|
|
|
2005 Stella Jury Awards
 |
|
| Legal Transcription Career Training | Paralegal-Legal Assistant Career Training |
The following has been reproduced from various Internet sources, including email, and the information has not been verified. This information is provided for entertainment purposes only. Like the infamous "Dawin Awards" which are given for those who didn't survive their own stupidity, the "Stella's" give us a quick look at just how silly and outrageous our legal system can sometimes be. Take a break and enjoy!
Subject: The 2005 Stella Jury Awards
It's time once again to review the winners of the Annual "Stella Awards." The "Stella Awards" are named after 81 year-old Stella Liebeck of New Mexico who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonald's. That case inspired the "Stella Awards" for the most frivolous, ridiculous, successful lawsuits in the United States.
Here are this year's winners:
7th Place:
Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running around inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little toddler was Ms. Robertson's son.
6th Place:
19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.
5th Place:
Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, and Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of $500,000.
4th Place:
Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams, who had climbed over the fence into the yard and was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.
3rd Place:
A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.
2nd Place:
Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.
And in 1st Place: (Drum roll please....)
This year's runaway winner was Mrs. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mrs. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, (from an OU football game), having driven onto the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back & make herself a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the RV left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising her in the owner's manual that she couldn't actually do this. The jury awarded her $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. The company actually changed their manuals on the basis of this suit, just in case there were any other complete morons around.
When you hear about cases such as these, it really makes you wonder...
The plaintiffs in these cases are often criminals, whose very existence is predicated upon taking that which does not belong to them. Their attorneys (the cliché ambulance chasers) operate primarily on greed, caring little or nothing for what is right or wrong, but only how much money they can put in their own pockets. So we generally have no problem understanding their motivations -- they wear their greed like a badge for everyone to see.
However, since neither the plaintiffs nor their attorneys have any say as to whether a law suit actually goes to trial, then I guess you could say we can't blame them for TRYING. Well, maybe we can (or should).
Since a jury is made up of average everyday people, and since most average people have little or no experience with the law, and since a goodly number have little or no common sense, we can expect a certain degree of stupidity and outrageousness in their judgments. The jury ultimately decides the case, but the big question still remains. Why is there a case to begin with?
Answer. It is the judge who decides whether there is merit to a given law suit. It is the judge who determines whether or not the case is frivolous, and therefore decides whether or not a frivolous suit ever goes to trial. And it is the judge who ultimately instructs the jury as to how the case should be deliberated and adjudicated once all the evidence is heard. In short, it is the judge who ultimately controls the fate of these cases, not the plaintiffs, nor the attorneys, nor the jury. If a case is determined to be frivolous by the judge, it is thrown out of court, and a jury never hears the case to begin with. Problem solved. Become proactive in the judge selection process.
So, why do the judges allow these ridiculous cases into court?
Answer. Just remember that the judges are attorneys too, and their primary objective (once they get to the bench) is generally more about serving the best interests of their fraternity brothers (and perpetuating the SYSTEM), than with preserving justice or protecting the innocent. The attorneys in these cases normally keep anywhere from 35% to as much as 75% of the jury award, so EVEN IF the case has merit, the plaintiffs generally receive a sometimes negligible amount!
CASE IN POINT: A woman sued her employer for sexual harassment. She settled her case out of court for $10 Million in damages. She paid her attorney and then discovered that she owed the IRS more in taxes on the settlement, than she had left (after paying her attorney). She ended up with a net LOSS of $400,000, no job, and ended up having to file for bankruptcy, while her attorney (probably) laughed all the way to the bank!
Vote for and support legislation that would prohibit any criminal from filing an injury law suit against the VICTIM of their crimes. In other words, if Carl Truman of Los Angeles gets his hand crushed while stealing the hub caps off his neighbors Honda, TOUGH @#$%!! Take him to the doctor, and make HIM pay the bill, and then throw his ass in JAIL where he belongs!
Vote for and support legislation that forces individuals to be more responsible for their own actions. If you spill hot coffee on yourself, you're going to get burned! If you poke yourself in the eye with screwdriver, you're probably going to loose your eye! If you shoot yourself with your own gun, you're just stupid, and although you might qualify for a Dawin Award, but you shouldn't expect compensation from the gun manufacturer!
As the comedian Ron White once joked, "You Can't Fix Stupid."
There should be little or no legal recourse for stupidity.
|
|
|
|
