Lawsuits are every expensive. We lost more than a hundred times the revenue that we could have earned from the contract which was the basis of the lawsuit. If both parties agreed to mediation, the cost of the litigation would have been cut by more than half. It was pure harrassment that the judge dismissed it in our favor.
But there are lawsuits which are so ridiculous that people wonder why they were even filed at all.
1. The family of the high school student sued the Danbury High School, the Connecticut Board of Education and the city of Danbury.
A 16-year-old Connecticut high school student who fell asleep in class says he suffered substantial hearing loss when his math teacher smacked her palm down on his desk to wake him up while she was teaching.
O diva naging bingi dahil sa pinalo ng teacher yong desk. paano kaya kung sinapak talaga siya? Toink.
2. Convicted hospital rapist sues hospital.
A Sandusky man serving a 10-year sentence for raping a patient at the former Providence Hospital is suing both the hospital and his former attorney for negligence, according to Erie County Common Pleas Court records. Edward Brewer filed suit Monday against Providence Hospital, now part of Firelands Regional Medical Center, for ‘inadequate security in protecting visitors as well as their patients’ which caused him pain and suffering, according to court documents. Brewer, 47, was found guilty in October of raping a 44-year-old acquaintance in her hospital bed in June 1998. … Brewer claims negligence by the hospital, including a poorly trained nursing staff, negatively affected his criminal case, according to the suit.” The suit, which Brewer filed on his own behalf, asks for $2 million in damages; separately, Brewer is suing his former criminal attorney.
Nakita naman ninyo yan, kasalanan na niya, nanisi pa. I remember a case in Law and Order. The serial rapist blamed his porn addictionto commit rape.
3. The Case of the Lost Pants and the Judge Fancy Pants
Pearson sued a D.C. dry cleaning establishment, Custom Cleaners, for over $67 million for the loss of a pair of pants. On May 3, 2005, Pearson allegedly left a pair of gray pants that could be distinguished by a unique trio of belt loops on both sides of the front waistband. After a delay due to the pants being mistakenly sent to another dry cleaners, the pants were offered back completed several days after May 5, 2005, the initial pickup date. Pearson refused to accept the pants, claiming they were not his, despite confirmation by the cleaners' records, tags, and Pearson's receipt. Pearson demanded what he claimed to be the price of the pants as compensation, an amount of over $1000, which the Chungs refused. As a result, Pearson filed suit in the District of Columbia's Superior Court. The judge to whom the case was presented decided to bring it to trial on the basis of two of Pearson's claims. The first claim was the issue of the ownership by Pearson of the presented pair of pants. The second claim was on the issue of signs posted outside the business, advertising "Same Day Service" and "Satisfaction Guaranteed", which Pearson claimed to be misleading.
Sinubaybayan ko ang kasong ito at inis ako doon sa judge. PEro kahit naalis na siya pagkajudge, pinursue niya ang kaso hanggang Supreme Court. Talo pa rin siya.
Noong bagong salta ako sa Los Angeles, nagpadevelop ako ng film kasi nakalagay, one Day develpoing lang. ibig sabihin, makukuha ko rin kinabukasan. Papunta ako sa San Diego. Pag kuha ko wala pa. Siguro hindi naisama doon sa pinick-up ng Kodak para dalhin sa lab.
Ang masama nito dahil pansin nila na mukha at amoy akong bagong salta, kaya di nila ako pinapansin. Pero noong sinabi kong magcocomplain ako sa Better Business Bureau, bigla silang nag-offer na idedeliver ang mga retrato ASAP at may libre pang dalawang rolyo ng films.
Takot din silang mademanda. Tehehehe.