Most of the posts I write in this site are about the lawsuits that many people have sued over things that one would think if one used common sense it will tell you not to do or to do something let would cause some one to sue over. However, in this case there have been several lawsuits that have been awarded. You would think that the company would NOT want to be sued and they would pull the product or have warning claims. This is not the case of the company Johnson and Johnson and their product talcum powder. There have been two cases that Johnson and Johnson has paid two of the women who have sued them for using Johnson and Johnson talc powder for ovarian cancer. To see what I’m referring to you can read about it here https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/st-louis-jury-awards-dollar55m-in-johnson-and-johnson-cancer-suit/ar-BBsyLf0?OCID=ansmsnnews11
It seems to me that being sued several times and still making the product would not be good for the company? Of course Johnson and Johnson stands by their product even though their have been some studies that researchers are linking the use of talcum powder with ovarian cancer. Still even though Johnson and Johnson knew of these studies they don’t put any warning labels on their product. Now besides the two recent lawsuits against Johnson and Johnson over the issue of their talcum powder there have been a total of 1,200 cases that are still pending!!
Apparently woman are unaware of the seriousness there could be using talcum powder over lengths of time. I wonder why Johnson and Johnson continues making a product that could cause ovarian cancer and is willing to keep paying awards to people knowing that their product could be responsible for a disease? How would one prove that their product was a cause of their death? Did the clients keep the empty bottles of Johnson and Johnson talcum powder? Wonder if these women have chances of getting ovarian cancer in their background?
photo courtesy of bing public domain images
Some people may have a fear of walking under a ladder is superstitious, bad luck if you will. However, you’ll find out that this woman who is paying more attention to her cellphone and walks into a ladder gets $161,000!! Yep, you read that right she gets money for not paying attention to her surroundings because she’s busy on her cellphone!! To see what I’m referring to, go to this link https://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/2016/04/woman-walks-into-a-ladder-while-engrossed-in-her-cellphone-jury-awards-her-161000/
Now, it seems to me that the accident was purely her fault, even after all video cameras don’t lie!! Also, there were cones in place, she went past the “work” area several times!! I mean will this mean that people who are on their cell phones while they’re driving could be “rewarded” if they run into a vehicle and damage their car and might get whiplash?
Where did the jury come up with she was only 8% liable for the accident? It was proven that she was distracted by her phone, phone records indicate this. On the video surveillance of the site, it was determined that she had went by the scene several times and was “aware” of the equipment that was around, including orange cones. Now, right there is 80% at least that she was aware and distracted!!
So maybe there should be a new superstition, “walking INTO ladders could bring you money, when you sue!!” Now, if that would have been me, I would have injured myself worse and wouldn’t have been awarded anything!!
With all the evidence that was provided, do you think she was only liable for 8% for her injuries? Will this start a trend of people being distracted by their cellphones and accidents happening and the person only liable for 8% of their injuries? How does one determine what percentage you are liable for your actions? I thought every one is responsible for 100% for what happens to them.
photo courtesy of https://pixabay.com/en/beautiful-business-cell-15679/
I know from personal experience that when I have a cellphone, people will text or call me that I don’t even know!! Cellphone numbers are recycled after a certain amount of time. So some one could have had my number over a year ago, but I have it now. Occasionally, people will text or call me thinking that I’m some one else. Of course I will let them know that the person that they were calling for no longer has this number. Whatever the person might be texting might be important and I think that they should know that I am NOT the person that the message was meant for.
However, in this case the person decides to take action after 800+ texts to the wrong number and now they want to sue the business for ALL those texts!! To see what I’m referring to, go to this link https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2014/aug/19/ticker-dude-fish-taco-place-called-again/#
Now, maybe I’m missing something, but why would you accept that many texts knowing that they were NOT for you? Also, why didn’t the employee notify the business that that “old” number wasn’t theirs anymore? I would have contacted the company and told them this number belonged to some one else, PLEASE stop sending texts to me!! Why continue accepting 800+ texts that weren’t even meant for you? Why should the company that’s being sued have to check with the Federal Communications Commission to clarify Telephone Consumer Protection Act applicability? Shouldn’t the person who was getting the texts be responsible for telling the FCC that they’re getting “unwanted” texts from a business and shouldn’t the FCC question why the person waited until there was over 800 texts to “sue?” Some places they charge added fees for texts that I’m sure with 800+ texts would probably add a lot to their bill. So apparently the “defendent” had enough to pay at least part of those fees. So once again why didn’t he contact someone BEFORE he received the 800+ texts?
What are your thoughts?
photo courtesy of https://pixabay.com/en/text-vector-mobile-980031/
What did they expect when they say “ALL YOU CAN EAT” buffet? So, of course this man is going to take advantage of this to file a lawsuit against Golden Corral. To read about what I’m referring to go to this link https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/man-kicked-out-of-all-you-can-eat-buffet-after-eating-more-than-50-lbs-of-food-sues-for-2-millions/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork
Now I don’t care whether this man was on welfare or not, should he have been asked to leave even though he had consumed 50-70 pounds of food at an “All You Can Eat” buffet? I know my husband and I don’t eat out very often and some times I may over-stuff myself, like just the other day we went to a Chinese buffet. We spend a good four hours there, but we were visiting my son. I know all three of us didn’t eat that much food combined! However, I noticed one of our “waiters” kept coming over to us. So I at some point fell like we could be asked to leave because we were eating slowly and visiting.
Now when the establishment asked him to leave and even said that the 50-70 pounds of food would be free, wouldn’t you think that would be sufficient, even though he apparently ate more than what the price probably was? Or maybe he thought he would try his luck at getting more money out of them if he sued them?
Now, even though they claim “All You Can Eat” buffet, maybe they should have a weight limit on the food, if they don’t want people to eat all their food! But then that would be false advertising as well. Who has a say on how much “All You Can Eat” is?
What do you think should be the verdict? Wonder if more people will be suing “All You Can Eat” buffets because the establishment considers what they think “all you can eat” is? I would never have even of thought about being kicked out of an “All You Can Eat” buffet before because you ate more than “All You Can Eat!” lol
photo courtesy of link provided
Even though this article is about 2 years old, I think that many “ridiculous” lawsuits will be based on the theory that every thing should come with a warning. Just like some one suing over a cup of hot coffee. The person spills the hot coffee and gets burned, so they will sue the company for not having a WARNING that the coffee is HOT!! Now, it would only take common sense to figure out that of course the coffee may be HOT!!
So on to the story for this post… https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/11/pimp-nike-jordan-sue/4431131/ Now this pimp got busted for beating a man with a Nike shoe!!! He gets caught!!! Now the pimp wants to sue Nike for “”failing to warn of risk or providing an adequate warning or instruction” that their shoes are a “potentially dangerous product.
Now why should a company that produces a product for a person to wear for running, walking or jogging need to put a disclaimer on their product just because some one decides to use their product to commit a crime? The purpose of the shoe has nothing to do with committing a crime, the person that decided to use this product to commit a crime used a product that wasn’t made to commit a crime!! This insanity would be like every one that uses a fork to eat and then becomes obese and has health issues should sue the manufacture of the fork for their health problems because they used their product and now have health problems!!!
Most of these lawsuits are due to the lack of common sense and of course lawyers can make money off of that lack of common sense!! Of course people like me that want to make money by writing a post/blog about it can also make money off of these senseless lawsuits!!! 😉
What would your verdict be?
photo courtesy of https://pixabay.com/en/nike-symbol-check-mark-311452/
Now,if I’m wrong please clarify it for me… I thought a “selfie” is a picture that some one takes of them self, hence the “selfie.” So, how could an animal have “selfie” copyright? The animal can’t take a picture of them self! But apparently PETA wants to make a lawsuit for these monkeys over copyright for their pictures, which apparently are NOT taken by the monkeys!! To read about it, go to this link https://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/2015/10/peta-lawsuit-claims-monkey-not-photographer-owns-selfie-copyrights/
So, if this is the case, then I’m sure there are probably a lot of animals that PETA should sue for because the pictures that a photographer have taken of an animal should belong to the animal not the photographer or whoever buys the pictures then!! Besides according to the article ” The U.S. Copyright Office says it will register copyrights “only for works produced by human beings.” So the monkeys or any other animals can’t claim copyrights to their pictures!! Anyway, it still goes back to my point that if some one else takes a picture of some one or something, it’s NOT considered a “selfie.”
It sounds like PETA is trying to do some “monkey” business and get some money maybe for themselves, because what are the monkeys going to do with it? It’s not like the pictures caused any harm to the monkeys and why didn’t PETA tell the photographer not to take pictures? Just another way of some one trying to get money from some one!!
What do you think will be the outcome of this case? Should PETA be rewarded money, because the photographer has NO copyright to the “selfies” of the monkeys? Or is PETA wanting their share of royalties from the photographers pictures that he published? Why doesn’t PETA stand up for the rights of dogs/cats that are abused, like they’re doing for these monkeys? At least these monkeys weren’t harmed by the pictures.
Photo courtesy of link provided above.
In writing most sites are against plagiarism. You know when you use some one else’s writing and claim that it is yours. This not only happens with writing but in cases of pictures…you have to make sure the picture is “free” and you give it credit. Now this is all pretty much common sense…don’t claim something as yours if it isn’t. Now even the “Big Bang Theory” may be guilty of this! To see what I’m referring to, go to this link https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/lawsuit-claims-big-bang-stole-soft-kitty-song/ar-BBnZTcS?ocid=ansmsnent11
Apparently one of the songs that one of the cast sings quite often may not be an original of the staff’s writing crew! An heir of the “original” writer is claiming that the “Big Bang Theory” has no right in using that song. It seems like the “original” person wrote a poem/song back in the 1930’s!
Apparently the daughters of the “original” writer are claiming that their mom wrote something similar to the song that they are using on the show!! Since I don’t watch the show and am not familiar with the “Soft kitty, warm kitty, little ball of fur…” song, but it is being compared to the “original” song/poem of “Warm Kitty and starts, “Warm kitty, soft kitty, little ball of fur.”
My question is that the “supposed” author (Edith Newlin) died in 2004. The show has supposedly used the song eight times since 2008 and they had permission from Willis Music Company to use that song from a book “Songs For The Nursery School.” Now what a coincidence that the Willis Music Company didn’t get rights to the song/poem after all Ms Newlin was a nursery school teacher!
So shouldn’t Ms Newlin’s heirs be suing Willis Music Company, after all they were the ones who were “claiming” the song/poem that apparently their mom wrote and then published it in a book? Warner Bros. Entertainment was just using it from the Willis Music Company who claimed the song/poem was theirs! Maybe the heirs are suing the wrong people!
Photo courtesy of link mentioned above.
Now, I believe this is a new kind of lawsuit, but wonder if it will continue as we see more crimes being committed. To see what I’m referring to, go to this link https://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/2015/10/bank-robber-gets-shot-after-pointing-gun-at-deputy-sues-city-for-medical-bills/
Now first off, this man shouldn’t have bee trying to rob a bank. He should have been making money the old fashioned way, having a job! Secondly, I would think that there would be some kind of risks to robbing banks, like being shot by the police! So this is what happened, this man was robbing a bank, the police were called and apparently the robber wasn’t giving up. The police had no choice but to fire shots that only were to injure him not to kill him. Then the robber has the nerve to sue for medical expenses he acquired in the process of robbing a bank? What was the robber thinking? The robber is lucky that he was just injured and not killed!!
When you think about it, life has no guarantees. You could be walking down the street and you could get run over, or lightning could strike you. In general, you’re taking health risks. It’s worse when you’re a criminal, either the victim or the police or maybe even a bystander could inflict harm on you for committing a crime because people want to stop you from committing a crime! But now the criminal thinks he has “special” needs by asking/suing for money for injuries that occurred while committing a crime! At least if he was working on a job and got hurt he could file a workman’s compensation claim! When you’re just out committing crimes and you get injured you shouldn’t get compensated for it!!
If you were the judge and jury on this case what would your verdict be? It’s pretty obvious what I think! Don’t be committing any crimes!!
Photo courtesy of link found above.
I hate that when that happens when you go to a drive thru and order food and they never give you enough napkins!! Or you go inside for a takeout and they never give you enough napkins!! Well apparently this person hates it when it happens too!! To see what I’m referring to go this link https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-sues-mcdonald-napkin-article-1.1708068
Apparently this man thinks that only getting one napkin is worth $1.5 Million from a McDonald’s after they only gave him one napkin!! When the man went to get more napkins, the manager refused. Now why would a manager refuse a customer of napkins? Which leads to the question why the man is also claiming that the manager made ( in his opinion) a racist remark.Now usually after making a complaint, the manager will try every thing in his/her power to satisfy the customer by giving away free coupons or even making fresh food for the customer and not charge them. It would be bad publicity to have an unhappy customer. But apparently this man was so distraught that he wanted money instead of a free hamburger!! Like $1.5 Million over only getting one napkin and then accusing the manager of making racial remarks.
Why would anyone even consider suing over just getting one napkin from a restaurant? Wonder how this all turns out? As a judge what would you say?
Photo courtesy of https://pixabay.com/en/cutlery-napkin-knife-fork-586/
It seems like nowadays people are overly sensitive. They are also willing to sue over anything, just like in this case https://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2014/06/nj_man_sues_benjamin_moore_over_racially_offensive_paint_names.htmlas
Apparently this man is offended by paint colors!! Now you would have thought that when he gained employment at Benjamin Morris there would be different colors of paint. Anyway, how can a name of an inanimate object be offensive? So apparently instead of being honored that a paint had his last name in it, he becomes offensive! WOW!!
Sounds like this Clinton Tucker had a problem working at BM because of the racially offensive names of paint. Now if he was so offended why didn’t he leave the company and find work else where? Makes one wonder if at his previous jobs if he was racially offended at that job as well for whatever reason? Gee, wonder if there were any people with the last name of White that ever was offended by racially named paints?
I know I am very proud of my name and of my heritage. I also know that not all people are going to be as proud of their name or heritage as I am, but that doesn’t mean that they are offensive. The world is full of different people, and if you don’t like some thing then change it..don’t sue over it!!
I think that most people don’t care what color, ethnicity or religion you are as long as you don’t force it down every one and accept people’s differences, but then there are those people like this man who is offended at anything and every thing, even apparently names of paint!! Now there are times when some thing is offensive and should be sued, but being offended by the names of paint? What is next to be offended over? (I’m sure I’ll be writing about it here! 😉
Photo courtesy of link mentioned.