More Silly lawsuits, are they real?

[Graham2001]

I've finally managed to convince a workmate that the 'Stella Awards' lawsuit list is bogus, but I was taken aback when he told me two more tales of people suing (and winning) in cases where injuries are their own fault.

The first supposedly took place in Florida. A man got drunk and then broke into an electrical substation where he touched either the power-lines or electrical equipment and somehow survived. He then sued the bar he was drinking at and the electrical company for a 'large' payout.

The second took place 'somewhere in the US'. This time a man boarded an airliner either high or drunk and caused havoc in the air until he was restrained. He then turned around and sued the airline on the grounds that they should have recognized his condition and refused him access to the aircraft. Again the payout was supposedly in the low seven figures range.

I am eighty to ninety percent sure that both tales are bogus, but on the off-chance that I am wrong I thought I'd post here to see if anyone has come across or heard something similar.

[diddy]

The first one I would doubt. Aren't electrical companies guarded to make sure drunk people cannot get in? Plus, he broke in. If the electrical company had warning signs they are off the hook (he ignored high voltage signs - it doesn't matter that you were drunk since he wasn't supposed to be there). Furthermore, unless the bar kept serving him while drunk, they are off too.

[SoToasty]

From a Google search for the first.

I still can't determine if it is true. Although I vaguely remember hearing about this.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by SoToasty

From a Google search for the first.

I still can't determine if it is true. Although I vaguely remember hearing about this.

From the first link:

Here is the killer. The lawsuit claimed that O'Rourke is "unable to control his urge to drink alcoholic beverages.''

Makes his case worse to me. He knows that he has a drinking problem yet he willingly went to a bar and got drunk.

ETA:

Ed O'Rourke claims that “we” didn’t do enough to prevent him from slipping into a fenced, gated and locked substation and scaling the electrical transformer.

He even admits to breaking a secured area and expects payment... Stupid.

ETA 2:

Bruce Martin, owner of The Waterhole Sports Bar -- one of the bars named in O'Rourke's lawsuit -- says he remembers the transformer incident but denies that O'Rourke was even in his bar that night. "He was previously thrown out of here because he was writing on the bathroom walls," Martin told the Tampa Tribune.

(source)

Should be easy to verify, if he had been banned before hand, his suit looks even worse.

[KathyB]

The substation lawsuit dates to March, 2000. I can't find the outcome.
Man files suit against businesses for his drunken escapades

[Ed O'Rourke] whose night of drinking ended with him scaling a fence to an electrical substation and being shocked with 13,000 volts is suing the six businesses where he said he bought his booze.

He's also suing Tampa Electric Co., saying it didn't do enough to keep him from slipping into a fenced, gated and locked substatiion and scaling the transformer late one night in May 1996.

'Shocked' Man Sues Bars That Served Him

March 3, 2000

TAMPA, Fla. (Reuters) - A Florida man who said he was shocked by 13,000 volts of electricity after climbing up a transformer in a "drunken stupor" has sued six bars and stores that allegedly sold him alcohol.

Ed O'Rourke also named Tampa Electric Co. as a defendant in the lawsuit filed on Thursday in Hillsborough County Circuit Court in Tampa. He said the utility did not do enough to prevent him from slipping into a fenced, gated and locked substation and scaling the electrical transformer late one night in May 1996.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by KathyB

The substation lawsuit dates to March, 2000. I can't find the outcome.
Man files suit against businesses for his drunken escapades
'Shocked' Man Sues Bars That Served Him

My guess is that the suit was dismissed since I can't find an outcome either. Unless he can prove that the bars served him while he was drunk (we are talking 6 bars), they could be the only ones liable. The facility was locked and gated - clearly breaking and entering.

We have to remember that anyone can file a suit over anything. Weather or not it goes anywhere is a different story.

[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

[Dog Friendly]

I'll throw one on the table.

A young man meets a young woman at a nightclub. They enjoy one another's company well enough to decide to go on enjoying one another's company back at his place. The young man goes off to work in the morning, leaving his newfound inamorata alseep in his bed.

He comes home from work and finds his apartment stripped. TV, stereo, computer, checkbook, credit cards, clothes, microwave -- all gone. And of course, he never learned the woman's last name, much less verified the first name she gave him. No way to track her.

But he's a resourceful chap. Figures out that the thing to do is to sue the nightclub chain, under the perfectly logical theory that if they hadn't been operating that club at that location that night, he wouldn't have met that girl and None of This Would Have Happened.

One ending has him being awarded an astonishing amount of money, the other ending has the club settling out of court for an astonishing etc. While I believe that there are people stupid enough to have done everything else in the story, I don't want to believe that any judge anywhere would find against the club, nor do I believe that a nightclub's lawyer would see a reason not to let this go to court -- and then countersue the idiot for malicious whatever.

I don't think either ending is true.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by Dog Friendly

I don't think either ending is true.

The only settlement I can see the club giving him is a free stiff drink to help drown his sorrows...

Originally Posted by Dog Friendly

I'll throw one on the table.

A young man meets a young woman at a nightclub. They enjoy one another's company well enough to decide to go on enjoying one another's company back at his place. The young man goes off to work in the morning, leaving his newfound inamorata alseep in his bed.

He comes home from work and finds his apartment stripped. TV, stereo, computer, checkbook, credit cards, clothes, microwave -- all gone. And of course, he never learned the woman's last name, much less verified the first name she gave him. No way to track her.

But he's a resourceful chap. Figures out that the thing to do is to sue the nightclub chain, under the perfectly logical theory that if they hadn't been operating that club at that location that night, he wouldn't have met that girl and None of This Would Have Happened.

One ending has him being awarded an astonishing amount of money, the other ending has the club settling out of court for an astonishing etc. While I believe that there are people stupid enough to have done everything else in the story, I don't want to believe that any judge anywhere would find against the club, nor do I believe that a nightclub's lawyer would see a reason not to let this go to court -- and then countersue the idiot for malicious whatever.

I don't think either ending is true.

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

ETA: There are enough "real" stupid lawsuits out there. Why do people insist on making up fake ones?

-Tim

[diddy]

Originally Posted by Rehcsif

ETA: There are enough "real" stupid lawsuits out there. Why do people insist on making up fake ones?

-Tim

Because you can make them as funny as you like. Sometimes fantasy can be funnier than reality I guess.

Originally Posted by diddy

Because you can make them as funny as you like. Sometimes fantasy can be funnier than reality I guess.

Sometimes. But often truth is stranger than fiction...

And these "fake" tales have the sinister side of trying to promote the idea that our legal system is FUBAR using false information...

-Tim

[diddy]

Originally Posted by Rehcsif

Sometimes. But often truth is stranger than fiction...

And these "fake" tales have the sinister side of trying to promote the idea that our legal system is FUBAR using false information...

-Tim

Oh I agree with you. Truth is often times stranger than fiction. The fictitious ones have the benefit of being able to mock idiots (see the Darwin awards). The problem is that it makes the legal system look bad, and the authors either don't realize it, or care.

Originally Posted by diddy

The fictitious ones have the benefit of being able to mock idiots (see the Darwin awards).

But it's not clear to me in these cases (unlike the Darwin awards) who's being mocked. I can act like a pretty big idiot if people want to pay me 6 figures for it...

Heck, I often do it for free!

-Tim

[diddy]

Originally Posted by Rehcsif

But it's not clear to me in these cases (unlike the Darwin awards) who's being mocked. I can act like a pretty big idiot if people want to pay me 6 figures for it...

Heck, I often do it for free!

-Tim

*shrug* I can pretty easily tell. Its the person making the claim plus the double whammy of the company that actually pays them for said idiocy.

Originally Posted by diddy

*shrug* I can pretty easily tell. Its the person making the claim plus the double whammy of the company that actually pays them for said idiocy.

Well, it's hardly the company being an idiot if the court orders it...

-Tim

[diddy]

Originally Posted by Rehcsif

Well, it's hardly the company being an idiot if the court orders it...

-Tim

All the ones I have seen always involve out of court settlements rather than a judicial ordering. In those cases where its a Judges order, its mocking the stupidity of the idiot.

My personal favorite legend is the genius who landed himself in prison, sued himself for a million dollars for landing himself in prison, and insisted that, as a ward of the state, his damages be paid by the state.

That one ends with the judge throwing it out. Anyone know if it's real?

[diddy]

Originally Posted by Skyshot

My personal favorite legend is the genius who landed himself in prison, sued himself for a million dollars for landing himself in prison, and insisted that, as a ward of the state, his damages be paid by the state.

That one ends with the judge throwing it out. Anyone know if it's real?

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.

[Graham2001]

Thanks to those who replied and confirmed that at least the first of the lawsuites I was told about was based on something that actually happened.

I've been doing my own websearching on the second with no luck so far.