REALLY? I’ve never heard anyone say that before. Isn’t bi-polar disorder a form of mental illness? Doesn’t a significant portion of the populace suffer from that? What about ADD, paranoia, hypochondria, obsessive-compulsive disorder, etc.? Aren’t those all forms of mental illness. . . and very common ones?
[quote]Surely in the process of executing a law suit it must have become glaringly apparent the man was bonkers. Why was that not acted upon? Simple enough. Then again perhaps there are big problems with the laws governing the mentally ill in the US, as highlighted by the repeat warnings that preceeded those murders by that Korean gunmen.
On the face of it, a man suing a laundromat for US$54m over a pair of missing trousers is clearly bonkers. That option should have been investigated and eliminated.[/quote]
Reminds me of the thought I always have when some mommy in Texas ( ) murders her babies or some guy shoots up a university or some other horrendous act and people are screaming out for the death penalty and get upset when his/her lawyer argues “not guilty by reason of insanity,” and the people claim it’s just a sneaky trick to avoid facing punishment. I always think in such cases that of course he/she is crazy – if someone commits a crime that is so extreme no sane person would even think of doing such a thing, then that person therefore must be insane, right?
This case is different, though, because it’s the lunatic’s civil case, not a criminal case against him. Keep in mind, too, that a civil case always has two components: liability and damages. In this case the guy’s damages claim was totally nuts, but he may have had a plausible claim for liability, for establishing liability based on missing trousers. If so, he should have a right to try that claim and then try to prove up the amount of his damages, which should presumably come to about $100 or so. That may be part of hte reason the judge didn’t throw it out. Give him his day in court, let him try to prove his case, and ultimately he failed, not even establishing any liability. By giving him that chance the judge more finally and definitely terminated the lawsuit – he went to trial and lost. If the judge had instead chosen to dismiss the lawsuit prior to trial it would have likely ended up immediately in the court of appeals and perhaps would have then been sent back down to give him his right to a trial. After all, while the damages claim was nuts, the liability argument may have been credible.
Incidentally, people say all the time “I’ll sue him for a million dollars.” Now we can all see how crazy that common sentiment is. One can sue for any claim one wants in any amount one wants. But in the end, one gets nothing unless one proves liability and one only gets the amount of damages that one can actually prove – not just any absurd number pulled out of the air.