The 60 million dollar... pants?
Have you seen this? A judge is suing a laundry for losing his favorite pants... for 65 million dollars.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/...lsFnVzmJ5G2ocA
CNN's link is video only right now...
The shop owners are Korean immigrants and they are considering going back to Korea, their American dream smashed.
Comments
Support tort reform.
wow, americans can sue for anything. in canada the judge would laugh in the guys face and say " are you retarded " and end the case.
Support tort reform.
Support insurance industry reform.
Regardless, these aren't tort damages. They're contract damages.
And no court would ever award $65 million for a pair of pants.
Support insurance industry reform.
Regardless, these aren't tort damages. They're contract damages.
And no court would ever award $65 million for a pair of pants.
Please, you're smarter than this (I think). "tort reform" is a fairly broad purpose at this point. This is a frivolous lawsuit, and most measures that include tort reform are developed specifically for the purpose of preventing ludicrous lawsuits, like this one, from wasting all of our time.
I'm glad that you think no court would award $65M. But the damage it already done. This scumbag extorted $12K from these people under the threat of litigation. If they want to fight it, they have to get their own lawyer, which probably would cost more than $12K.
Maybe know you realize why people hate lawyers.
Please, you're smarter than this (I think). "tort reform" is a fairly broad purpose at this point.
"Tort reform," however broadly you want to construe the phrase, only deals with tort law. If you want to use this case as a rallying cry for tort reform, knock your socks off. But just understand that any tort reform would have absolutely no bearing on this case because it's not governed by tort law. (Assuming there's no tort-based cause of action here). "Tort reform" groups might tackle other areas of law, but again, tort reform only deals with tort law.
This is a frivolous lawsuit, and most measures that include tort reform are developed specifically for the purpose of preventing ludicrous lawsuits, like this one, from wasting all of our time.
Tort reform is almost always pro-defendant. Especially in terms of product liability law, it serves more of a purpose of shielding manufacturers from liability rather than "preventing ludicrous lawsuits." We have procedural laws that take care of frivolous lawsuits. But besides products liability law, the great bulk of tort reform only tinkers around the margins of tort law (non-economic damages, punitive damages, the collateral source rule, joint and several liability).
Anyway, I don't know why this case wasn't thrown out on pre-trial motions.
Is there something there? I don't know.
I'm glad that you think no court would award $65M. But the damage it already done. This scumbag extorted $12K from these people under the threat of litigation. If they want to fight it, they have to get their own lawyer, which probably would cost more than $12K.
Maybe know you realize why people hate lawyers.
He's definitely a scumbag as far as I can tell.
Thanks for picking nits. You'll make a fine lawyer.
He is a judge, which makes this all the worse.
Indeed...
So now I am told to support widespread judicial reform instead of merely "tort reform."
Thanks for picking nits. You'll make a fine lawyer.
You can support whatever you want.
But if there's no tort claim here, tort reform won't make one difference to this case. It's like advocating "baseball reform" and expecting fewer fist fights in hockey.
You can support whatever you want.
But if there's no tort claim here, tort reform won't make one difference to this case. It's like advocating "baseball reform" and expecting fewer fist fights in hockey.
You have been bothersome and confusing, so I hit up the ultimate reference for contemporary matters: wikipedia. You should read their article for "tort reform" and tell me where the problems are. I am not a lawyer and have never been to law school. My knowledge of the subject only comes from articles I've read that bring up tort reform.
the commonly understood use in political and academic arenas describes a movement to limit tort litigation and damages. It does not include reforms that would expand liability, such as laws that create new causes of action or that increase damage awards. The term is also commonly applied to a political movement that advocates several such changes.
So this is well understood. The problem we seem to have is the classification of the "tort" itself. I have the opinion that the act of the korean dry cleaners by which the pants were lost or destroyed qualifies as a tort. What am I missing here, and why isn't that a tort? After having read into it a little, everything seems to support my position that this case falls under tort law.
Furthermore, your analogy is poor. Modern law is byzantine, inaccessible, and fine-grained. As far as I can tell, this is intentionally so as an act of professional self-preservation. If this case is not applicable at all to tort law, then the better analogy is supporting baseball reform and expecting fewer violations (whatever they may be) in the AAA league as opposed to the majors.
Apple news hs been kinda slow...
Unlike the stock price...
Those of you who own APPL (???) must be pretty happy with life.
Don't own any stock, so I don't pay that much attention to that. Wish I did own some, 'cuz it is going up with no end in sight.
Those of you who own APPL (???) must be pretty happy with life.
My well-off older brother in London working as a sysadmin owns some AAPL stock, buying a house in London.
Overall I am happy 'coz I know I can leech off him down the line?
Ah, he didn't buy all *that* much stock, plus I actually OMFG have a job now. Believe it or not, selling Apple [stuff, not the shares]. Current details of part-time job, location, can't say too much now.
Higher Stock Price (at sustainable non-bubble-ish rate) = Good for me family, good for me current job, good for the Religion of Mac.
Everybody HAPPY !! w00000t I LOOOVE you all mmmmm group hug, group hug peoples....
Ok. Umm.. yeah,, um...
You have been bothersome and confusing, so I hit up the ultimate reference for contemporary matters: wikipedia. You should read their article for "tort reform" and tell me where the problems are. I am not a lawyer and have never been to law school. My knowledge of the subject only comes from articles I've read that bring up tort reform.
Where exactly does that article conflict with anything I've said?
Tort reform deals only with tort law. That shouldn't be up for debate.
So this is well understood. The problem we seem to have is the classification of the "tort" itself. I have the opinion that the act of the korean dry cleaners by which the pants were lost or destroyed qualifies as a tort. What am I missing here, and why isn't that a tort? After having read into it a little, everything seems to support my position that this case falls under tort law.
Well what tort claim is he bringing?
The newspaper article doesn't really tell us which claims he's bringing against the defendant. Maybe he's suing under a tort cause of action under consumer protection law, which is possible, but that's generally a products liability claim where someone gets physically hurt from a defective product. If I was more familiar with the ins and outs of consumer protection law I could give you a better answer, but if his claim is misrepresentation (based on deceptive advertising), those are contract damages.
Furthermore, your analogy is poor. If this case is not applicable at all to tort law, then the better analogy is supporting baseball reform and expecting fewer violations (whatever they may be) in the AAA league as opposed to the majors.
*cough* nit-picking much? *cough*
*cough* nit-picking much? *cough*
The idea was to point out the circuity of most legislation.
I see it as a tort because the dry cleaner messed up his order, which is essentially "drycleaner malpractice." From your last post, it seems clear that you don't actually know if its a tort or not (via incomplete information). Awfully haughty.
wow, americans can sue for anything. in canada the judge would laugh in the guys face and say " are you retarded " and end the case.
Not only is that going to happen here, but the guy is probably going to loose his job over this.
Just a little closure to the topic...
The Korean family even offered to continue serving the plaintiff. I would find it rather hard, so I admire their act of kindness.