Ridiculous Lawsuits...

One of the benefits of living in a democratic country with a well-established judicial system is the opportunity to use the courts to achieve justice and set wrongs right. But there is a drawback: Some folks go to court about things that make most of us shake our heads.

Over the past couple of days, several news programs have been reporting about one of the most ridiculous lawsuits, and it's something right out of an episode of Seinfeld (video). A man who happened to fall asleep during a Yankee game was caught on camera. The ESPN announcers made some innocent commentary about his sleeping and he has retaliated by suing ESPN, MLB and the Yankees for $10 million for defamation and emotional distress. You can read all about it and see the ESPN video on The Smoking Gun. Is this guy serious? What an opportunistic dirtbag!! Now I have no problem when someone brings a lawsuit that has some merit. Goodness knows, I considered suing my last NYC corporate employer for a hostile work environment, but chose instead to just move along with my life. In my opinion, this country is just way too litigious and this lawsuit against ESPN definitely comes under the category of "frivolous".

Is this lawsuit the worst? Maybe - maybe not. You be the judge.

Coffee, Anyone? 

In 1992, Stella Liebeck, then 79, was in the passenger seat of her parked car when she spilled a scalding 49¢ cup of McDonald's coffee on her lap, causing third-degree burns that required skin grafts and two years of treatment. After attempting to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 -- enough, she said, to cover her medical costs -- Liebeck brought the case to court in 1994 when the fast-food giant countered by offering a paltry $800. Although a jury awarded Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages, McDonald's and Liebeck reached an undisclosed out-of-court settlement to preclude the possibility of appeals.

Liebeck's lawsuit became a media sensation -- and, fairly or otherwise, transformed her into the poster child for frivolous lawsuits. Liebeck is the namesake for the Stella Awards, which from 2002 through 2006 had been distributed annually to the most laughable legal claims. This lawsuit became the basis for another Seinfeld episode.

What's Your Education Worth? 

For many Americans, joblessness is an unfortunate but unavoidable side effect of a bad economy. Bronx, New York native Trina Thompson, on the other hand, blamed her unemployment on the school she attended. In 2009, the 27-year-old sued her alma mater, Monroe College, for $72,000 when she was unable to find a job three months after graduating with a bachelor's degree in information technology.

Thompson specifically blamed the school's Office of Career Advancement for not working hard enough to place her in a job after graduation. According to the lawsuit filed in Bronx Supreme Court, Thompson sought to recoup the $70,000 she had spent in tuition. Thompson is also asking for an additional $2,000 to make up for the stress of her fruitless three-month job search. But it doesn't look as if the folks at Monroe College are going to pony up anytime soon. "It is clear that no college, especially in this economy, can guarantee employment," officials said in a statement. So much for teaching them a lesson.

Just Say No

In 1995, a Virginia prison inmate named Robert Lee Brock sued ... himself. "For violating my religious beliefs, I want to pay myself $5 million, but I ask the state to pay it since I can't work," Brock wrote in a handwritten seven-page lawsuit.

Brock's claim argued that when he "partook of alcoholic beverages" in 1993, he breached his own religious and civil rights by getting himself drunk enough to break the law. "When I get out, I'd pay it back," Brock promised. His case didn't move Judge Rebecca Beach Smith, who dismissed the lawsuit even while she praised Brock's "innovative approach to civil-rights litigation." Seriously, Judge -- don't encourage him.

Doppelganger Lawsuit

Apparently not everyone wants to be like Mike. In 2006, Allen Heckard of Portland, OR, sued Michael Jordan for $416 million on the grounds that his resemblance to the hoops legend caused emotional pain and suffering, defamation and permanent injury. (He sued Nike for the same amount, faulting them for making Jordan a celebrity.)

Heckard, who stands about 6 in. shorter than Jordan, said he could not attend religious services, ride public transportation, play sports in public parks or eat at a restaurant without getting mistaken for the former Chicago Bulls guard. Maybe Heckard's shaved head, earring and Air Jordan sneakers had something to do with that? "I'm constantly being accused of looking like Michael, and it makes it very uncomfortable for me," Heckard said. "Even when I go to the gym I'm being accused of playing ball like him." Yes, it's easy to see how that would cause emotional pain and suffering. Heckard eventually dropped the suit.

Sue The Pants Off Them

In 2007, a Washington, D.C., judge, Roy Pearson sued a small mom-and-pop dry cleaner over a pair of pants. Pearson claimed that the shop's owners, Jin and Soo Chung, misplaced his pants after he brought them in for a $10.50 alteration, and then tried to return a cheap, imitation pair of his $800 trousers. Though the Chungs felt they'd done nothing wrong, they ultimately offered to settle with the judge for $12,000.

Unimpressed, the judge sued the Chungs and their son, asserting that the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service" signs posted in the store represented an "unconditional guarantee" that entitled him to a considerably larger settlement. Pearson sought $1,500 per defendant for each of the estimated 12,000 days that the signs appeared in the dry cleaners. The judge's claims also included emotional damages, the cost of a rental car used to drive to another dry cleaner and legal fees -- even though Pearson represented himself! The total amount of the lawsuit? A whopping $67 million, which was later reduced to a still-outrageous $54 million.

Fortunately, a judge in the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the Chungs and ordered Pearson to pay the couple's court costs, and their attorney fees as well. In a further blow to Pearson, a committee refused to reappoint him to his job as an administrative law judge, in part because of the questionable behavior he displayed in the Chung case. Questionable? Ya think!

--------

These lawsuits are just the tip of the iceberg in a whole host of insane lawsuits. Maybe it is time for tort reform!