Most Ridiculous Lawsuits of All Time

Here

My favourite:

1995, Robert Lee Brock sued himself for $5 million. He claimed that he had violated his own civil rights and religious beliefs by allowing himself to get drunk and commit crimes which landed him in the Indian Creek Correctional Center in Virginia, serving a 23 year sentence for grand larceny and breaking and entering. What could he possibly have to gain by suing himself? Since being in prison prevented him from having an income, he expected the state to pay. This case was thrown out.

HT

[Seaboe Muffinchucker]

Actually, you'll note that most of these were thrown out. I'm glad to see that the site specifies that.

Two ridiculous lawsuits I know of personally (yes, both were thrown out):

1. The woman who sued IHOP for emotional distress because she heard an ad for a specific breakfast, but her local IHOP was not a participating restaurant. She filed pro-se.

2. The woman who sued either Jim Beam or Jack Daniels because her child suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome. This was right after the labels on alcohol were changed to mention FAS. She claimed that if they'd changed the label sooner she'd've stopped drinking. Her own physician and most of her friends testified against her, stating that they'd told her drinking would injure her unborn child. She lost.

Seaboe

Best frivolous case I know of - John Wesley Kazmeier (sp?) v. CIA et al. A federal case out of Wisconsin. Mr. Kazmeier sued the CIA and various other governmental agencies because they, so he alleged, used portable laser dental equipment on him and then broke his arm thereby ruining his high school sports career. He wanted something like 3 trillion dollars in damages and to be named Assistant Head of the FBI.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

The best one I ever saw (I was present when the motion was filed for summary dismissal) was a suit against the Catholic Church (diocese of San Diego) to prohibit them from incorrect teachings on the Bible.

Silas

Silas - That's good (bad?) on a couple of levels. I'll bet that was worth seeing.

[Troberg]

The best one I ever saw (I was present when the motion was filed for summary dismissal) was a suit against the Catholic Church (diocese of San Diego) to prohibit them from incorrect teachings on the Bible.

Well, assuming that the Dead Sea scrolls are more correct, he might have a case, scientifically if not legally. Of course, that would probably work equally well against the church he was trying to support...

[pinqy]

Originally Posted by Troberg

Well, assuming that the Dead Sea scrolls are more correct, he might have a case, scientifically if not legally. Of course, that would probably work equally well against the church he was trying to support...

Legally, of course, there's no case in the US as the courts have long interpreted the Establishment Clause of the 1st Ammendment to mean that the government cannot comment on what is or is not correct for any religion.

pinqy

[Tantei Kid]

"When kids commit heinous crimes, who is responsible? The makers of every video game they’ve ever played, of course"

I'm usually against blaming video games, but to be fair it mentions Final Fantasy as one of the culprits. Those chocobo summonings did most of the damage after all, and I don't know where else they could have learned them.

I was almost on a jury of one of these type cases. The story goes (one of the jurors told me the whole sordid mess) that a stoned dude needed more drugs (he was running out), but since he was stoned, he "hired" some other stoner to drive him to the drug buying zone. When the two stoners got there, they met a set of dealers (about 3 or so, don't remember the exact count). Because stoner #1 & stoner #2 were both...stoned...the deal went bad and every one pulled out a gun and started shooting at close range. we are talking 2-5 feet from each other. No one dies. However, they all get arrested, either in the area or when they show up to the hospital with bullet wounds.

Now they are all in jail. So they decide to sue each other. Here are a few of the "cases":
1. Stoner #1 is suing stoner #2 because #2 didn't tell #1 he was already stoned.
2. Some of the dealers are suing the stoners because they should not have been stoned while shopping for drugs...
3. The dealers are suing each other for pulling their guns out and shooting prematurely.

There were several others and the judge decided to condense them into one court case. I talked to someone on the jury and they had to deal with testimony along the lines of:

"So Drake shot Dale while Dale was in the car-"
"Objection! Drake could not have shot Dale because Dale was shot with a 9 mm. Drake has already testified that he carried a 38."
"Then who shot Dale?"
"It must have been James."
"But James was in the car with Dale."
"Yes, but James had a 9 mm. He must have shot Dale accidentally while attempting to shoot Drake when Drake pulled his 38."
"Well how could James make such a stupid mistake?"
"I was stoned, man."
"Objection! James is not on the witness stand at this time. He can't testify..."


The sad part is the judge did not throw out the case, it actually went to the jury. Each dealer/stoner had a lawyer and it was a real mess.

[TB Tabby]

I'm mostly fed up with the Columbine incident being blamed on video games, but this sentence caught my eye:

They claimed that were it not for movies includingThe Basketball Diaries and videos games including Doom, Duke Nukem, Quake, Mortal Kombat, Resident Evil, Mech Warrior, Wolfenstein, Redneck Rampage, Final Fantasy, and Nightmare Creatures,

MECHWARRIOR?! At what point did the Columbine shooters climb into a 30-foot robot and fire Gauss rifles at the kids?!

[diddy]

Originally Posted by TB Tabby

At what point did the Columbine shooters climb into a 30-foot robot and fire Gauss rifles at the kids?!

Well they were using guns in that game and they are the EBEL don't you know???

[Seaboe Muffinchucker]

Oh, and for wacky law suits, I forgot one:

U.S. ex rel Mayo v. Satan and His Staff. That is actually a published case (although it, too, was thrown out at a very early stage).

Mr. Mayo wanted to sue the Big Evil Guy and petitioned to proceed in forma pauperis. He got turned down, in part because he didn't explain how he was going to effect service.

Great, very short opinion.

Seaboe

[pinqy]

Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker

Oh, and for wacky law suits, I forgot one:

U.S. ex rel Mayo v. Satan and His Staff. That is actually a published case (although it, too, was thrown out at a very early stage).

Mr. Mayo wanted to sue the Big Evil Guy and petitioned to proceed in forma pauperis. He got turned down, in part because he didn't explain how he was going to effect service.

Great, very short opinion.

Seaboe

My favorite part was the reference to "The Devil and Daniel Webster" as "an unofficial account of a trial in New Hampshire where this defendant filed an action of mortgage foreclosure as plaintiff," as part of the questioning of residence of Satan.

pinqy

[zman977]

And the latest addition to the dumbest law suits.




How does one quantify enjoyment gained from the perfect pair of pants? A flattering fit, oh-so-crisp lines or fine-woven fabrics might make trousers priceless to their owner. Roy L. Pearson, Jr., who just happens to be an administrative law judge for the District, doesn't have a problem putting a price on such clothes. He believes his pants are worth $67 million.


story here.

[remarkgullabull]

My favorite. Don't know if it's true or not......


A Charlotte, N.C., man, having purchased a box of very rare, very expensive cigars insured them against fire, among other things. Within a month of having smoked his entire stockpile of cigars and without having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the man filed a claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the man stated the cigars were "lost in a series of small fires."
The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason: that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The man sued ... and won! In delivering the ruling, the judge agreed that the claim was frivolous. He stated, nevertheless, that the man held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure against fire, without defining what is considered to be "unacceptable fire," and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure a lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid the man $15,000 for the rare cigars he had lost in the "fires."

After the man cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of arson. With his insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the man was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000.00 fine.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by remarkgullabull

My favorite. Don't know if it's true or not......


A Charlotte, N.C., man, having purchased a box of very rare, very expensive cigars insured them against fire, among other things. Within a month of having smoked his entire stockpile of cigars and without having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the man filed a claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the man stated the cigars were "lost in a series of small fires."
The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason: that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The man sued ... and won! In delivering the ruling, the judge agreed that the claim was frivolous. He stated, nevertheless, that the man held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure against fire, without defining what is considered to be "unacceptable fire," and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure a lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid the man $15,000 for the rare cigars he had lost in the "fires."

After the man cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of arson. With his insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the man was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000.00 fine.

Not true. Cigar-a-chow

[Graham2001]

Originally Posted by zman977

And the latest addition to the dumbest law suits.




How does one quantify enjoyment gained from the perfect pair of pants? A flattering fit, oh-so-crisp lines or fine-woven fabrics might make trousers priceless to their owner. Roy L. Pearson, Jr., who just happens to be an administrative law judge for the District, doesn't have a problem putting a price on such clothes. He believes his pants are worth $67 million.


story here.

This one also turns up in the N.Z Herald, which also adds the following:

In 1996, Bennie Casson of Illinois, demanded US$100,000 from a strip club after a dancer slammed her breasts into his head causing a "bruised, contused, lacerated neck". The breasts of Susan Sykes, aka Busty Hart, supposedly caused him "emotional distress, mental anguish and indignity." The suit made him a laughing stock and his case ground to a halt. Three years later, he shot himself.

* * *

In 2002, a man from Hot Springs, Montana sued Viacom for US$10 million claiming that its TV show Jackass plagiarised his name. The plaintiff's legal name was Jack Ass though he was born Bob Croft. It is not known if the case reached court.

* * *

A store worker in West Virginia, Cheryl Vandevender, won US$2.7 million, later cut by about US$500,000, after she injured her back opening a pickle jar in 1997. New Zealand Herald

In addition to those there is of course the one where the little old lady got burned by McDonalds too hot coffee and sued them, its presented in a way that makes it sound like its a "You've broke my nails, I'm going to sue you for emotional damage..." type case.

[Floater]

Originally Posted by Graham2001

In addition to those there is of course the one where the little old lady got burned by McDonalds too hot coffee and sued them, its presented in a way that makes it sound like its a "You've broke my nails, I'm going to sue you for emotional damage..." type case.

Some bloke called Snopes addresses this case here.

[diddy]

In 1996, Bennie Casson of Illinois, demanded US$100,000 from a strip club after a dancer slammed her breasts into his head causing a "bruised, contused, lacerated neck". The breasts of Susan Sykes, aka Busty Hart, supposedly caused him "emotional distress, mental anguish and indignity." The suit made him a laughing stock and his case ground to a halt. Three years later, he shot himself.

Related-a chow

[Illuminatus]

I don't have a cite at the moment, but my Civil Procedure textbook includes a case of a man named Thiel suing the railroad. Apparently, he bought a ticket and then decided in the middle of the trip to jump out the window. He then sued because the railroad had allegedly failed to protect him from himself by stationing guards to prevent him from jumping.

(Note: It's in the book as an example of improper jury pool selection)

Additionally, I once worked as a Court Researcher. I came upon a case in Fort Collins, CO, where a woman tried to argue that the state court which was evicting her had no jurisdiction because she was a resident of the Kingdom of God, and earthly courts were the province of Satan.