Since you didn't get my analogy, let me explain it for you. A chemist or a physicist might know all about the atoms in a molecule from memory - a layman would not. This does not mean the atoms don't exist. Just like a layman might not be able to recite frivolous lawsuits from memory. That does not mean such lawsuits don't exist or are not frivilous. Get it?

Side note: I'm still on the fence about the McDonald's case. I am sad for Stella's injury, sure, but no one at McDonald's poured it in her lap - that was an accident, see? If she had just bought a knife and dropped that in her lap and severed an artery, would the knife company be liable? Of course not. Was the top on the cup defective? Well, no - she purposefully removed it, with the cup (which I'm sure was noticably hot even from the outside) suspended dangerously over her tender bits. Yes, 700+ other people had similar accidents, among *millions* of McDonald's customers. McDonald's didn't pour the coffee on them, either.

Three of the five of the cases I mentioned were from Snopes, which *you* gave the link for, but whatever:
Marlboro case - http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/marlboro.htm
Ultima Online case - http://pc.ign.com/articles/066/066277p1.html
Netflix case - http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/nothing/netflix.asp
Golf tee case - http://www.snopes.com/horrors/poison/golftee.asp
iPod case - http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/24424

Here's a few more examples of frivolous suits - with links - that I'll throw in for no extra charge:
http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/40daysand40nights/100.html<...
http://www.lawcore.com/legal-information/04-18-06.html
http://www.ferrago.com/portal/click/?id=59690
http://promomagazine.com/news/bkfrancisees_lawsuit2_091305...
http://members.fortunecity.com/iandavies/262.htm
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/n...
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/local_story_226195718.html
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/local/story.asp?ID=83597
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_070606_news_jord...
http://spartacus.blogs.com/spartacus/2005/08/rock_climbing...

So...what am I leaving out? Which facts am I twisting?

Also, speaking of links...where's the links for the tobacco company malfeasance? Is the malfeasance the direct cause of the health issues, or does it perhaps merit a separate suit?

CptMystic

and you forget about the malfeasance of the tobacco companies that led to all them multi-billion dollar judgements, dude.

Shorter Steve Coalier: "I'm an idiot".

doofusgumby

After about a half hour of net research (and recalling from personal memory), here are a few that I think of as frivolous:
- the iPod battery lawsuit (now I'm going to have a plethora of Apple fanboys come down on my head)
- Any of the lawsuits against game companies because their software doesn't run 100% perfect, under any and all conditions (particularly suits by users who continue to play the games anyway)
- The class action suit against Netflix (from the Snopes legal section)...I'm a Netflix subscriber, and if I feel impacted by their behavior, I will not sue them - I will CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION. This is how a free market economy works. Vote with your dollars, people.
- The wrongful death case of the golfer's estate against Diamond Shamrock Chemical Company (again from Snopes, thanks for the reminder about it as a source). Moral of the story: don't put stuff in your mouth that isn't meant to be there. Golf tees are not candy.
- Class action and other suits against tobacco companies for the health hazards of smoking (like the one from the Marlboro man, also noted on Snopes). Now, I am avidly anti-smoking (in fact, smoking arguably killed both my mother and her mother), but it has been fairly well known for DECADES that smoking is bad for your health. Every package of cigarettes is clearly labeled, denoting the link between smoking and its associated health hazards. People smoke anyway (and, I'm afraid, always will). No one is *forced* to smoke, however.

Now of course, I don't know whether this guy's claim is true or not. If a Dell laptop battery really burned the guy's house down, he *may* have a case (I say may because it may be possible - you must admit - that he purposefully constructed the scenario after hearing about the defective batteries, since that story has been all over the news). Net result is that this one's not a frivolous suit in any case - it's either legitimate, or it's fraud.

CptMystic

kmanfactor

doofusgumby

www.iScorch.com

happyapple

HappyApple

jeffj-nj

So tired of that case being trotted out as an example of frivolous lawsuits.

someToast

Yes, people in small houses don't own computers. Only people in big, fancy houses own computers.

Hmmn, I wonder what kind of effort and incentives it takes to make it so laptop batteries stop having serious problems.

I say we let manufacturers shovel out whatever sh*t they have lying around that can make a buck, and if someone happens upon something defective, it must be their fault! Yee-haww.

Anyway, thanks guys for adding those facts about the McDonalds case, maybe some people will start to think there's more than one way to look at a story.

davidm

Saboteur

mtopper

sdfjkl

But McDonalds coffee really is hot:

"By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;"

"During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard."

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds...

dune

*high five*

rainfever

njbrideau

http://www.duhaime.org/Law_fun/lawsuit.aspx

masteryoda

masteryoda

detroityianni

nzruss

combat chuck

ReductiMat

"Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup of coffee at the drive-in window of an Albuquerque McDonald's, and while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks. Her suit, filed in state court in Albuquerque, claimed the coffee was "defective" because it was so hot.

What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns. Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the matter more seriously. "It made me come home and tell my wife and daughters don't drink coffee in the car, at least not hot," says juror Jack Elliott.

Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

Some observers wonder why McDonald's, after years of settling coffee-burn cases, chose to take this one to trial. After all, the plaintiff was a sympathetic figure - an articulate, 81-year-old former department store clerk who said under oath that she had never filed suit before. In fact, she said, she never would have filed this one if McDonald's hadn't dismissed her requests for compensation for pain and medical bills with an offer of $800."

Nice continuation of the neocon "tort reform" agenda there, Travis.

http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

doofusgumby

Well I dunno, I have 1269 DVD's. Or were we not counting porn?

rainfever