Lawsuit of the Week

[jaybee]

If they start making thongs with warning labels, would that make them more like bloomers if the label was large enough?

[wbtravis007]

The bitterization that has progressed since the last auditions were held in Houston, and I was not selected, and didn't even get to prove to bb and linus and others that I was wearing a thong -- (I didn't find any of them) -- has caused me to totally flip-flop on the whole thong thing.

Hell, I've even gone back to calling flip-flops thongs.

[VAdame]

Ms. Patterson is going to be on the Today Show in a few minutes.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

I have a question for our attorneys. According to news reports about this lawsuit, Victoria's Secret has asked to examine the thong-of-the-alleged-flying-projectile, but the plaintiff has refused to let them look at the garment. Is she following what would be standard legal advice?

Does the company have no right to determine if there was a manufacturing or design defect before a trial begins?

They can inspect it after the suit is filed, but not before unless its by agreement.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

From Jay Leno

If the Thong doesn't fit, you must acquit.

[Bob Juch]

I have a question for our attorneys. According to news reports about this lawsuit, Victoria's Secret has asked to examine the thong-of-the-alleged-flying-projectile, but the plaintiff has refused to let them look at the garment. Is she following what would be standard legal advice?

Does the company have no right to determine if there was a manufacturing or design defect before a trial begins?

They can inspect it after the suit is filed, but not before unless its by agreement.

On "Today" the lawyer said they asked that it be mailed back to them. That's obviously not a good idea if you're suing.

[gsabc]

Prior to the common law development of strict liability for defective products, the consumer had to prove, not just that there had been something wrong with the product, but also that the defendant was at fault. --Bob

That's my problem, the attitude of "that which is not expressly prohibited is allowed." You can do the absolutely stupidest thing (driving with a cup of hot coffee between your knees, picking up a power mower to trim the top of your hedge, climbing up the power poles of a trolley system to cross the tracks, ad infinitum), and you or your survivors can successfully sue the owners or manufacturers because what you did wasn't in the warnings or the design didn't prevent you from doing it. Never mind that someone with the common sense God gives a doorknob would never have considered doing it. You got injured, so someone else must be to blame, preferably someone else with lots of money.

Getting out of bed is a risk. Tying your shoes is a risk. I could put on my shirt in the morning, have a button fly off and down my throat, choking me and damaging my esophagus. Life is full of risks. Should we expect the shirt makers to put the buttons on in such a manner that they would never, under absolutely any circumstances, come off, or else if they do, they remain connected to the shirt in some manner so they can't fly off more than an inch? Or maybe all shirts should just go to Velcro fastenings. You can't anticipate every failure mode, or what someone might think of doing with your product, no matter how much you try.

People do stupid things, and shit happens. Take responsibility for your own actions, expect that occasionally accidents and mistakes do happen without any intent or neglect on the part of someone else, and move on.

[kayrharris]

Speaking of thongs, do we see a lawsuit pending here? Those prudish Nebraska folks just cause trouble.


http://tinyurl.com/54gtsq

[gsabc]

LOL! Just looked at some comments posted on a Boston station's website. I'll repeat just two of them here.

"I would love to meet a woman who can put her eyes near her own crotch ...", but by far the best one is:








"I'm sure some crack lawyer will represent her. "

[Bob78164]

I have a question for our attorneys. According to news reports about this lawsuit, Victoria's Secret has asked to examine the thong-of-the-alleged-flying-projectile, but the plaintiff has refused to let them look at the garment. Is she following what would be standard legal advice?

Does the company have no right to determine if there was a manufacturing or design defect before a trial begins?

The company is making a standard discovery request, which should be routinely granted.

This is the part of civil litigation I don't understand. It's inconceivable to me that her lawyer doesn't understand that the request will be granted. I can't imagine what the lawyer thinks he or she has to gain. And if the resistance is coming from the client, there's a serious client control issue. --Bob

[Bob78164]

Prior to the common law development of strict liability for defective products, the consumer had to prove, not just that there had been something wrong with the product, but also that the defendant was at fault. --Bob

That's my problem, the attitude of "that which is not expressly prohibited is allowed." You can do the absolutely stupidest thing (driving with a cup of hot coffee between your knees, picking up a power mower to trim the top of your hedge, climbing up the power poles of a trolley system to cross the tracks, ad infinitum), and you or your survivors can successfully sue the owners or manufacturers because what you did wasn't in the warnings or the design didn't prevent you from doing it. Never mind that someone with the common sense God gives a doorknob would never have considered doing it. You got injured, so someone else must be to blame, preferably someone else with lots of money.

Getting out of bed is a risk. Tying your shoes is a risk. I could put on my shirt in the morning, have a button fly off and down my throat, choking me and damaging my esophagus. Life is full of risks. Should we expect the shirt makers to put the buttons on in such a manner that they would never, under absolutely any circumstances, come off, or else if they do, they remain connected to the shirt in some manner so they can't fly off more than an inch? Or maybe all shirts should just go to Velcro fastenings. You can't anticipate every failure mode, or what someone might think of doing with your product, no matter how much you try.

People do stupid things, and shit happens. Take responsibility for your own actions, expect that occasionally accidents and mistakes do happen without any intent or neglect on the part of someone else, and move on.

These are two separate issues. Defective design cases often raise the issue of whether the design was, in fact, defective. Even under a strict liability regime, you still have to prove a defect. The manufacturer's defense would undoubtedly be that there is no defect, that it's not realistic to anticipate the surpassing stupidity of which humanity is capable. <political>Of course, I wouldn't have much sympathy for that argument given who has served as our President for the last seven-plus years . . . .</political>

Manufacturing defects, however, are generally easy to prove. The policy choice here is to impose the loss on the manufacturer, because the manufacturer is in a much better position to spread the costs via insurance and to minimize the costs via quality control techniques. It's better public policy for everyone to pay, say, an extra penny or two for a bottle of Coke than to impose tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills on the unlucky person who has the poorly manufactured bottle break in his hand, slicing a tendon. --Bob

[silvercamaro]

I saw the video clip of the plaintiff and her attorney being interviewed by Meredith this morning. Toward the end, Meredith asked how much the plaintiff was suing for. In fact, she asked several times, because the attorney repeatedly answered, in various words, "It's not about the money."

I didn't go to law school, but I understood that. That told me that it is all about the money.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=116093

[Bob Juch]

I saw the video clip of the plaintiff and her attorney being interviewed by Meredith this morning. Toward the end, Meredith asked how much the plaintiff was suing for. In fact, she asked several times, because the attorney repeatedly answered, in various words, "It's not about the money."

I didn't go to law school, but I understood that. That told me that it is all about the money.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=116093

Anytime someone says, "It's not about the money," it's all about the money.

[VAdame]

Conan O'Brien's take on it was, then she's suing LensCrafters for damage her bifocals did to her crotch!

See, Conan gets it. I still say, if you're wearing your thong on your eye, you're doing it WRONG!

Unless, of course, you're playing Pirate!