Silly lawsuits

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker

In the United States, one can file a lawsuit against just about anyone for just about anything. That's the price we pay for having courts that are available to anyone for any reason. Filing a lawsuit means diddly.

Getting past summary disposition means a little bit. Only winning substantial motions or (in the end) damages means much.

Seaboe

Aren't people working on the assumption that the defendant will pay them something to go away, rather than spend money on a defense.

[Recklessmess]

Originally Posted by diddy

Again, one can file suit on anything. This would be bound to be thrown about as you said since you are not a ward of the state while in prison and you cannot sue yourself, nor can you sue based on becoming incarcerated unless you are innocent - but then you wouldn't be suing yourself.

I can sue you for one million dollars for giving me a look that I don't like. However the judge is going to take one look at this and toss it out because it has no merit. I still sued you though but it meant nothing at all.

You'll most likely be suing pro se, because no lawyer in his or her right mind would file that suit. And, after filing my motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, I'll petition the court to sanction you for filing a frivolous lawsuit. So even though you sued me, you'll likely end up coming out well behind where you were before I looked at you funny.

Originally Posted by Rehcsif

Negligence would have to be proven here, and I don't see even a smidgeon of grounds for that.

If Mr. O'Rourke was visibly drunk and the bartender kept serving him, then dramshop laws would most likely apply and the bartender could be negligent per se, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by Recklessmess

You'll most likely be suing pro se, because no lawyer in his or her right mind would file that suit. And, after filing my motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, I'll petition the court to sanction you for filing a frivolous lawsuit. So even though you sued me, you'll likely end up coming out well behind where you were before I looked at you funny.

Thats exactly correct. But I could still claim that I filled suit. That doesn't make it a wise choice though.

If Mr. O'Rourke was visibly drunk and the bartender kept serving him, then dramshop laws would most likely apply and the bartender could be negligent per se, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction.

Bartender claimed he kicked the man out and said he was not drunk. The guy claimed he continued to buy alcohol at a liquor store and got drunker. Clearly he stop serving him at some point.

[Seaboe Muffinchucker]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Aren't people working on the assumption that the defendant will pay them something to go away, rather than spend money on a defense.

Some of them are--but they're taking a big risk. A lot of companies won't settle clearly frivolous suits, and attorneys either won't take them on at all (because they can get in trouble for it) or won't take them on without being paid up front, which means these poor deluded people are out of pocket from the get go.

Seaboe

[Recklessmess]

Originally Posted by diddy

Thats exactly correct. But I could still claim that I filled suit. That doesn't make it a wise choice though.

Just because you can procedurally do something doesn't make it OK to do. I can pay you $5 to go out and hit a couple of baseballs, but you'd get some funny looks when you told people you were a professional ball player. Then you'd have to sue those people for looking at you funny.

Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker

Some of them are--but they're taking a big risk. A lot of companies won't settle clearly frivolous suits, and attorneys either won't take them on at all (because they can get in trouble for it) or won't take them on without being paid up front, which means these poor deluded people are out of pocket from the get go.

Seaboe

Unless you get the insurance companies involved. There is usually a self-insured retention written into the policy, but that can be as low as $5,000. Once the "defendant" pays $5k out-of-pocket, depending on the suit, the insurance company then owes a duty to defend. Those are they guys making the decision to pay out $100k (arbitrary figure) instead of spending 3 times that much (not arbitrary) on a matter that goes to trial.

[Graham2001]

After six years of searching I may have found the origin of the second lawsuit I described in the OP.

Title: Air Confidential (Non-fiction)
Author: Elliot Hester
Pub: 2002 (Authors Copyright 2001)

Chapter 10 is entitled "The Passenger From Hell"

The story inside matches what I remember being told, man gets on plane (Flying from Guatemala to the US, according to the book) under the influence of who knows what, insults the crew and causes mayhem before being taken off the plane by police when it lands.

It's told anecdotally, with the narrator relaying it to a PI working for the passenger. The story ends:

"Oh hell no" he (PI) said. "Mr R. is suing your airline. We believe he was intoxicated before boarding and should never have been allowed on that airplane. Your airline is at fault."

No mention of a payout, but with no corresponding news stories, I'm going to call this one bogus.

[Mimi]

I don't know about that specific case, but here is a similar one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM42nG7Tjgs

In the case in the link, a strip club patron was allegedly put in their car by employees of Diamonds, even though the patron had thrown up in the Diamonds bathroom. The claim is that the patron was drunk when put in his car by the employee of Diamonds, before he caused the car accident. The strip club doesn't serve liquor, but allows patrons to bring their own.

It's not the same, I guess, unless it can be proven that one or more of the bars served an already intoxicated customer. Also, what reliable way is there for an employee to determine if a customer should not be driving? It's not as if an employee of an establishment of this kind can demand a patron take a breathalyser test before getting behind the wheel. Just looking at the way someone is acting is not the best way to judge intoxication.