Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: Ridiculous litigation competition

  1. #1
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Ridiculous litigation competition

    From
    Roof fall dancer tenant sues | Metro.co.uk

    A tenant is suing her landlords after falling through a skylight while dancing on the roof.
    Basically, this woman got drunk, climbed out of the skylight, tried to dance around on the roof of a garage attached to her flat, then fell down (the garage didn't even belong to the landlords, so I guess she can add trespassing as well as complete idiocy to her faults.)

    She's a solicitor now, and she's suing the landlords because they didn't specifically warn her that it was dangerous to climb out of a skylight and dance around on a garage roof in a drunken state.

    Can anyone think of a more ridiculous suit?

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Ridiculous litigation competition

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
    From
    Roof fall dancer tenant sues | Metro.co.uk


    Basically, this woman got drunk, climbed out of the skylight, tried to dance around on the roof of a garage attached to her flat, then fell down (the garage didn't even belong to the landlords, so I guess she can add trespassing as well as complete idiocy to her faults.)

    She's a solicitor now, and she's suing the landlords because they didn't specifically warn her that it was dangerous to climb out of a skylight and dance around on a garage roof in a drunken state.

    Can anyone think of a more ridiculous suit?
    WARNING.

    Do not - REPEAT NOT - take newspaper reports of court proceedings, and especially prior to trial - as representing anything in excess of 10% accuracy.


    Having said that, landlords have been successfuly sued for failing to put railings on a set of steps and then renting to students, on the basis that students are a known risk of being drunk and liable to fall off the steps...landlord should have screwed the window shut.

    Having said that, there is the concept of 'contributory negligence'.

  3. #3
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hastings
    Posts
    4,386
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Ridiculous litigation competition

    She is sue'ing 5 years after event. Surely it would be statute Barred by now ????


    Just read read and it is beinf heard in the high court so obe she began procedings in a smaller court alittle while ago

  4. #4
    Registered User killingtime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,406
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Ridiculous litigation competition

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
    She's a solicitor now, and she's suing the landlords because they didn't specifically warn her that it was dangerous to climb out of a skylight and dance around on a garage roof in a drunken state.
    It worries me that people will act on things like this and before we know it everything will have signs on warning you of the dangers of being there. It's a frightful society in which people can take no responsibility for their own actions.

  5. #5
    Registered User Keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Over Hill and Dale
    Posts
    426
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Ridiculous litigation competition

    Quote Originally Posted by killingtime View Post
    ...before we know it everything will have signs on warning you of the dangers...
    I've got a cigarette lighter somewhere with the warning "This product can burn" on it Wasn't there the case in America some years back where a bloke sued the manufactures of a step ladder? He slipped on the warning and product liability labels and fell off

  6. #6
    Cheeky by nature Little Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Still in Dundee....
    Posts
    4,053
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Ridiculous litigation competition

    Well, here are some rather crazy product warnings from various companies...... I think they must be mostly aimed at, um, Americans?

    Product Warnings:

    "Do not use if you cannot see clearly to read the information in the information booklet." -- In the information booklet.

    "Caution: The contents of this bottle should not be fed to fish." -- On a bottle of shampoo for dogs.

    "For external use only!" -- On a curling iron.

    "Warning: This product can burn eyes." -- On a curling iron.

    "Do not use in shower." -- On a hair dryer.

    "Do not use while sleeping." -- On a hair dryer.

    "Do not place this product into any electronic equipment." -- On the case of a chocolate CD in a gift basket.

    "Recycled flush water unsafe for drinking." -- On a toilet at a public sports facility in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    "Shin pads cannot protect any part of the body they do not cover." -- On a pair of shin guards made for bicyclists.

    "This product not intended for use as a dental drill." -- On an electric rotary tool.

    "Do not drive with sunshield in place." -- On a cardboard sunshield that keeps the sun off the dashboard.

    "Caution: This is not a safety protective device." -- On a plastic toy helmet used as a container for popcorn.

    "Do not eat toner." -- On a toner cartridge for a laser printer.

    "Not intended for highway use." -- On a 13-inch wheel on a wheelbarrow.

    "May irritate eyes." -- On a can of self-defense pepper spray.

    "Eating rocks may lead to broken teeth." -- On a novelty rock garden set called "Popcorn Rock."

    "Caution! Contents hot!" -- On a Domino's Pizza box.

    "Caution: Hot beverages are hot!" -- On a coffee cup.

    "Do not use orally." -- On a toilet bowl cleaning brush.

    "Please keep out of children." -- On a butcher knife.

    "Not suitable for children aged 36 months or less." -- On a birthday card for a 1 year old.

    "Warning: Do not use on eyes." -- In the manual for a heated seat cushion.

    "Do not use for drying pets." -- In the manual for a microwave oven.

    "For use on animals only." -- On an electric cattle prod.

    "For use by trained personnel only." -- On a can of air freshener.

    "Keep out of reach of children and teenagers." -- On a can of air freshener.

    "Remember, objects in the mirror are actually behind you." -- On a motorcycle helmet-mounted rear-view mirror.

    "Warning: Do not climb inside this bag and zip it up. Doing so will cause injury and death." -- A label inside a protective bag (for fragile objects), which measures 15cm by 15cm by 12cm.

    "Not for weight control." -- On a pack of Breath Savers.

    "Twist top off with hands. Throw top away. Do not put top in mouth." -- On the label of a bottled drink.

    "Fragile. Do not drop." -- Posted on a Boeing 757.

    "Caution: Remove infant before folding for storage." -- On a portable stroller.

    "Look before driving." -- On the dash board of a mail truck.

    "Do not iron clothes on body." -- On packaging for a Rowenta iron.

    "Do not drive car or operate machinery." -- On Boot's children's cough medicine.

    "Wearing of this garment does not enable you to fly." -- On a child sized Superman costume.

    "Beware! To touch these wires is instant death. Anyone found doing so will be prosecuted." -- On a sign at a railroad station.

    "Product will be hot after heating." -- On a supermarket dessert box.

    "Do not turn upside down." -- On the bottom of a supermarket dessert box.

    "Not for human consumption." -- On a package of dice.

    "May be harmful if swallowed." -- On a shipment of hammers.

    etc etc...


  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sunny KSA :/
    Posts
    3,383
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Ridiculous litigation competition

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Monkey View Post
    "Please keep out of children." -- On a butcher knife.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Ridiculous litigation competition

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Monkey View Post
    Well, here are some rather crazy product warnings from various companies...... I think they must be mostly aimed at, um, Americans?

    Product Warnings:

    "Do not use if you cannot see clearly to read the information in the information booklet." -- In the information booklet.
    Could be reasonable - 'here's a quick rule of thumb - if you're thinking of using [x], try to read this booklet - if you can't, it's too dark."
    "Caution: The contents of this bottle should not be fed to fish." -- On a bottle of shampoo for dogs.
    Nope, that one has me beat.
    "For external use only!" -- On a curling iron.
    Well, we can guess what happened there.
    "Warning: This product can burn eyes." -- On a curling iron.
    "Do not use in shower." -- On a hair dryer.
    Some people are more stupid than others, don't understand electricity or heat. No way of stopping them buying your product, so not unreasonable that you should take them into account when explaining the risks to watch out for.
    "Do not use while sleeping." -- On a hair dryer.
    That one is truly bizarre. Possibly someone once used a hair dryer while sleep walking?
    "Do not place this product into any electronic equipment." -- On the case of a chocolate CD in a gift basket.
    That seems very reasonable, if you want to avoid being sued for selling something which completely ruined someone's high-end CD player.
    "Recycled flush water unsafe for drinking." -- On a toilet at a public sports facility in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
    What? You don't want to be told where the water from a tap comes from? It's more explicit than 'Non-potable'.
    "Shin pads cannot protect any part of the body they do not cover." -- On a pair of shin guards made for bicyclists.
    That's a Sybil Fawlty - specialist subject, 'The bleeding obvious'.
    "This product not intended for use as a dental drill." -- On an electric rotary tool.
    ...but don't let us stop you if you've a real yen to try.
    "Do not drive with sunshield in place." -- On a cardboard sunshield that keeps the sun off the dashboard.
    "Caution: This is not a safety protective device." -- On a plastic toy helmet used as a container for popcorn.
    "Do not eat toner." -- On a toner cartridge for a laser printer.
    Some people need more help to assess risk than others.
    "Not intended for highway use." -- On a 13-inch wheel on a wheelbarrow.
    Can easily see somebody putting it on a trailer and towing it at 60mph.
    "May irritate eyes." -- On a can of self-defense pepper spray.
    Ya think?
    "Eating rocks may lead to broken teeth." -- On a novelty rock garden set called "Popcorn Rock."
    It would seem more reasonable not to market such a stupid product, but...
    "Caution! Contents hot!" -- On a Domino's Pizza box.
    "Caution: Hot beverages are hot!" -- On a coffee cup.
    Seems reasonable. Some children get to be quite old before they eat a hot meal.
    "Do not use orally." -- On a toilet bowl cleaning brush.
    ...as it may adversely affect your mating opportunities
    "Please keep out of children." -- On a butcher knife.
    That's a typo, and very funny, but it doesn't belong in this list.
    "Not suitable for children aged 36 months or less." -- On a birthday card for a 1 year old.
    That's just plain stupidity, and is nothing to do with protection from frivolous law suits.
    "Warning: Do not use on eyes." -- In the manual for a heated seat cushion.
    "Do not use for drying pets." -- In the manual for a microwave oven.
    Basically, a lot of this humour is based on a fundamental mistake: 'everyone is pretty much as smart as you and me so isn't it funny that some people are stupid enough to make such dumb mistakes'. Well, some people are unable to comprehend things as easily as the rest of us. Such warnings might make all the difference to them.
    "For use on animals only." -- On an electric cattle prod.
    ...and internet BDSM sites
    "For use by trained personnel only." -- On a can of air freshener.
    No doubt this is a ploy to plug their 3-day 'You can with an Aerosol Can' training weekends...
    "Keep out of reach of children and teenagers." -- On a can of air freshener.
    That's a misprint; should have been on the cans of underarm spray.
    "Remember, objects in the mirror are actually behind you." -- On a motorcycle helmet-mounted rear-view mirror.
    That seems fair enough to me.
    "Warning: Do not climb inside this bag and zip it up. Doing so will cause injury and death." -- A label inside a protective bag (for fragile objects), which measures 15cm by 15cm by 12cm.
    Just to save them having to decide which size of bag is just too small and which just big enough to make the warning necessary.
    "Not for weight control." -- On a pack of Breath Savers.
    ...contains 60% sugar.
    "Twist top off with hands. Throw top away. Do not put top in mouth." -- On the label of a bottled drink.
    For those people, like my younger self, who show off by removing crown-tops with their teeth...a screw top will make a mess of that.
    "Fragile. Do not drop." -- Posted on a Boeing 757.
    Ho ho.
    "Caution: Remove infant before folding for storage." -- On a portable stroller.
    Otherwise, of course, it won't fit underneath the stairs...
    "Look before driving." -- On the dash board of a mail truck.
    Different thing; that's the employer trying to make the employee adopt best practice, not product liability
    "Do not iron clothes on body." -- On packaging for a Rowenta iron.
    Perfectly sensible. People iron clothes on their body all the time, so in case they burn themselves - 'We did warn you about that...'
    "Do not drive car or operate machinery." -- On Boot's children's cough medicine.
    "I couldn't get to the chemist and I though, better to take some of the kid's cough medicine rather than none at all, and then I crashed the JCB when I fell asleep..."
    "Wearing of this garment does not enable you to fly." -- On a child sized Superman costume.
    ...or we could just sympathise when the child is paralysed after jumping out of his bedroom window...
    "Beware! To touch these wires is instant death. Anyone found doing so will be prosecuted." -- On a sign at a railroad station.
    "...and any losses sustained by the railroad as a result of you ignoring this notice may well have to be paid by your heirs and assigns."
    "Product will be hot after heating." -- On a supermarket dessert box.
    "Do not turn upside down." -- On the bottom of a supermarket dessert box.
    Those are just stupidity. It might be useful to say '...can cause burns after heating', because that gives information. Their sentence is just a tautology. The second makes one suspect someone with a sense of humour in the packaging design department...
    "Not for human consumption." -- On a package of dice.
    Most dice used by children. Although the language isn't very child friendly.
    "May be harmful if swallowed." -- On a shipment of hammers.
    ...particularly when regurgitated and used to belt somebody with...

  9. #9
    Registered User Twirly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    SE London
    Posts
    4,204
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Ridiculous litigation competition

    I can confirm that this list is aimed at American’s…

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Monkey View Post
    "Caution: Remove infant before folding for storage." -- On a portable stroller.
    My uncle (American) actually tried to fold the stroller with his grandson still in it…

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Stuff by Barry *snip*

  10. #10
    purplehyacinth
    Guest

    Re: Ridiculous litigation competition

    My personal favourites is a warning on a packet of peanuts:

    "Warning: this product may contain nuts"

    Well one would hope so!

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    1,105
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Ridiculous litigation competition

    Quote Originally Posted by purpleheather View Post
    My personal favourites is a warning on a packet of peanuts:

    "Warning: this product may contain nuts"

    Well one would hope so!
    I've actually had that on a packet of hazelnuts I bought in Sainsburys.

    There was also a story I heard about somebody in America (where else) who bought one of these large Motorhomes. They set off, set the cruise control and then left the wheel to go and make a cup of coffee in the back. Unsurprisingly the vehicle careered off the road and down an embankment. The driver then supposedly sued the manufacturer for not warning them that this could happen.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    455
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Ridiculous litigation competition

    Sadly, client confidentiality prevents me from telling you about some of the crazy cases on which I have been instructed.

    What I can tell you is that all this talk of a litigation culture is rubbish. The number of claim forms issued in the High Court has decreased very dramatically over the last decade. No doubt the perception that we are an increasingly litigious society stems from the nauseating ambulancing chasing ads that we now see from claims firms.

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Ridiculous litigation competition

    Quote Originally Posted by Spin dryer View Post
    The number of claim forms issued in the High Court has decreased very dramatically over the last decade.
    That proves nothing - except possibly that High Court claims are far more expensive than County Court claims, and/or there are far more County Courts than District Registries.

  14. #14
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Ridiculous litigation competition

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    That proves nothing - except possibly that High Court claims are far more expensive than County Court claims, and/or there are far more County Courts than District Registries.
    Ah - are most of the no-win-no-fee ambulance-chaser claims by County Court then?

  15. #15
    Registered User AllanMcC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Rosyth, just over the bridge from Edinburgh
    Posts
    32
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Ridiculous litigation competition

    Quote Originally Posted by purpleheather View Post
    My personal favourites is a warning on a packet of peanuts:

    "Warning: this product may contain nuts"

    Well one would hope so!
    Considering that a peanut isn't a nut in the botanical sense, it's a legume.
    Although irrelevant to someone suffering from an allergic reaction to them.

  16. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Ridiculous litigation competition

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
    Ah - are most of the no-win-no-fee ambulance-chaser claims by County Court then?
    No idea. Don't do PI - >shudder< {sorry - PI = 'personal injury'}

    My point is that statistical analysis of High Court claims is unable to resolve the question of whether there is more or less 'litigation' nowadays.

  17. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    455
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Ridiculous litigation competition

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    That proves nothing - except possibly that High Court claims are far more expensive than County Court claims, and/or there are far more County Courts than District Registries.
    Agreed, but I don't have any data concerning County Court claims. Absent any such data, I speculate that the fall in the amount of Hight Court litigation having been so great, it's likely that there has been some falling off of County Court litigation. The advent of the Civil Procedure Rules has had a significant impact on the amount of Hight Court litigation and there is no reason to suppose that it hasn't had a similar effect in the County Courts.

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Ridiculous litigation competition

    Quote Originally Posted by Spin dryer View Post
    Agreed, but I don't have any data concerning County Court claims. Absent any such data, I speculate that the fall in the amount of Hight Court litigation having been so great, it's likely that there has been some falling off of County Court litigation. The advent of the Civil Procedure Rules has had a significant impact on the amount of Hight Court litigation and there is no reason to suppose that it hasn't had a similar effect in the County Courts.
    Ahh, speculation...

    Do you do that much, in your working life...?

  19. #19
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Ridiculous litigation competition

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Ahh, speculation...

    Do you do that much, in your working life...?
    "there is no reason to suppose" .... so it must be true. round of applause please

  20. #20
    Registered User LMC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    In the corner
    Posts
    4,508
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Ridiculous litigation competition

    Quote Originally Posted by Spin dryer View Post
    What I can tell you is that all this talk of a litigation culture is rubbish. The number of claim forms issued in the High Court has decreased very dramatically over the last decade. No doubt the perception that we are an increasingly litigious society stems from the nauseating ambulancing chasing ads that we now see from claims firms.
    How does this compare with cases settled out of court though? - I am sure that reports of these contribute to the perception of increasing litigation. It seems that cash and staff-stretched organisations, particularly councils and hospitals are increasingly settling out of court as the "easy option". Or is this just media hype? - are there any figures available for numbers of out-of-court settlements over the last few years?

    Even if the responding organisation/council/hospital wins a case that goes to court, they may not be able to reclaim their costs if the plaintiff can't afford to pay them. If they lose, the settlement may be higher from contesting the claim. And is the time of witnesses taken into account?

    An organisation I worked for was taken to tribunal and won - the case was thrown out (plaintiff was definitely vexatious - in the legal as well as the actual sense). But the org. couldn't recoup the costs of the preparation from the plaintiff - not only professional fees, but management time. And there's no way of measuring other costs - what would that witness have been doing instead of preparing for/appearing at a court case that didn't get done or that someone else had to do? What about the stress to them of having to appear resulting in sick leave or early resignation? - and the stress of people who had to cover their work while they were tied up with the litigation (ditto stress and results of).

    NB Pleased to see that the judge saw sense in this case and told the woman she was trespassing.

    Oh, competition entry: different case from the above mentioned, someone tried to claim compensation from a (different) organisation I worked for because they had damaged their back bending to pick up a piece of paper from the floor. Really. He had been trained in lifting techniques , so the case was thrown out - but it cost a lot of my time and solicitors fees.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Competition...
    By CJ in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 1st-February-2007, 08:54 PM
  2. Barriers to Competition
    By Gus in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 22nd-December-2004, 06:28 PM
  3. Justifiable Competition techniques
    By Gus in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 20th-December-2004, 05:04 PM
  4. Bristol competition
    By eastmanjohn in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 14th-July-2004, 02:43 PM
  5. Competition Categories
    By Andy McGregor in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 3rd-April-2004, 02:03 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •