Stella Awards (1 Viewer)

KenHigg

Registered User
Local time
Today, 02:44
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
13,327
.
.
.
.
Time once again to review the winners of the Annual "Stella Awards." The Stella Awards are named after 81 year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonald's (in NM). That case inspired the Stella Awards for the most frivolous, ridiculous, successful lawsuits in the United States

Here are this year's winners:


5th Place (tie):


Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little toddler was Ms. Robertson's son.

5th Place (tie):


19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.

5th Place (tie):


Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, and Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed, to the tune of $500,000. In my opinion this is so outrageous that it should have been 2nd Place!

4th Place:


Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams who had climbed over the fence into the yard and was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.

3rd Place:


A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

2ndPlace:


Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.

1st Place:


This year's runaway winner was Mrs. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mrs. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, (from an OU football game), having driven onto the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go into the back & make herself a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the RV left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising her in the owner's manual that she couldn't actually do this. The jury awarded her $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. The company actually changed their manuals on the basis of this suit, just in case there were any other complete morons around
 
R

Rich

Guest
Only in America, but then as many of my customers remark, we're becoming more like America every day:rolleyes:
 

KalelGmoon

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 01:44
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
377
this just goes to show, that the lawyers are ruining the world with stupidity. it makes it so that the victim of a crime is punished and the perpetrator is rewarded. @#$^%##$ like this makes me sick to my stomach.
 

KenHigg

Registered User
Local time
Today, 02:44
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
13,327
KalelGmoon said:
... @#$^%##$ like this makes me sick to my stomach.

Would you like me to delete the thread? :p :p
 

KalelGmoon

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 01:44
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
377
KenHigg said:
Would you like me to delete the thread? :p :p
no, and I know you are just joking about it, but seriously this type of thing is ridiculous. kinda like the Darwin awards
 

Jakboi

Death by Access
Local time
Today, 02:44
Joined
Nov 20, 2006
Messages
303
Rich said:
Only in America, but then as many of my customers remark, we're becoming more like America every day:rolleyes:

You got it exactly...only in America. The land of lawsuits. I am still trying to find me a lawsuit to get rich on...

Maybe I can sue these forum owners for letting me be exposed to spam bots that taint my mind with pr0n, rip off artists, and drugs.:rolleyes:

Whats that worth? At least a few hundred thousand...:p
 
R

Rich

Guest
Yes but the one where a man was asked to leave the plane and was awarded $400,000 isn't false though, is it?:rolleyes:
 

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 06:44
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
9,110
Jakboi said:
I am still trying to find me a lawsuit to get rich on...
Rich will fight you in court, I'll be a witness for Rich - you'll never win. You wouldn't even get out of the car park

Col
 

KalelGmoon

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 01:44
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
377
ColinEssex said:
Rich will fight you in court, I'll be a witness for Rich - you'll never win. You wouldn't even get out of the car park

Col

lol thats some funny stuff right there. I dont care who ya are.

*buys tickets for Cols next show before they are sold out*
 

mamandeno

Dabbler in Access
Local time
Today, 19:44
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
30
The Flipside to Not Sueing

In New Zealand we are at the other end of the litigation spectrum. We have legislation which prevents (in most cases) sueing for personal injury.

Instead there is a governent run insurance system, which funds medical treatment, compensates for lost income, and occasonally pays one-off compensation amounts for major injuries. This is funded by a huge pool of levies on vehicle licencing, employers and personal income.

The trade off when the scheme was introduced was citizens lost the right to sue for personal injury, and in return the government would compensate.

The upside of this is no-one can take frivilous lawsuits, and there is no compensation (just medical coverage) for injuries sustained whilts committing a crime.

The downside is compensation under the scheme is pretty laughable, and there is no right to sue even where there is genuine negligence, or harmful intent.

You can't really sue for medical misadventure, unless it is a case of intentional negligence, which is a very high threshold.

Since the scheme was introduced, succesive governments have reduced compensation available under it. Some people now sue the accident compensation corporation instead of each other! If they have no money to do so, they can get 'legal aid' money from the government, but if they are awarded a compensation amount, they must repay the legal aid money out of it. As a consequence many people, end up with a favourable decision but no money to show for it.

If a person is killed by a drunk driver their family could not sue. And if they were killed instantly there would be no significant government compensation.
(linger for a couple of days before dying and you can get compensation for permanent disability).

If the driver is convicted the court might direct her/him to pay 'reparation money' to the victims family, but this will be a pitance and if the driver has no money it will never be paid.

As a consequence many people elect to take private injury insurance. So out system has come full circle to a point where there is no right to sue, and we must pay levies but government compensation has been eroded to almost nothing, so I buy private insurance as well.

I wouldn't want to see the american system in this country, but there is a downside to not having anything in place so people can be financially held to account for wreckless behaviour that cause injury to others.

It is a cold and bitter experience to lose someone as a consequence of wreckless behaviour by another person, and have no mechanism for any financial compensation from the perpetrator of that behaviour.

I know people who have experienced this and have seen the financial and emotional effects of it on them.

Mike
 

FoFa

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 01:44
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
3,672
mamandeno said:
In New Zealand we are at the other end of the litigation spectrum. We have legislation which prevents (in most cases) sueing for personal injury.
Sounds good on the surface, but....

Instead there is a government run insurance system, which funds medical treatment, compensates for lost income, and occasionally pays one-off compensation amounts for major injuries. This is funded by a huge pool of levies on vehicle licensing, employers and personal income.
Well the "government run" is the very first problem that comes to mind.

The trade off when the scheme was introduced was citizens lost the right to sue for personal injury, and in return the government would compensate.
I see no incentive for a company to improve a faulty product then.
"Oh, the steering wheel comes off when you exceed 100 KPH! Not a problem, the government will pick up the tab."

The upside of this is no-one can take frivilous lawsuits, and there is no compensation (just medical coverage) for injuries sustained whilts committing a crime.
Well sorry, no medical coverage for you! It was shown you were in the process of committing a crime by exceeding the speed limit by 2 KPH!


SO it sounds like either side is not a really workable solution.
 

mamandeno

Dabbler in Access
Local time
Today, 19:44
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
30
FoFa said:
SO it sounds like either side is not a really workable solution.

You are right it is a hopeless system which no country should ever adopt.

Something somewhere in the middle could help. Maybe where it is the primary cause of an accident that attracts liability. So if you break into someoens house and get hurt, that is your fault and you can't sue the homeowner, but
tye can sue you for damage to property.

But of course that would require common snese which seems to have been outlawed in most places...
 

Adeptus

What's this button do?
Local time
Today, 17:14
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
300
I don't know for sure, but I think Australia falls in the middle somewhere... people don't get sued left right & centre, but it can be done. There's a legal firm advertising on the radio that they're the best in personal injury law, so obviously there is some call for it.
 

FoFa

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 01:44
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
3,672
Adeptus said:
I don't know for sure, but I think Australia falls in the middle somewhere... people don't get sued left right & centre, but it can be done. There's a legal firm advertising on the radio that they're the best in personal injury law, so obviously there is some call for it.
It was not as near sue crazy in the US before they allowed lawyers to start advertising. Now we get stuff like:
HURT, on the job, in an accident, cutting your carrots up, stubbing your toe? Call 800-WeWillGetYouMoney lawyers.
Been extremely down hill for everyone but lawyers since then.
 

Kraj

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 06:44
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,470
KenHigg said:
Would you like me to delete the thread? :p :p
Yes.

Except for Mike's wonderful post. Can you keep that?

I feel compelled to jump to Stella's defense once again, but frankly I just don't have the energy anymore.
 

KalelGmoon

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 01:44
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
377
FoFa said:
It was not as near sue crazy in the US before they allowed lawyers to start advertising. Now we get stuff like:
HURT, on the job, in an accident, cutting your carrots up, stubbing your toe? Call 800-WeWillGetYouMoney lawyers.
Been extremely down hill for everyone but lawyers since then.

My favorite ones are the "did you lose money int he stock market or investment deals? well we can get you money for you own negligence"

those just tick me off
 

statsman

Active member
Local time
Today, 02:44
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,088
Recently in Canada a young man decided he would ride his mini motor bike in a Hydro right of way (where the large transmission towers are). he got hold of some wire cutters, cut his way through the fencing around right of way, ignorned the No Trespassing and No Motorized Vehicle signs, pushed his bike through and totalled it when he didn't see the ditch. He was unharmed. He sued Ontario Hydro for a new mini bike for allowing him to ride his bike there.
The judge awarded him NOTHING. He did award Ontario Hydro their legal costs. The judge served the moron personally with a Notice under the Tresspas to Property Act (the kid can now be arrested if he sets foot on Hydro property).
And they say there's no justice.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom