Rep. Dennis Kucinich files lawsuit over olive pit

Remove all ads!

Gehaha! OW! I recently had some dental work and all I can say is... maybe he deserves a $56 million dollar compensation reward! Infected bone?! An implant failing!?

I am rather surprised that insurance didn't cover this, though.

 

I'm not sure I understand the question. How would this matter be resolved in Canada? And thank you for the link, DMC, since it explains a bit more of the actual injury and what he went through to get it treated.

 

I don't see it as unreasonable to seek some basic compensation for everything he had to go through as a result of eating that sandwich. It sounds like all he was really looking for was basic compensation for his expenses. The original amount of the suit was, of course, higher than necessary, but you have to start high if you hope to settle for a lesser amount, and still cover all expenses.

I am not a litigious person at all, but I can't fault this guy. If I had to spend $50k out of pocket (or whatever it actually was) due to eating a sandwich, I'd not be happy about that. I'd probably look for some assistance from my sandwich maker too.

 

Well I'm sure it was an accident. I wouldn't think anyone did it with the intent of causing damage to anyone. That's why businesses carry liability insurance, because of the occassional accident. If a business is intentionally malevolent, or has too many accidents they don't get insurance, at least not at reasonable rates. It's like auto insurance, if you run into someone it's still an accident [not on purpose], and it may be only once, but you are still liable. That's hardly an American concept, since it has been around for thousands of years. Btw, if you do run into someone, and it proves malevolent, and not really an accident, the insurance may deny the claim.

 

Since it sounds like they've already settled, it seems that Kucinich managed to work around those complications. That said, sometimes it's easier to settle even if the lawsuit is technically frivolous (I'm not saying this one was).

Which brings me to another point, it's too darn easy to sue someone in the States. Anyone can sue anyone, no matter how silly the reason, and the defendant is forced to pay to defend themselves. I'd love to see a law that forces a plaintiff in what a judge deems a frivolous lawsuit to pay legal fees for both parties.

 

Yeah - an amount wasn't stated, but Kucinich seemed to be satisfied with the result.

For a regular Joe like you and me, this is definitely true. However, I imagine that most companies of any significant size have lawyers on retainer, and so you're paying them whether they have to go to court for you or not. I'm not sure if that applies in this situation.

 

Agreed that a large corporation can probably stomach this easier than a regular person, but even still, if you have lawyers chasing down numerous frivolous lawsuits then they are not using their time to do more useful things like identifying and mitigating risks. And if there were more repercussions for suing, I'm betting most of those companies wouldn't need to employ nearly as many lawyers, so even though their salaries might be "accepted costs of doing business" it doesn't mean that large corporations aren't victimized any less than an average Joe. In fact, the deeper your pockets, the more frivolous lawsuits your company will be forced to respond to, as a general rule.

Adding some consequences for sue happy Americans would be bad for lawyers, due to their reduced demand, but good for basically everyone else.

 

Actually I believe the opposite, that many are denied a day in court because of the legal expense to bring a suit against a corporation, while a corporation can keep a small army of lawyers on retainer to defend themselves. And in many instances of class action lawsuits the lawyers are the ones who walk away with most of the money.

That's not to say that there are not a lot of scammers; there are. I've seen them first hand working as a salesman. I've seen customers try to cheat companies and companies try to cheat customers. I blame the lack of regulation of business practices for the problem on the company side, and the lack of common sense by judges who allow stupid lawsuits into the courtroom by cheating customers. It's like a customer told me one time when I caught him trying to cheat me on a deal, "I'm just looking out for #1; it's the American way."

 

I don't see how your viewpoint is opposite to mine Chandos, especially since I agree with what you say, while also holding to the viewpoint that I stated in my previous post.

Yes, there are many who lack the resources to bring someone to court who probably deserves to be tried. This is not contrary to my point. Rather, it is a good point that happens to be a separate topic.

My point is that there are many folks out there who DO have the resources to raise lawsuits, and who work the system to make money because they know that it is often cheaper to settle than to fight. They play the odds, and end up making a killing because they know more companies will settle than won't. Other than their initial legal costs (which I'm betting that the lawyers are often part of the "team" in these scenarios) they have very little to lose.

As my brother in law's business continues to grow and grow, he's seeing more and more of this kind of thing. He owns what has become one of the leading mortgage firms in the US, and he has actually gotten sued over mortgages that he never even processed... and found that it was cheaper just to pay the guy suing him off rather than to fight the charges. It's pretty sickening, actually.

 

Marc - Yes, looking back I see I misread your post. My bad. It seems we agree.

Oh, yes. I've seen customers walk away with free stuff that you and I have to pay for because they were either lying, or complained enough [they had read on the internet how to scam free stuff from a retail box]. Pretty disgusting.