgot his date's name but remembered that it rhymed with a female body part). When he told her what body part rhymed with Dolores (the date's name), she told her boss she was sexually harassed and her co-worker was fired.


Number two is a sexual harassment lawsuit where a man accused an elderly female co-worker of sexual harassment because she had a habit of referring to people with pet names like "baby" or "honey". I don't know if the woman ended up being fired or not. But, in a perfect world, the court would have ordered the man who sued her to go to a hospital and get that stick removed from his butt. :p