How Soft-Headed ARE You?

I hate lawsuits. Well, I hate lawsuits where there's basically no merit, but someone is all butthurt over something trivial and decides that they should have a boatload of money as a result of their injured posterior. I hate having to read how some plaintiff was overly wronged by some defendant because I know that they weren't very wronged at all. They certainly weren't wronged to the point where money is going to make things better. But yet they persist.

Take the instance of a one Quera Pruitt. She went to a high school that sanctioned something called Wigger Day. According to the Huffington Post, on this particular day "...students wore clothes and behaved in a manner that "from their perspective, mimicked black culture." See, "Wigger is a pejorative slang term for a white person who emulates the mannerisms, language and fashions associated with African-American culture." Oh. OK. Well, that just doesn't sound like a very good idea at all. But none the less, it occurred. And in 2009, about 60 students dressed for "Wigger Wednesday" in "oversized sports jerseys, low-slung pants, baseball hats cocked to the side and 'doo rags." Ugh.

But see, while I hear about this sort of nonsense and think that it's ridiculous, that's about as far as it goes with me. I'm not black or anything, but I'd like to think that it still wouldn't bother me even if I was. It's just ridiculous is all that it is. But not for Quera Pruitt. Oh, no. She filed a lawsuit seeking $75,000 in "damages". Her claim? That the aforementioned Wigger Day caused her "...severe emotional distress including depression, loss of sleep, stress, crying, humiliation, anxiety, and shame." It also mentioned that Pruitt "...became depressed, quit the cheerleading squad, left student council, skipped her senior prom and even considered dropping out of school." Oh, for cryin' out loud!

A bunch of doofuses (doofii?) with their hats turned sideways and their pants falling off of their collective asses made all of this stuff happen to this chick? Crying? She lost sleep over this crap?! And thought of dropping out of school?! You have got to be dry shavin' me! Quit the cheerleading squad?! Were these crooked hat wearing morons on the cheerleading squad with her?! It wouldn't matter if they were! If this chick can't handle being around doofuses (or doofii) like this in high school, how in the world is she going to make it through the rest of her life. I certainly hope she doesn't have Internet access. Could you imagine what stuff on the Internet would do to her? I think her poor little soft like melted ice-cream head would just implode. Get a grip on yourself, ma'am. Please. For your own sake! Drop the lawsuit and learn how to deal with life! Good Lord, woman.

moreless

What Do They Care?

Just a couple of quick things here. I was perusing the stories over yonder at ABC News and I came across an article about a bunch of atheists who are suing over "...the inclusion of cross-shaped steel beams...in the exhibit at the National September 11th Memorial and Museum." I guess it's a couple of steel beams that look like a cross that was in the wreckage of the World Trade Center buildings. And I guess that it comforts some people. Those people aren't atheists, but they're still comforted.

The atheists in question here are having a cow for some reason. They say that the iron cross isn't a religious symbol and that a bunch of people shouldn't be acting like it is. What I don't understand is that if they're atheists, why do they even care? For people that don't believe in something, they sure do get all worked up over other people who do believe in it. I wonder if they have the same disposition towards small children who still believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? Does that both them as well? A lot of them are such pain in the asses about it, I'm going to guess that it does.



But here's the other weird thing. Along the sidebar, there was a selection of videos that are supposed to be related to the article at hand. It started off OK. But just look at how it ended!

Umpire makes a bad call?! What the what does that have to do with Ground Zero?! Wait. It does say on that video that it's "Not the First". Maybe "Not the First" means "zero"? That could be. Then again, "Not the First" could be anything BUT the first, so that really doesn't narrow it down very much at all. I don't know how that ended up there, but I do know that it makes about as much sense as the atheists worrying about some cross.

moreless

An Unhappy Meal

When, exactly, was the downfall of responsible parenting? When was it that parents simply gave up and blamed everyone and everything else for their unwillingness to do the hard stuff? I know that people have been like that for a while, but it seems that more recently it has been OK to vocally be that way. Take the Sacramento woman who is suing McDonald's for "deceptive advertising". Want to hear her example of their "deception"? They're putting toys in Happy Meals. I swear. And we're doomed.

According to the fine and thrifty folks over there at Wallet Pop, a Sacramento woman who isn't shy about being named in this insanity, a one Monet Parham says in her lawsuit that "Dangling a toy in front of a child is like putting a scantily clad woman in front of men." Good Lord. I can't believe she went there. There is so much to not like in that statement that it's hard to know where to begin, but I'll give it a good go here. I'm going to start with "Are you on glue?" (I tried to find a picture of this individual and the only one I could locate offhand was what appears to be what she uses as her profile picture on Facebook. I'm sure you won't be surprised at all. Behold!)

Um, yeah. Ok, then. Where was I? Oh, yeah. She must be, as in the article, she goes on to exemplify her incompetence as a person in charge of raising children when she says "My children really want the toys that are in those meals. I'm concerned about the health of my children frankly...I don't think it's OK to entice children." Soooo...because your children really want something, you have to get it for them? And of course, in this scenario, you're being forced to eat at McDonald's, otherwise why else would you be in such a situation where the health of your children is jeopardized because you have to buy them an unhealthy meal with a toy because you were forced to take them there to eat. Oh, wait. Those are all choices that someone with half a spine could actually make. Never mind. Carry on.

The article also includes the revelation that "...the meals often get cold while her children -- ages 6 and 2 -- play with the toys instead of eating." So, now McDonald's is responsible for her not being able to keep the toys from her children until they're done eating to play with them? Wow. I had no idea that McDonald's was such a powerful parenting entity. I might have actually decided to have children if I knew that McDonald's could have raised them for me!

What is wrong with this person? Does she honestly believe this nonsense that she is spouting for the sake of her lawsuit? Why can't she tell these kids no? Are they giants? Particularly menacing giants? Why does she have to take them to McDonald's? Why does the 2-year old even understand the concept of a Happy Meal? Why is she feeding McDonald's to a 2-year old? So many questions. So few answers. Actually, I take that back. There is one answer. She's a moron who can't stand up to a freaking two-year old.

It's unclear to me in what context the woman was saying the things that I've quoted. Oh, how I wish that the person she was talking to could have asked the follow up questions that I just asked. Not because there would have been any sort of rational explanation, but because it would have been ten times more amusing to hear her explain why she's such an irresponsible parent who is completely incapable of telling her children no.

The children aren't buying these meals. She is. She is taking absolutely no responsibility for her part in this and it angers me. If it's all about the toy, shouldn't she be suing other fast food franchises that include toys in their meals for children? (She probably isn't suing them because she doesn't take her children there, thus they don't want their toys. Ah-HA! Problem solved.) For that matter, she better include Cracker Jack in her lawsuit. After all, they've been including "toys" with their unhealthy product since 1896! (I realize that it's a stretch to call the things that are in Cracker Jacks "toys". I was trying to make a point!) I hope that someone is around to interview her after she loses. I'd like to hear what her strategy for keeping Happy Meal toys out of the hands of her own children is going to be then.

moreless

So, Is It Dangerous Or Not?

I'm not a big fan of people suing some company because there was an accident that involved the particular company's product. Look, accidents happen. Do you sue the manufacturer of a knife if you accidentally cut yourself with it? Well, I don't and you (hopefully) don't, but some low lifes do. But I always thought that they believed in their ridiculousness. I guess I thought that they really believed that the knife manufacturer should have warned the public that their product had sharp edges. I mean, I guess I would have thought that was the case in the story of a boy whose parents are suing the manufacturer of a baseball bat company because their son got beaned in the head by a ball that was hit with said bat. But then I read that they're still letting their son play baseball. With the same bat. Wait. What?

Correct. Meet Jake Schutter. Jake is 11 and plays baseball in Moneka, Illinois. Last May, Jake was pitching for the Moneka Blaze when, according to the

Chicago Sun Times "...a ball hit off a metal baseball bat crashed into the side of his head". The resulting bash to the noggin resulted in Jake losing the hearing in that ear. Naturally, the parents decided to sue Easton, the company that makes said bats. I find it mildly interesting that they didn't sue the manufacturer of the ball of that bashed into him. Why is it only the bat's fault and not the ball's fault?

I don't know either. But I do know that Jake's parents have said in their lawsuit that "...the manufacturer created a dangerous product that should not be on the market" and they're asking that "Easton pay for his injuries and suffering as well as attorney fees." And all the while, they're continuing to let their son play baseball with the dangerous product that should not be on the market. Yeah, sure. That makes perfect sense.

Oh, for cryin' out loud, no, it does not! If the bat is so damned dangerous and if you, as a parent, honest to God believed that, why, why, WHY in the world would you let your kid continue to play with said bat?! Well, you wouldn't. And that's probably because you don't (believe that, that is). But that doesn't mean that it's going to keep you from suing. Even the boy recognizes that these things happen and it's the chance that you have to take when you're playing sports! He said, "...he has no choice but to continue using a metal bat because all of his peers use it.“If everyone has a metal bat, why wouldn’t I have a metal bat?” Exactly.

What I want to know is what is going to happen if the kid gets beaned in the head again. What if he loses an eye or a nose or an ear or something like that. Then what? (Actually, I'd kind of like to see someone lose a nose from playing baseball. That'd be something to see.) Are they going to say that they shouldn't have dangerous products on the market because even people who have been injured by said product in the past might be too dense to realize the alleged danger and continue playing with them until the product finally just kills them? Given the proven non-rational thinking of these folks in the first place, I'm guessing they might attempt to legitimately make that point. I'm guessing that they'd fail miserably, but what's to stop them from trying. I can't wait to see how this one pans out. Unless, of course, it pans out with the company having to pay money to these folks. That I can do without.

moreless

Brand X

Just because a procedure is performed and isn't done in the typical "normal" fashion, does that mean that someone else gets to sue because of it? I mean, if the outcome was, for all intents and purposes, essentially the same as it would have been if things were done according to the book, why would you sue? Because you're hypersensitive and think that you'll get a big payday. Hopefully, in this instance, that will prove to be wrong.

Here's the story according to those smoky folks over there at The Smoking Gun. It seems that a one 47-year old hairdresser, a Mrs. Ingrid Paulicivic, went to a doctor for a hysterectomy. The doctor, a one 50-year old Dr. Red Alinsod, performed the procedure for her. When returning to Dr. Alinsod's office for a follow-up appointment, she asked him about some small burn marks that she noticed on her thighs. He told her that it was nothing to worry about. See, what had happened was that after he had removed her uterus, he used some sort of a cauterizing tool to brand her name onto her removed organ and she must have suffered some minor burns in the process. That's all. Wait. He did what?

Correct. He took her uterus out and then branded her name, Ingrid, onto the removed uterus. Everything about this story has a question attached to it, so I'll try and keep up with any that you may have racing through your head right now. If you're wondering if this is some sort of obscure medical procedure, let me assure you that it is not. The good doctor claims that his reason for branding the uterus with the woman's name was because he “did not want to get it confused with others.” And usually what they do, instead of all of the burning of patient's names in recently removed body part, is to write the patient’s name "... on an accompanying blue sterile towel or a sterile piece of wood like a tongue depressor." Uh-huh. I see. Yeah, there's not way that you could get confused and think to do it the other way. Hmm.

I really cannot figure out what the big deal is. I mean, her uterus was removed, correct? Correct. What in the hell does she care what he does with it when she's done with it? I can understand being a little upset that the guy apparently mishandled his uterine carving tool and slightly burned her thighs. That I get. But I would I be suing over it? Hardly. You know what else I wouldn't be suing for? Loss of consortium, that is correct.

See, she's a married woman. And her husband, Joe Paulicivic, claims that he has been “permanently injured and damaged” due to the resulting loss of consortium with his wife." Hmm. Dude, she had her uterus taken out. I would expect that there might be a little loss of consortium just from that alone, but I don't really know. Can anyone help me with this one? Gerard? You seem to have a variety of sexual endeavors. Ever done it with someone who was sans uterus? What's that like? (By the way, that's Mr. Paulicivic over there on the left. Perhaps if he lost the big cross medallion, he might find himself more consortiable. I'm just saying.)

All of the logistics aside, how do small burns on your wife's thighs prevent you from getting all consortium-y with her? I don't think that they do. This whole lawsuit is obviously pointless. And if you'd like to read the filing and decide for yourself, you may do so by clicking here. Look, I don't know why the doctor did what he did, but he wasn't hurting anyone. What was going to happen to that uterus after it was taken out of commission? It gets thrown away, right? So, who the hell cares if it gets thrown away with her name on it or not? It's not like he was feeding it to the stray cats in the alley out back. But even if he was, would that be so bad? Sure, it would be disgusting (for some reason), but would it hurt anyone? No, of course not.

I just don't get people like this. You're not entitled to any money there, cupcake. And neither are you, Mr. Cupcake. Just go back to whatever you were doing before all of the suing and knock it off. Try a little consortium. Maybe that will help.

moreless

A Shocking Outcome

Today's Dumbass Files Dumbass Lawsuit comes to us courtesy of a one Kyle Dubois from Dover, New Hampshire. (This reads a lot better if you use a game show announcer voice in your head when you read it.) Let's see who Kyle is suing! First of all, Kyle is suing his teacher, a one Thomas Kelley. But Kyle doesn't stop there! He's also suing his school district AND the city of Dover! And why is he suing, Bob? (I'm envisioning that the announcer's name is Bob.) Why, he's suing because he claims that his electrical shop teacher didn't warn him of the dangers of electricity before he hooked two clamps up to his nipples and then had another student plug him in! Wait. What, Bob?

Yep. It is just what it sounds like it is. Eighteen year old (and certainly old enough to know better) Kyle Dubois attached one of those little electrical clamp things (that look kind of like jumper cables) to one of his nipples. Another idiot student attached the other clamp to the other nipple. And the idiot student trifecta was completed when a third moron plugged in the cord. What happened next will shock you. (Actually, it'll shock him, but you already saw that it was headed in that direction.)

According to The Boston Herald and surprising no one but perhaps Kyle, after the human battery jumper was all hooked up and the current was applied, he "...received a severe shock that caused him to stagger and collapse". The article goes on to say that the shock resulted in the asshat (my terminology, not that of The Boston Herald) "...being sent to Wentworth-Douglass Hospital, where he was diagnosed as having an "out of hospital electrocution resulting in cardiac arrest, unresponsive state and respiratory failure". It doesn't state that they diagnosed him as being a complete ignoramus, but let's not rule that out, OK? OK. Oh, by the way, here's a screen grab from a 4-second cell phone video that one of this moron's classmates made of him hooking himself up to be a human Roman candle. You can tell by the fact that his pants are about three inches below the top of his boxer shorts that the boy isn't quite right in the head to begin with. Behold!

According to the documents filed in this absolutely meritless lawsuit, this moron "...suffered brain damage due to the heart stoppage. He has short-term memory loss and "other losses and disruptions" as a result." I'm not so sure that the brain damage was due to the heart stoppage. If I had to guess, I'd gather that he might have had a little bit of brain damage already going on when he went into class that day. And I can't even imagine what the "other losses" could possibly be. Has he joined the ranks of the un-layable as a result of this? Oooh! Maybe he lost his nipples. Is that it? Is he nippleless? I hope so. That would be most excellent.

Of course, the basis for his lawsuit has to do with negligence on the part of the teacher. And since the teacher works for the district, they're allegedly liable for his actions. And I guess since the district is in the city they just go ahead and sue them, too. Do you really need to be warned to not hook yourself up by the nipples with jumper cables? And even if you do need to be warned about that, does that mean that you need to be warned about sending a jolt of electricity through said jumper cables which are now affixed to one's nipples? I guess if you're already grabbing your nubbins with the nodes, you might need some sort of alternative direction. But I prefer to leave things like this to Mr. Darwin.

Here's my question: He obviously did this for a reason. What in the hell did he think was going to happen? He had to have known that plugging in his little contraption there was going to result in electricity surging through his body via Nipple A and Nipple B. (I don't know if those are the actual names of his nipples. That's about as creative as I can be right now.) Maybe if he had paid a little more attention in class, he would have realized that by getting plugged in, he was going to sent 120 volts through his body. And if they're going to be suing people, why are they not suing the other two asshats who participated in this asininity? Shouldn't they be the first people that should be included in this lawsuit?

What a waste of time and money. What ever happened to natural consequences? If some idiot hooks himself up to a surge of electricity, I certainly hope that he would get lit up like a Christmas tree or have sparks go shooting out of his nipples like it was the Fourth of July. That seems perfectly reasonable. And if someone is eighteen years old and hasn't quite grasped the fact that electricity will kill your ass, I see nothing wrong with that individual learning through experience. Case closed.

moreless

Go Straight To Hell; Do Not Pass 'Go'

Wanna make sure you go to hell? And I mean straight to hell. No passing 'Go'. No collecting $200. Just straight to hell. If so, then might I suggest purposefully going 85 mph on the freeway in the wrong direction in an attempt to kill yourself, but being unsuccessful and instead, killing a 35-year old woman (who was 4 months pregnant) and her 13-year old son. Oh, and then suing the family of the woman that you killed. Yeah, that should do it.

According to ABC News, in March of 2009, a then 16-year old Justine Winter allegedly caused the crash just an hour after breaking up with her boyfriend. As if going on a mission to kill yourself whilst driving 85 mph in the wrong direction on the freeway, she was texting as she did it. See? Texting and driving kills. Don't do it.

The prosecutors are focusing on a series of those texts that occurred right before the crash. They include sentiments such as "If I won, I would have you. And I wouldn't crash my car." And "That's why I'm going to wreck my car. Because all I can do is f*** up. Because I am a terrible person and I know it." She also made sure that her last words were not only known, but extremely significant. "Good bye ... my last words." Yeah, that seems pretty cut and dried there.

But that's only because I am a (relatively) sane individual. I am not Justine Winter, nor am I any of the adults who are representing her. They are all, clearly, horrible individuals. They have sued the deceased woman's (Erin Thompson) estate, "...with her husband Jason Thompson as a representative, as well as three businesses that operate and provide services on Highway 93." Yeah, she's saying that the businesses failed "...to properly maintain the highway, which was under construction at the time." Well, it is hard to maintain something that isn't going to allow a crash to happen when some idiot is going in the wrong direction, let alone 85 mph in the wrong direction.

The suit actually has the balls to claim that "...Winter suffered permanent injuries in the crash and a "loss of capacity to enjoy life." She is also claiming future loss of income as well as past, present and future medical expenses." Oh, I might just twist off right now. Yep. Here I go.

Are you freaking kidding me?! SHE has a loss of capacity to enjoy life? WHY?! Because she's in jail where she belongs?! I'm sure she did suffer permanent injuries in the crash that she caused! That was her goal! To cause herself injury! Injury resulting in death!! And future loss of income?! Please. Like this chick had the mental faculties to even earn any income. She sounds like a complete moron. A complete, self-centered moron. Besides, if all goes the way that it should go, she won't have to worry about future loss of income OR any medical expenses, as I'm sure that they'll all be taken care of by the penal system that she will hopefully be incarcerated in for the rest of whatever.

The lawsuit accuses Mrs. Thompson "...of causing the accident through "negligent driving." Right. Because a woman who is four months pregnant and has her teenage son in the car with her would be driving negligently. I'm not saying that it's never happened. I'm just saying that it didn't happen in this case. How this woman's husband has not snapped in two and strangled someone at this point is beyond me.

Naturally, after filing this lawsuit, "No one from the Winter or Thompson families could be reached for comment. Winter's attorneys, David Stufft and Maxwell Battle Jr., also did not return repeated calls for comment." David Stufft and Maxwell Battle Jr. Please remember those names. If you ever come across either of these individuals, do whatever comes natural. (What? I wasn't suggesting anything untoward. I could have meant something like shaking their hand. Or not.) As far as the response from the prosecution's side, "Flathead County Attorney Ed Corrigan, who is leading the criminal case against Winter, said he was concerned the lawsuit would "inflame the public". Really? Suing the family of the people that you killed could "inflame the public"? In what way?

Apparently, Justine will be going on trial, as she has been charged with two counts of deliberate homicide. (That seems about right.) The preliminary trial resulted in the judge deciding that she should be tried as an adult. Naturally, her lawyers have appealed that decision, so who knows when this is going to get underway. Oh, but it is cases like these where I wish that there were a "skip the trial" option and we just toss her behind bars and move on with our lives. Some will move on easier than others, of course. But it would likely save everyone a whole lot of grief, as if the her attorneys are willing to file suit against the victim's family, Lord only knows what their courtroom defense will end up being (other than abhorrent, of course).

moreless

But He Got His Burrito!

How fitting that on the 20th anniversary of the oft-abused Americans With Disabilities Act, some jackass wins a lawsuit against Chipotle because he was (wait for it) deprived of the full Chipotle experience. We're just doomed. So incredibly doomed.

Here's the scoop: According to the San Francisco Chronicle (which is so liberal it probably wets itself every time one of these rulings gets handed down) "...the law entitles wheelchair users at a restaurant to the same view as everyone else at the food that awaits them - in this case, burritos, tacos and the rest of the fare at Chipotle Mexican Grill." Does it now? Does it really?

KGTV-10 in San Diego says that "...the wall at the counter was too tall for people in wheelchairs to see over, to pick out their ingredients and to see their food being prepared." OK, look...I'm not trying to be a callous hard ass here, but are they serious? And when I say "they" I'm referring to a one Maurizio Antoninetti and his attorney, a one Amy Vandeveld. There are other names that come to mind, but that's what I'm going with.

Do you really need to see your food being prepared? Plenty of other restaurants feed you God only knows what without you witnessing the preparation of said food incarnation. Those restaurants are probably just fine for folks in wheelchairs. And again, don't get me wrong, as I'm not dismissing those in wheelchairs as people who are not entitled to the same rights as others. That's not it. I know people in wheelchairs and I know that it sucks. But the people who I know that are in wheelchairs realize the inherent limitations of society in general. Not seeing what goes into your burrito as it is going in there would seem to be one of those inherent limitations.

By the way, it isn't like Chipotle didn't try to accommodate these folks. In fact, "...a trial court had ruled against Antoninetti, saying Chipotle's policy of showing samples to people in wheelchairs was enough." See? They weren't ruthless about it. They were what? Accommodating, that is correct. But unfortunately, this case ended up before (and I'll use the words of Dr. Michael Savage) the 9th Jerkit Court of Shlemeals, who disagreed and overturned that verdict. Of course they did. Apparently, it is very important to see your burrito being made. I don't know why that's important, but to some, it is.

According to KGTV, "I just wanted Chipotle to understand it cannot treat people in a wheelchair in a different way than everybody else," he (Antoninetti) told 10News from Italy." From ITALY?! Well, good to know that he's using his settlement money wisely. But the point here is that they weren't treating people in a wheelchair differently. They were doing what society must (and should) do for folks with disabilities. They were accommodating them. Why is it that the businesses have to be accommodating, but the folks with the disabilities don't? Why is it that the businesses are supposed to recognize the limitations of those with the disabilities, but the disabled folks are not supposed to recognize the limitations of the businesses? I don't get it.

I suppose that the Americans With Disabilities Act was a good thing. I know that only the best intentions went into drafting and enacting that law. And it's something that I am totally in favor of. But can you seriously say that it's a good thing that this Chipotle case dragged on for five years, ended up costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and making a couple of lawyers rich? I'm not so sure that would be considered "good". And by the way, according to Chipotle, "We respectfully disagree with the court's ruling. However, the matter is largely moot because several years ago, independent of this lawsuit, we retrofitted all our California restaurants with a new counter design that eliminates concern regarding wheelchair accessibility." And yet the lawsuit continued. Are we really to believe that it was all about the alleged "equality" for Mr. Antoninetti? I'm not so sure that it was.

If you click on the link above for KGTV, there is a video that accompanies this story. In the video, you will see Chipotle employees holding up samples for the person in the wheelchair to view, carrying the man's food to his table, making sure that he has everything that he needs, etc. He received excellent attention despite not being able to see his burrito being made. He appeared to be able to get around just fine inside the restaurant. He appeared to be in most hospitable atmosphere that one could hope for. And yet that wasn't enough for him. Or for his attorney. So they sued. Nice. I'm kind of surprised that Chipotle was willing to lower their counters and didn't just opt for the having no one be able to see their burrito being made so that this ONE guy wouldn't flip out. That would have solved the problem, too. All or nothing. Sounds like a really good way to ruin a perfectly good society. Way to go, sir. You jackass.

moreless