That over-litigious and irresponsible society

Discussion Open Forum
1

I usually talk #$%@ about the US for its over-litigious people (often seemingly irresponsible), but this is just downright embarrassing as a Canadian.

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080611/wl_ … jvRjQDW7oF

[quote]
Thousands of problem gamblers in have launched a $3.5 billion class action lawsuit in Ontario, saying they were allowed into provincially run casinos despite signing up for a program that should have denied them entry.[/quote]

I hope the case gets thrown out with a warning and the lawyers sanctioned.

2

Just more evidence that Canadians secretly dream of being Americans…

(Just Kidding…Just Kidding)

3

Did these gamblers pay for this? If not, sounds like a voluntary program.

I bet gamblers used their inclusion in the program as an excuse to go back… to try and see if the program works.

4

Yes in this day and age you don’t take responsibilty for you own actions.

Learn from the Americans and sue others over your own failings.

Play the blame game.

5

Is this any different than smokers suing tobacco companies? That one blows my mind.

6

One difference is that big tobacco used “science” and “experts” to lie to the public saying that smoking is not addictive. That’s fraud.

Gambling companies are pretty open about the fact that gambling is addictive; they know it won’t hurt them.

7

One difference is that big tobacco used “science” and “experts” to lie to the public saying that smoking is not addictive. That’s fraud.

Gambling companies are pretty open about the fact that gambling is addictive; they know it won’t hurt them.[/quote]
I suppose there are some subtle differences between the two. Yet, anyone who doesn’t know that smoking is bad for you, and then wants to blame the various companies for providing you with their product that they chose to use, is a fool in my book. Can someone else blame/sue a liquor company because they became an alcoholic and it ruined their marriage, or they killed someone drunk driving? I think it’s all ridiculous. You have to be responsible for yourself first. That’s how I see it anyway.

What is the standard argument people use in court against tobacco companies to win settlements? How many are actually successful?

8

You can sue the bartender though.

And ciggies have chemicals in them that make them more addictive. I quit for almost 18 months. A couple of butts on a long boat ride and I am back on them. I don’t wanna smoke. But the craving is huge. It’s not impossible to stop, but BT makes sure it’s as difficult as can be. I am not about to sue Long Life Cigarettes, but someone should.

Back in Whistler in the early 90s, some guy fell thru the ice on a frozen lake and wanted to sue The Muni for not posting signs that walking on a frozen lake might be dangerous. Same town, a few years later, The Muni puts down some mangy dogs a local pseudo-breeder wasn’t taking care of. He sues. Then runs for Mayor. Got 38 votes. 10 more than I did. :blush:

9

And should have that right too. There are lots of cases where a kid turned 21 went to the bar, the bartender served him 21 shots in an hour and he went home and died. The bartender clearly should have known that could be lethal. Or hte drunken slob who keeps ordering one more, one more, one more, and the bartender, who knows the guy and knows his situation, keeps serving them to him despite knowing the guy’s totally plastered and about to attempt driving himself home. The guy then kills someone on the way home. Shouldn’t the victim’s families have a cause of action against the bartender who knew the great danger he was creating of death or serious injury but went ahead and did it anyway. After all, the bartender does have a right to say “no” if he wants.

Exactly. If cig companies intentionally target their advertising at kids too young to smoke, intentionally encourage underage kids to smoke, fail to take precautions to keep cigs out of the hands of underage kids, intentionally alter the product to make it more addictive, lie and intentionally mislead the public about the specific health risks involved (re low tar, lite, etc, for example), why shouldn’t they be held accountable for that? Sure anyone who smokes should know they’re killing themselves, but the pushers intentionally make it harder to kick the habit and easier to suck in the young and the gullible.

That said, I do think this lawsuit against the casinos is stupid and the gamblers are being a bunch of cry babies, although it’s a shame the casinos failed to properly implement the system, because it sounds like it could’ve been good if enforced.

10

One difference is that big tobacco used “science” and “experts” to lie to the public saying that smoking is not addictive. That’s fraud.

Gambling companies are pretty open about the fact that gambling is addictive; they know it won’t hurt them.[/quote]
I suppose there are some subtle differences between the two. Yet, anyone who doesn’t know that smoking is bad for you, and then wants to blame the various companies for providing you with their product that they chose to use, is a fool in my book. Can someone else blame/sue a liquor company because they became an alcoholic and it ruined their marriage, or they killed someone drunk driving? I think it’s all ridiculous. You have to be responsible for yourself first. That’s how I see it anyway.

What is the standard argument people use in court against tobacco companies to win settlements? How many are actually successful?[/quote]

I would agree for the most part. Tobacco is a denier’s dream anyways… I would say people should be responsible for most things are that natural risks; common risks; plain risks.

The grey area is with artificial products, because it’s not as plain. Is it up to the consumer to know if a prescription drug, a paint chemical, or inhaling the new car smell is dangerous or should we put that burden on the manufacturer who’s in a better position to know?

Never liked tort law.

11

americans love everybody.

we embrace all of our worldly cousins.

so, no one would ever really sue anybody. we love them too much.

americans love to work for their money.

anyone who wants to file a lawsuit is just a big silly willy.

they were just joking.

it was all in fun.

we would rather work for our money.

it beats becoming rich because of a hot cup of coffee!

we like our coffee cold. that was all a big misunderstanding.

that lady was just kidding.

see you at the lawn dart competition,

lawschool dropout, fred (waiting for something to be pissed about). hugs and kisses

12

If they’d won, you think they’d be offering to give it back?

13

nevermind

14

Here’s one for you.

Lawyers file class action lawsuit because they’re shocked, SHOCKED that buyers of a violent video game were exposed to hidden sex scenes. Plaintiffs recover $5-35 each; lawyers ask for $1.3M.

[quote]Lawyers who sued the makers of the video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas profess to be shocked, simply shocked, that few people who bought the game were offended by sex scenes buried in its software.

Any buyer upset about hidden sex in the violent game could file a claim under a settlement the lawyers struck with the game’s maker, Take-Two Interactive. Of the millions of people who bought the San Andreas version after its release in 2004, exactly 2,676 filed claims.

“Am I disappointed? Sure,” said Seth R. Lesser, lead lawyer for the plaintiffs. “We can’t guess as to why now, several years later, people care or don’t care. The merits of the case were clear.”

Far bigger than the payout to plaintiffs will be the fees sought by the lawyers who brought the class action. Mr. Lesser and his colleagues at 10 other law firms have asked for more than $1.3 million — compared with less than $30,000 that Take-Two Interactive’s lawyers say it will spend to resolve the claims for $5 to $35 each (or a sanitized copy of the game).

“It doesn’t typically go that way,” said Mary J. Davis, a law professor at the University of Kentucky who has studied this type of litigation. To have legal fees dwarf a settlement payout, she continued, “is sort of backwards.”

The disparity has drawn a single objection, from a player who just happens to be a lawyer as well. Seeking to scuttle the deal is Theodore H. Frank, who directs the Legal Center for the Public Interest at the American Enterprise Institute, where he writes about class actions, liability and other topics.

“There are two possibilities,” Mr. Frank said of the settlement. “Possibility one is they have a meritorious lawsuit and they’re selling out the class for attorneys’ fees. The other possibility is that, and frankly I think this is the more likely possibility, they brought a meritless lawsuit that had no business being brought to court at all.”[/quote]
nytimes.com/2008/06/25/techn … ettle.html

But Hey, lawyers need to earn a living too.

15

By way of comparison, there were 35 million hits at the website that told how to unlock the content :slight_smile:

16

Yea, I’d think most people would consider the hidden sex scenes a bonus.

Incidentally, here’s a description of the game:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Thef … an_Andreas

Gang wars, driveby shootings, home robberies good. Sex bad. Funny society we live in.

17

It’s amazing to me also that they needed 11 firms for this class-action. It’s not like a complicated issue like, say, Microsoft destroying DR-DOS and Netscape, etc.

Bottom-feeders.

18

Here’s another reason to loathe lawyers.

A woman is charged with beating, harming, and imprisoning her maids.

Her defense lawyers’ theory of how the maids were in such a bad physical condition?

They practiced witchcraft, and may have mutilated their own bodies.

:unamused:

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_ … uNOBQDW7oF

Well, the woman got 11 years.

:smiling_imp: