Brand X

Just because a procedure is performed and isn't done in the typical "normal" fashion, does that mean that someone else gets to sue because of it? I mean, if the outcome was, for all intents and purposes, essentially the same as it would have been if things were done according to the book, why would you sue? Because you're hypersensitive and think that you'll get a big payday. Hopefully, in this instance, that will prove to be wrong.

Here's the story according to those smoky folks over there at The Smoking Gun. It seems that a one 47-year old hairdresser, a Mrs. Ingrid Paulicivic, went to a doctor for a hysterectomy. The doctor, a one 50-year old Dr. Red Alinsod, performed the procedure for her. When returning to Dr. Alinsod's office for a follow-up appointment, she asked him about some small burn marks that she noticed on her thighs. He told her that it was nothing to worry about. See, what had happened was that after he had removed her uterus, he used some sort of a cauterizing tool to brand her name onto her removed organ and she must have suffered some minor burns in the process. That's all. Wait. He did what?

Correct. He took her uterus out and then branded her name, Ingrid, onto the removed uterus. Everything about this story has a question attached to it, so I'll try and keep up with any that you may have racing through your head right now. If you're wondering if this is some sort of obscure medical procedure, let me assure you that it is not. The good doctor claims that his reason for branding the uterus with the woman's name was because he “did not want to get it confused with others.” And usually what they do, instead of all of the burning of patient's names in recently removed body part, is to write the patient’s name "... on an accompanying blue sterile towel or a sterile piece of wood like a tongue depressor." Uh-huh. I see. Yeah, there's not way that you could get confused and think to do it the other way. Hmm.

I really cannot figure out what the big deal is. I mean, her uterus was removed, correct? Correct. What in the hell does she care what he does with it when she's done with it? I can understand being a little upset that the guy apparently mishandled his uterine carving tool and slightly burned her thighs. That I get. But I would I be suing over it? Hardly. You know what else I wouldn't be suing for? Loss of consortium, that is correct.

See, she's a married woman. And her husband, Joe Paulicivic, claims that he has been “permanently injured and damaged” due to the resulting loss of consortium with his wife." Hmm. Dude, she had her uterus taken out. I would expect that there might be a little loss of consortium just from that alone, but I don't really know. Can anyone help me with this one? Gerard? You seem to have a variety of sexual endeavors. Ever done it with someone who was sans uterus? What's that like? (By the way, that's Mr. Paulicivic over there on the left. Perhaps if he lost the big cross medallion, he might find himself more consortiable. I'm just saying.)

All of the logistics aside, how do small burns on your wife's thighs prevent you from getting all consortium-y with her? I don't think that they do. This whole lawsuit is obviously pointless. And if you'd like to read the filing and decide for yourself, you may do so by clicking here. Look, I don't know why the doctor did what he did, but he wasn't hurting anyone. What was going to happen to that uterus after it was taken out of commission? It gets thrown away, right? So, who the hell cares if it gets thrown away with her name on it or not? It's not like he was feeding it to the stray cats in the alley out back. But even if he was, would that be so bad? Sure, it would be disgusting (for some reason), but would it hurt anyone? No, of course not.

I just don't get people like this. You're not entitled to any money there, cupcake. And neither are you, Mr. Cupcake. Just go back to whatever you were doing before all of the suing and knock it off. Try a little consortium. Maybe that will help.

A Shocking Outcome

Today's Dumbass Files Dumbass Lawsuit comes to us courtesy of a one Kyle Dubois from Dover, New Hampshire. (This reads a lot better if you use a game show announcer voice in your head when you read it.) Let's see who Kyle is suing! First of all, Kyle is suing his teacher, a one Thomas Kelley. But Kyle doesn't stop there! He's also suing his school district AND the city of Dover! And why is he suing, Bob? (I'm envisioning that the announcer's name is Bob.) Why, he's suing because he claims that his electrical shop teacher didn't warn him of the dangers of electricity before he hooked two clamps up to his nipples and then had another student plug him in! Wait. What, Bob?

Yep. It is just what it sounds like it is. Eighteen year old (and certainly old enough to know better) Kyle Dubois attached one of those little electrical clamp things (that look kind of like jumper cables) to one of his nipples. Another idiot student attached the other clamp to the other nipple. And the idiot student trifecta was completed when a third moron plugged in the cord. What happened next will shock you. (Actually, it'll shock him, but you already saw that it was headed in that direction.)

According to The Boston Herald and surprising no one but perhaps Kyle, after the human battery jumper was all hooked up and the current was applied, he "...received a severe shock that caused him to stagger and collapse". The article goes on to say that the shock resulted in the asshat (my terminology, not that of The Boston Herald) "...being sent to Wentworth-Douglass Hospital, where he was diagnosed as having an "out of hospital electrocution resulting in cardiac arrest, unresponsive state and respiratory failure". It doesn't state that they diagnosed him as being a complete ignoramus, but let's not rule that out, OK? OK. Oh, by the way, here's a screen grab from a 4-second cell phone video that one of this moron's classmates made of him hooking himself up to be a human Roman candle. You can tell by the fact that his pants are about three inches below the top of his boxer shorts that the boy isn't quite right in the head to begin with. Behold!

According to the documents filed in this absolutely meritless lawsuit, this moron "...suffered brain damage due to the heart stoppage. He has short-term memory loss and "other losses and disruptions" as a result." I'm not so sure that the brain damage was due to the heart stoppage. If I had to guess, I'd gather that he might have had a little bit of brain damage already going on when he went into class that day. And I can't even imagine what the "other losses" could possibly be. Has he joined the ranks of the un-layable as a result of this? Oooh! Maybe he lost his nipples. Is that it? Is he nippleless? I hope so. That would be most excellent.

Of course, the basis for his lawsuit has to do with negligence on the part of the teacher. And since the teacher works for the district, they're allegedly liable for his actions. And I guess since the district is in the city they just go ahead and sue them, too. Do you really need to be warned to not hook yourself up by the nipples with jumper cables? And even if you do need to be warned about that, does that mean that you need to be warned about sending a jolt of electricity through said jumper cables which are now affixed to one's nipples? I guess if you're already grabbing your nubbins with the nodes, you might need some sort of alternative direction. But I prefer to leave things like this to Mr. Darwin.

Here's my question: He obviously did this for a reason. What in the hell did he think was going to happen? He had to have known that plugging in his little contraption there was going to result in electricity surging through his body via Nipple A and Nipple B. (I don't know if those are the actual names of his nipples. That's about as creative as I can be right now.) Maybe if he had paid a little more attention in class, he would have realized that by getting plugged in, he was going to sent 120 volts through his body. And if they're going to be suing people, why are they not suing the other two asshats who participated in this asininity? Shouldn't they be the first people that should be included in this lawsuit?

What a waste of time and money. What ever happened to natural consequences? If some idiot hooks himself up to a surge of electricity, I certainly hope that he would get lit up like a Christmas tree or have sparks go shooting out of his nipples like it was the Fourth of July. That seems perfectly reasonable. And if someone is eighteen years old and hasn't quite grasped the fact that electricity will kill your ass, I see nothing wrong with that individual learning through experience. Case closed.

Go Straight To Hell; Do Not Pass 'Go'

Wanna make sure you go to hell? And I mean straight to hell. No passing 'Go'. No collecting $200. Just straight to hell. If so, then might I suggest purposefully going 85 mph on the freeway in the wrong direction in an attempt to kill yourself, but being unsuccessful and instead, killing a 35-year old woman (who was 4 months pregnant) and her 13-year old son. Oh, and then suing the family of the woman that you killed. Yeah, that should do it.

According to ABC News, in March of 2009, a then 16-year old Justine Winter allegedly caused the crash just an hour after breaking up with her boyfriend. As if going on a mission to kill yourself whilst driving 85 mph in the wrong direction on the freeway, she was texting as she did it. See? Texting and driving kills. Don't do it.

The prosecutors are focusing on a series of those texts that occurred right before the crash. They include sentiments such as "If I won, I would have you. And I wouldn't crash my car." And "That's why I'm going to wreck my car. Because all I can do is f*** up. Because I am a terrible person and I know it." She also made sure that her last words were not only known, but extremely significant. "Good bye ... my last words." Yeah, that seems pretty cut and dried there.

But that's only because I am a (relatively) sane individual. I am not Justine Winter, nor am I any of the adults who are representing her. They are all, clearly, horrible individuals. They have sued the deceased woman's (Erin Thompson) estate, "...with her husband Jason Thompson as a representative, as well as three businesses that operate and provide services on Highway 93." Yeah, she's saying that the businesses failed "...to properly maintain the highway, which was under construction at the time." Well, it is hard to maintain something that isn't going to allow a crash to happen when some idiot is going in the wrong direction, let alone 85 mph in the wrong direction.

The suit actually has the balls to claim that "...Winter suffered permanent injuries in the crash and a "loss of capacity to enjoy life." She is also claiming future loss of income as well as past, present and future medical expenses." Oh, I might just twist off right now. Yep. Here I go.

Are you freaking kidding me?! SHE has a loss of capacity to enjoy life? WHY?! Because she's in jail where she belongs?! I'm sure she did suffer permanent injuries in the crash that she caused! That was her goal! To cause herself injury! Injury resulting in death!! And future loss of income?! Please. Like this chick had the mental faculties to even earn any income. She sounds like a complete moron. A complete, self-centered moron. Besides, if all goes the way that it should go, she won't have to worry about future loss of income OR any medical expenses, as I'm sure that they'll all be taken care of by the penal system that she will hopefully be incarcerated in for the rest of whatever.

The lawsuit accuses Mrs. Thompson "...of causing the accident through "negligent driving." Right. Because a woman who is four months pregnant and has her teenage son in the car with her would be driving negligently. I'm not saying that it's never happened. I'm just saying that it didn't happen in this case. How this woman's husband has not snapped in two and strangled someone at this point is beyond me.

Naturally, after filing this lawsuit, "No one from the Winter or Thompson families could be reached for comment. Winter's attorneys, David Stufft and Maxwell Battle Jr., also did not return repeated calls for comment." David Stufft and Maxwell Battle Jr. Please remember those names. If you ever come across either of these individuals, do whatever comes natural. (What? I wasn't suggesting anything untoward. I could have meant something like shaking their hand. Or not.) As far as the response from the prosecution's side, "Flathead County Attorney Ed Corrigan, who is leading the criminal case against Winter, said he was concerned the lawsuit would "inflame the public". Really? Suing the family of the people that you killed could "inflame the public"? In what way?

Apparently, Justine will be going on trial, as she has been charged with two counts of deliberate homicide. (That seems about right.) The preliminary trial resulted in the judge deciding that she should be tried as an adult. Naturally, her lawyers have appealed that decision, so who knows when this is going to get underway. Oh, but it is cases like these where I wish that there were a "skip the trial" option and we just toss her behind bars and move on with our lives. Some will move on easier than others, of course. But it would likely save everyone a whole lot of grief, as if the her attorneys are willing to file suit against the victim's family, Lord only knows what their courtroom defense will end up being (other than abhorrent, of course).

But He Got His Burrito!

How fitting that on the 20th anniversary of the oft-abused Americans With Disabilities Act, some jackass wins a lawsuit against Chipotle because he was (wait for it) deprived of the full Chipotle experience. We're just doomed. So incredibly doomed.

Here's the scoop: According to the San Francisco Chronicle (which is so liberal it probably wets itself every time one of these rulings gets handed down) "...the law entitles wheelchair users at a restaurant to the same view as everyone else at the food that awaits them - in this case, burritos, tacos and the rest of the fare at Chipotle Mexican Grill." Does it now? Does it really?

KGTV-10 in San Diego says that "...the wall at the counter was too tall for people in wheelchairs to see over, to pick out their ingredients and to see their food being prepared." OK, look...I'm not trying to be a callous hard ass here, but are they serious? And when I say "they" I'm referring to a one Maurizio Antoninetti and his attorney, a one Amy Vandeveld. There are other names that come to mind, but that's what I'm going with.

Do you really need to see your food being prepared? Plenty of other restaurants feed you God only knows what without you witnessing the preparation of said food incarnation. Those restaurants are probably just fine for folks in wheelchairs. And again, don't get me wrong, as I'm not dismissing those in wheelchairs as people who are not entitled to the same rights as others. That's not it. I know people in wheelchairs and I know that it sucks. But the people who I know that are in wheelchairs realize the inherent limitations of society in general. Not seeing what goes into your burrito as it is going in there would seem to be one of those inherent limitations.

By the way, it isn't like Chipotle didn't try to accommodate these folks. In fact, "...a trial court had ruled against Antoninetti, saying Chipotle's policy of showing samples to people in wheelchairs was enough." See? They weren't ruthless about it. They were what? Accommodating, that is correct. But unfortunately, this case ended up before (and I'll use the words of Dr. Michael Savage) the 9th Jerkit Court of Shlemeals, who disagreed and overturned that verdict. Of course they did. Apparently, it is very important to see your burrito being made. I don't know why that's important, but to some, it is.

According to KGTV, "I just wanted Chipotle to understand it cannot treat people in a wheelchair in a different way than everybody else," he (Antoninetti) told 10News from Italy." From ITALY?! Well, good to know that he's using his settlement money wisely. But the point here is that they weren't treating people in a wheelchair differently. They were doing what society must (and should) do for folks with disabilities. They were accommodating them. Why is it that the businesses have to be accommodating, but the folks with the disabilities don't? Why is it that the businesses are supposed to recognize the limitations of those with the disabilities, but the disabled folks are not supposed to recognize the limitations of the businesses? I don't get it.

I suppose that the Americans With Disabilities Act was a good thing. I know that only the best intentions went into drafting and enacting that law. And it's something that I am totally in favor of. But can you seriously say that it's a good thing that this Chipotle case dragged on for five years, ended up costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and making a couple of lawyers rich? I'm not so sure that would be considered "good". And by the way, according to Chipotle, "We respectfully disagree with the court's ruling. However, the matter is largely moot because several years ago, independent of this lawsuit, we retrofitted all our California restaurants with a new counter design that eliminates concern regarding wheelchair accessibility." And yet the lawsuit continued. Are we really to believe that it was all about the alleged "equality" for Mr. Antoninetti? I'm not so sure that it was.

If you click on the link above for KGTV, there is a video that accompanies this story. In the video, you will see Chipotle employees holding up samples for the person in the wheelchair to view, carrying the man's food to his table, making sure that he has everything that he needs, etc. He received excellent attention despite not being able to see his burrito being made. He appeared to be able to get around just fine inside the restaurant. He appeared to be in most hospitable atmosphere that one could hope for. And yet that wasn't enough for him. Or for his attorney. So they sued. Nice. I'm kind of surprised that Chipotle was willing to lower their counters and didn't just opt for the having no one be able to see their burrito being made so that this ONE guy wouldn't flip out. That would have solved the problem, too. All or nothing. Sounds like a really good way to ruin a perfectly good society. Way to go, sir. You jackass.

News Flash: Coffee Is Hot

Here we go again. It's frivolous lawsuit time! That's right! It's time for another ridiculous claim against a corporation. Get ready for more unnecessary precautions to protect and save everyone from themselves (because they're too stupid to take care of themselves and accept the consequences when they don't do so well at it). Actually, y'all should probably get ready for the day when you're not able to order anything hotter than tepid water at any food or beverage establish, lest you don't understand the meaning of the word "hot" and burn yourself on freaking coffee.

Welcome to the Starbucks store at 685 Third Avenue in Manhattan. This is where a one Zeynep Inanli (pronounce that however you'd like) purchased some tea. Because when you think tea, you think...Starbucks? Whatever. That's not really the point. The point is that...uh...Miss or....um...Mister...I suppose....um...hmmm. (This is a tricky one. I'm sorry, but I'm unable to determine the gender of Zeynep Inanli simply by looking at the name. Thus, I'm going to call this person The Greedy Plaintiff.) The Greedy Plaintiff Zeynep (TGPZ for short...and catchy!) claims that "...the tea was served "unreasonably hot, in containers which were not safe", according to the folks over yonder at Reuters. Uh-huh.

It's a little unclear as to what "unreasonably hot" consists of in this situation. It's tea. It's not iced tea. It's hot tea. It's right there in the name. HOT tea. So in order to define what "unreasonably hot" would be, we're first going to have to define what hot is, for cryin' out loud. And I can't believe I'm typing this for someone who is NOT a three year old, but the definition of "hot" according to Merriam-Webster is "a : having a relatively high temperature b : capable of giving a sensation of heat or of burning, searing, or scalding". OK, we can work with that.

Due to the nature of the half-assed reporting and the minimal details provided by the slackers over at Reuters, we don't know a lot about what actually happened. What they do tell us is that "As a result of Starbucks' negligence, the plaintiff suffered "great physical pain and mental anguish," including the burns". Hmmm. And I'm guessing that said 'negligence' was due to those "containers which were not safe" that I mentioned earlier? Why did they mention "including the burns" as part of the "great physical pain and mental anguish"? Are we so dumb that we might not think that BURNS would cause "great physical pain"? I want to know what ELSE is included WITH the burns that caused the "great physical pain"! What else was going on? Including the burns. Yeah, no kidding. Thanks for that.

OK, look, unless the container did not have a bottom on it, I'm guessing that the container is pretty much safe. (I don't even know what that sentence means! I've just attempted to define the SAFETY of a CUP! How do you even DO that without sounding like a crazy person? Clearly, one does not, as that sounded completely nuts.)

But here's what is really burning my toast: I have found numerous reports of TGPZ's lawsuit. And every single one of them feels the need to include something of this effect somewhere in the article: "In one well-known case, a jury in 1994 ordered McDonald's Corp to pay $2.86 million to Stella Liebeck, an Albuquerque, New Mexico woman who claimed she scalded herself with the restaurant's coffee. The parties later settled." That is the most misinterpreted example that is misused so frequently it makes me want to stab out my eyes every time I read it.

Yes, the chick sued Mickey D's after her coffee spilled on her lap and caused third degree burns. At the time of the injury, all the woman wanted was $20,000 to cover her medical bills (she ended up needing skin grafts for the damage done from all of the burning of the flesh from the coffee). McDonald's offered her $800. Also at the time, McDonald's had already fielded over 700 complaints from other folks who had burned themselves with their, yes, HOT coffee. The final award of $2.86 million was appealed down and down and ended up being less than $600,000 in the end.

Now, do I think that the woman should have sued because she spilled hot coffee on herself? No, of course not. That would be silly. My point here is that while the case is considered to be "well-known", it's really not. And no one seems to give a crap and it will continue to be wrongly cited until the end of time. Great. Craptastic reporting lives on!

The folks over at WPIX.com covered this story and, since there was so very little information about it to begin with, filled the majority of the segment with one of the biggest wastes of time ever, the man-on-the-street interviews. Let's find out what some of those ingenious New Yorkers had to say about this issue.

This man below said, "It's somewhat overreacting, but then again, Starbucks has to be careful about how they handle their products, too." Starbucks wasn't handling anything, sir. It was TGPZ that did the handling. They just gave her hot tea...that she asked for!

Then the roving reporter pointed out to the man that "It says right on the top of the lid 'CAUTION CONTENTS HOT'. Do you think that they need more than that for a warning?" More than what? What else are you going to SAY about it?! It's all there! Maybe "CAUTION CONTENTS IN THIS VERY CUP ARE REALLY HOT AND WE'RE NOT KIDDING, YOU MORON, SO DON'T SPILL IT'? Would THAT help? I don't think it would help this guy, because do you know what he responded? "I would say so because when people are thirsty, they usually don't read labels." Good point. Wait. I mean, what?!

So, he's saying that they need more than "HOT" on a label that people won't read when they're thirsty? He would like a cup that speaks to you, perhaps? Like those annoying Hallmark cards that sing to you when you open them? A mime in the store that acts out receiving horrific burns when he spills his coffee? What else can they do? They told you IT WAS HOT! If you're so dumb that you need a LABEL to tell you that the HOT coffee that you just ORDERED under your own free will is HOT, I don't think that there's much that's going to be able to help you. My question is how you have been able to keep yourself alive all of these years because you don't seem real bright.

The news report from WPIX is below. It is seriously one of the most poorly reported news stories I've ever seen.

It's unfortunate that Reuters ran with this story before getting more information. What exactly was burned on this person? Tongue? Lips? Toes? Earlobes? Groinal region? Some sort of bodily canal? What happened? And how much money is wanted here? What exactly the defect in the cup? What accompanied the burns? Why was TGPZ drinking tea at a Starbucks? So many questions. So few answers. Such a big, fat waste of time. Just because something bad happens to you, it doesn't mean someone needs to give you money. Keep that in mind.