Are we Sueing for a Purpose?
People today are not sueing to rectify matters. There is no purpose in lawsuits today. I believe everyone is out to get an easy buck through the judicial system. It is almost inevitable if people spill hot coffee on themselves that they will win a lawsuit against the company that served them that coffee. People believe that nothing is their fault and that someone (the defendant) should pay. The problem with the judicial system today is that people are sueing all the time and winning in court with ridiculous cases.
Take this case in North Carolina for instance. A Dallas couple is sueing Kmart for $23 million dollars because some Kmart employees harassed and accused the Dallas couple of going through their garbage. The employees were fired and the Dallas couple sued for $23 million. Fortunately the couple didn’t receive all that money, there is a state law capping punitive damages which forced the judge to reduce it to $250 thousand dollars.
The plaintiffs feel that they have been mistreated and that Kmart should reconcile with them by paying them off. The couple states at the end of court that “they believe us. That the most important thing, they believe us.” Obviously that is not the most important thing to them for they are trying to appeal the state law which caps their $23 million. And if that’s not greedy enough, the week before the jury awarded them $18,985 in compensatory damages. So the couple was awarded $268,985 for being accused over something as petty as going through a stores trash.
Anyone can differentiate one fraudulent case from another. I understand that the Dallas couple is trying to clear their name from shame. But trying to appeal the already huge sum of money and going for more shows just how greedy these people really are. They got what they wanted, for the people to believe them. Everyone believes them now, and on top of that, they were awarded a nice some of money.
There are people out there who really do deserve some kind of compensation for negligence, harassment, or anything else that might have gone wrong. For example, a Gastonia man who already has enough appeal to pity has yet another problem to deal with. He is a paraplegic who awoke to find a rat eating at his leg to the bone.
...e terms and conditions the job entailed. I believe that Wal-Mart did accommodate Pam Huber’s disability needs by suggesting to her a different position to work in due to her downfall. If the company caused for her accident then they should accommodate for her disability and keep Pam Huber in her position but due to the fact that the accident happened on her own terms I do not think the company should be reliable for her disability and therefore Pam Huber should either accept and make the most out of her situation or leave the company. Based on all these factors I am defiantly in agreement with Wal-Mart and the district courts decision on ruling summery judgment in favor of Pam Huber.
In my opinion, if the jury in this case subtracted the contractual claims against the profits, they would have arrived at different damage/entitlement amounts. My guess is Main Line would have been entitled to much less than what was awarded in this case.
...awarded by a jury, this motion was denied by the judge. In the end Arnold & Porter lowered their desired settlement from $21 million to $15 million, Pittston offered $13 million. The two parties reach a settlement for $13.5 million, $8 million of which was for psychic-impairment.
They found Casey Anthony, who was charged with first degree murder of her 3-year-old, not guilty. While she was not guilty of murder, she was convicted on counts four through seven for false information given to the police. The judge sentenced her to one year in county jail for each one of the four counts, but she was released 10 days after she received 1043 days credit. If I was part of the jury I would have said she was guilty of murdering her daughter. Even if she did not kill her, she is still part of the reason why she died. Casey neglected her child either way and did not report the crime to the police until someone else did. I am shocked that the visual evidence did not convince the jury that she was guilty. From the strand of hair in the trunk that matched the past child’s hair, to the extensive research on chloroform found on all web browsers, it was very evident that she did or was at least part of murdering her
Facts: On December 4, 2012 the case involved Sandra Primrose as plaintiff versus Wal-Mart Stores, INC., as defendant presented in the hearing trial court. Ms. Primrose who was 73 years old at the time claimed that because of the Wal-Mart’s watermelon signs was display in the wrong area, where she was tripped and fell over the corner of the sign on September 09, 2009, and had caused her injuries while trying to transporting the watermelon to her shopping cart. She didn’t filled out the damage reported until September 09 of 2010. On October 15, 2012, Wal’Mart filed a motion for summary judgment request. According to Scott Harden who’s the store manager in this location during the incident was occur claimed that the signs have been in-used for
(3 points) What kind of defenses has the defendant raised? Or, if the case is over, what defenses did the defendant raise? If not clear in the article, what are the likely defenses?
The movie “A Civil Action” released on January 8, 1999 provides viewers with an extraordinary story of the nightmare that occurred in Woburn Massachusetts in the late 1970’s. The people of this small town at the time had no idea what was going on until there were various cases of Leukemia in small children that ultimately resulted in the early passing of them. The people eventually had gone to find out that the drinking water in this small town was contaminated and there were many women that stepped in to get answers. This movie is a tremendously jaw dropping, eye opening account of a heartbreaking true story incident. There are various elements of negligence in this movie including, duty, legal cause, proximate cause and damages.
The refinement of this definition has significant legal implications, as it broadens the scope of those who can sue within blameless accidents. Prior to this, such victims would also face being labelled with “fault”. Supporting the findings of Axiak, by establishing non-tortious conduct as separate from “fault”, similar, future cases are more likely to proceed despite the plaintiff’s contributory
Before the jury decides a verdict, the last step in the trial process is the closing arguments. There were no closing arguments because the parties had to settle on nine million dollars. They did this because the plaintiff’s attorneys went bankrupt due to this case and they couldn’t afford to invest any more money into the case. Beatrice Foods ended up being not liable for the deaths of children so they were allowed to leave the case. Due to this, only W.R. Grace had to settle with the plaintiff. Later on in 1988, Jan Schlichtmann brought this case to the EPA’s attention and the EPA decided to bring lawsuits against the companies. W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods ended up having to pay for their huge mistake. They had to pay for the largest chemical cleanup in the Northeastern which cost sixty- four million dollars.
Montgomery Ward appealed the verdict but was over ruled and the verdict was upheld. The court ruled that there was sufficient evidence that Ward made the promise to purchase the excess inventory.
In January 2011, The City of Kansas City, MO lost its second multi-million dollar employment discrimination lawsuit in a one-week period. The former city employees, Jordan Griffin and Coleen Low, were awarded $345,000 and $517,000 respectively by the jury. Griffin, a former Senior Analyst and Commissioner of Revenue, says she was given the nickname “White Chocolate” in the false belief she would favor minority hires. She also says she was harassed when she refused to participate in the biased-hiring process and was overlooked for an interview for the Commissioner of Revenue position on a permanent basis because it was already “pre-determined” that the position would be filled by an African American. When the then Senior Analyst Low spoke up on her colleague’s behalf, she says the city laid her off as well. The city’s, assistant attorney, said the city did nothing wrong and that the city was forced to layoff another 73 people that year due to the slump in the economy (Evans). Did Griffin and Low deserve the money they were compensated and does reverse discrimination exist?
and remedies applied by courts of law in civil proceedings giving the plaintiff or claimant relief
... impressed in the time, cost, and emotional expense that went into such a case. Because of the reluctance for government entities to get involved, as well as the lies being told, Jan was left holding the bag. It was easy to see that Jan's ego, coupled with his big spending habit, didn't help his end result. However, I can also see the most frugal plaintiff's attorney end up in bankruptcy if he or she became just as passionate about a case.
New York is in the grip of a litigation explosion that is clogging their courts and slowing their economy. According to the “Tort Reformer” over 84,000 new lawsuits are brought every year...that’s the equivalent of more than 300 suits being filed on every business day. When a deranged tort system destroys an industry – driving people out of jobs, panicking customers – and does so based on junk science admitted to the courtrooms by injudicious judges – there really is the possibility of making sure it doesn’t happen again.
Without the understanding of what really happened in an event or place and time justice is not being sought out and can’t be dealt to those that need it. We all have felt wronged, at one time or another, in one form or another and I feel that is why we all have a common interest in seeking justice.