Easy: EVERYTHING!

A cold buffet? For breakfast? Those farking monsters!

I believe if there is no consideration (money exchanged) the lawsuit will be thrown out. You can file a lawsuit for baseless claims but a decent judge will laugh you out of court.

What a whiny douchebag.

monoski: I believe if there is no consideration (money exchanged) the lawsuit will be thrown out. You can file a lawsuit for baseless claims but a decent judge will laugh you out of court.

Even so, can you show up in court without a lawyer for the judge to do his laughing? What are the minimal costs involved to the spa to resolve this ridiculous situation?

To solve frivolous lawsuits:

The loser should pay the legal expenses for the winner.

The winner only gets awarded their ACTUAL damages. No more slip-and-fall millionaires, and "emotional distress" only covers your counseling bills.

Punitive damages still exist (lest 'actual damages' fail to get a companies attention), but do not get awarded to the winner. Instead, they get awarded to a neutral third party (victim's fund, charity, etc).

The 99% of bad lawyers give the other 1% a bad rap.

jagec: To solve frivolous lawsuits:

The loser should pay the legal expenses for the winner.

The winner only gets awarded their ACTUAL damages. No more slip-and-fall millionaires, and "emotional distress" only covers your counseling bills.

Punitive damages still exist (lest 'actual damages' fail to get a companies attention), but do not get awarded to the winner. Instead, they get awarded to a neutral third party (victim's fund, charity, etc).

I don't agree with excessive amount lawsuits but I can't agree with that. Let's say you slip and fall, completely the stores fault in every way imaginable and your are bedridden for a year. Even after that year you still find it difficult to do the activities you once enjoyed. You honestly don't believe that you should be compensated for the lower quality of life? Only lost income and hospital bills?

for

There ya go, subby.

BurnShrike: The 99% of bad lawyers give the other 1% a bad rap.

Lawyers and politicians. I hate 'em all, except for mine. He's a good guy. He's got my back. The rest of them are scum and criminals!

ArcadianRefugee: for

There ya go, subby.

Not subby, but thank you.

BurnShrike: The 99% of bad lawyers give the other 1% a bad rap.

They are the 99%!

BurnShrike: The 99% of bad lawyers give the other 1% a bad rap.

But all of those nice hippies camping in the park tell me that the 1% are evil! Who do I believe?!

I predict a future follow-up tag headling "Lawyer disbarred for being a douche."

Saners: jagec: To solve frivolous lawsuits:

The loser should pay the legal expenses for the winner.

The winner only gets awarded their ACTUAL damages. No more slip-and-fall millionaires, and "emotional distress" only covers your counseling bills.

Punitive damages still exist (lest 'actual damages' fail to get a companies attention), but do not get awarded to the winner. Instead, they get awarded to a neutral third party (victim's fund, charity, etc).

I don't agree with excessive amount lawsuits but I can't agree with that. Let's say you slip and fall, completely the stores fault in every way imaginable and your are bedridden for a year. Even after that year you still find it difficult to do the activities you once enjoyed. You honestly don't believe that you should be compensated for the lower quality of life? Only lost income and hospital bills?

My definition of "actual damages" isn't as strict as that. I agree that the lower quality of life would be considered "actual damages". What I'm referring to is cases where people are clearly getting compensation far above and beyond any imaginable damages, mostly because the company is getting hit with punitive damages so that they don't just keep paying off everyone they injure without changing their policies.

For example, this lawsuit isn't a high dollar amount, but clearly the damages were even lower. Of course, Walmart wouldn't care about a few pennies, so I understand why the fine was higher...but awarding it all to the woman is clearly an incentive for people to file frivolous lawsuits.

The other example is the infamous hot coffee lawsuit. The woman certainly deserved a good amount of money for her injuries, and McDonald's certainly deserved a high fine for their negligence and callous actions, but to give ALL the money to the woman is a little odd.

He should certainly be able to get his money back.

*clicks link*
Lawyer • check
Last name Katz • check check

jagec: To solve frivolous lawsuits:

The loser should pay the legal expenses for the winner.

The winner only gets awarded their ACTUAL damages. No more slip-and-fall millionaires, and "emotional distress" only covers your counseling bills.

Punitive damages still exist (lest 'actual damages' fail to get a companies attention), but do not get awarded to the winner. Instead, they get awarded to a neutral third party (victim's fund, charity, etc).

I've said for a long time that punitive damages are necessary (in some cases), but should NOT be paid to the plaintiff (or their lawyers). That's just too much incentive for abuse. I don't know what the best answer is as far as who that money should go to, but it shouldn't go to make some schmuck a millionaire for slipping on a wet floor.

What a farking turd. Can't somebody from the business go break his legs or something? Suing over a "substandard" breakfast? I just hope the judge dresses him down in court, shaming him and throwing out the case.

jagec: To solve frivolous lawsuits:

The loser should pay the legal expenses for the winner.

You know that's the rule now, right?

according to Michelle Bachman it would be around the price of two Happy Meals - everyone can afford to pay that

NationalHero: What a farking turd. Can't somebody from the business go break his legs or something? Suing over a "substandard" breakfast? I just hope the judge dresses him down in court, shaming him and throwing out the case.

That sounds like an impossible task.

I read the second part of the headline as "grains sympathy from no-one" and thought it was a poor attempt at a pun.

monoski: I believe if there is no consideration (money exchanged) the lawsuit will be thrown out. You can file a lawsuit for baseless claims but a decent judge will laugh you out of court.

There was money exchanged. They don't let anyone walk in from the off the street and eat breakfast.

If breakfast was part of the deal when he signed up, then it's part of what he's paying for, no matter if they call it complimentary. I'm not defending his decision to file this suit, but I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that if the club used a great breakfast as an inducement when they signed everyone up, then some compensation might be due if they are later unable to provide it. Probably a refund of a couple of dollars a day, or they could have catered in something better. That would be good customer service, as well.

But in a similar position, a reasonable person gets a little disappointed, puts it behind them, and gets on with life.

big pig peaches: I predict a future follow-up tag headling "Lawyer disbarred for being a douche."

More like, lawyer sues for being subjected to cereal and wins.

You don't get this body by eating cold buffet! He only has 26 minutes in the spa, so it better be the hot buffet he is accustomed to!

Most people don't know the true story of the McDonalds coffee lawsuit:

The victim was hospitalized for 8 days, had permanent scarring, and originally only asked for $20,000.

http://www.slip-and-sue.com/the-famous-infamous-mcdonalds-coffee-spil l -lawsuit-revisited/

The complimentary breakfasts is not free, it is tacked on to the price of the room.
Even if you don't eat it you still paid for it.

Great Justice: monoski: I believe if there is no consideration (money exchanged) the lawsuit will be thrown out. You can file a lawsuit for baseless claims but a decent judge will laugh you out of court.

Even so, can you show up in court without a lawyer for the judge to do his laughing? What are the minimal costs involved to the spa to resolve this ridiculous situation?

Yes, but you risk the judge hammering you with your opponents legal costs

TheGreenMonkey
TheOtherMisterP.

Stella is not going to sleep with you.

Oak: TheGreenMonkey
TheOtherMisterP.

Stella is not going to sleep with you.

Does the equipment even still work? I remember that it required large skin grafts.

/Would give it a go for the lulz