Frivolous Lawsuits
A woman is suing Loews Cineplex for deceptive business practices for showing commercials that begin at the advertised movie showtime. I hate to say it, but I don't think that 3 minutes of commercials amount to deceptive business practices. I find those commercials as annoying as the next person. It pisses me off immensely that I pay to watch commercials. However the response is not a lawsuit. The response is to boycott movies until the chains stop showing commercials. Or simply live with it. Buyer power, baby, buyer power. It's about time Americans stopped suing each other at the drop of a hat. Although, it might be fun to sue people who file frivolous lawsuits to recoup tax dollars that go to wasted court time. Poetic justice.
Comments
Actually I often think of how cool it would be to win a huge lottery prize and spend the rest of my days doing nothing but filing stupid lawsuits making a living sueing people.
"So Rick what do you do for a living?"
"I'm a Suer"
Posted by: Rick DeMent | February 22, 2003 09:15 PM
Fuel to the fire: The McDonald's plaintiffs have amended and re-filed their complaint, and this time, the lead attorney (Samuel Hirsch) is trying to establish a class action. Litigiousness and stupidity ... two great tastes that go great together.
Posted by: Alan | February 23, 2003 08:42 PM
Is she talking about the movie previews? (which I like) or the "lets all go to the lobby and get some popcorn" adds (I do, so I don't normally see these) Or the local business advertisements?
A local theater makes nearly nothing off of ticket sales, the profit is in popcorn and candy. I would buy more, (sneak less) if 57 ounces of coke didn't cost $13, but at least that bucket of sugar water doubles as a porta potty in a pinch. Handy in a kevin costner 3 1/2 hour movie about water.
So the owners had to resort to selling adds, that few people watch, to make a dime. Just like Cable TV. Don't like it? tune it out.
On a related note, the last movie I went and watched they had the preview for Pirates of the Caribean. Near the end of the preview someone growled in his best Blackbeard voice "Rated ARRRRR" I missed the next preview I was laughing so hard.
Posted by: justin | February 24, 2003 03:24 PM
No, Justin, she's talking about regular old commercials for things like Coke. Nor is she particularly complaining about their rights to sell ads. She's merely saying that they should show the ads prior to the advertised movie start time. I still don't think its deceptive business practices, but I understand her annoyance.
Posted by: Lesley | February 24, 2003 09:17 PM
A class action because McDonald's food makes you fat if you eat it three times a day? I'm liking more and more the idea of suing people for filing frivolous lawsuits. Too bad we can't sue them for gross stupidity, though.
Posted by: Lesley | February 24, 2003 09:19 PM
It would probably be enough to make the loser pay the cost of all lawsuits. That would eliminate many frivilous lawsuits, and no doubt a few, very few worthy ones as well.
No system is perfect. But, the way it works now, there's little to no cost to filing a absurd suit.
Posted by: tim d | February 24, 2003 11:59 PM
I got sued a couple of years ago because I didn't honk my horn and warn the other driver not to cut me off. The plaintiff and her attorney told my insurance company and attorney that they knew of nothing that I did wrong but they believed I was partially at fault and should pay up. I was eventually dismissed, however, I am now paying higher insurance premiums. I filed a Motion for Santions and the
Judge and Court of Appeals said the complaint was fair and standard. Did I mention that I work for a large law firm and every attorney (personal injury, ethics, litigation, traffic judges, etc.) agreed with me. Everyone except the judges.
As soon as people realize that nothing is going to change until the Judges are forced to sanction their friends, then and only then, will something happen. I blame the judges for refusing to stop this nonsense. Plaintiff's attorney would not file these suits if they knew they'd get fined.
Posted by: Jason | February 17, 2004 10:08 AM
I work for the student newspaper at my highschool, and for this issue, we ran a column on the top ten frivilous lawsuits. Amoung the stupidest-
1. a surfer sued another surfer for stealing a wave
2. a lady sued a grocery store after she dropped a six pack of beer on her feet
3. a bank robber sued the bank, police, security companies, etc for injuries when a Security Pac inside a roll of money exploded
4. a man sued his parents because he was at their house during a fourth-of-july firework acident
5. a man sued his neighbors because he got trapped in their garage when he tried to rob them and had to live off of dog food for a week
Posted by: Jason | February 29, 2004 05:56 PM
I own property which I told the property owner next door, that they could not build on my property. he sued me, got a temporary injunction against me and now under chapter 11, I must allow him to build on my property without him being the trespassor. Plus, he got the previous owner of my property twice removed to give him a general warrenty deed on my property allowing him to file suit against me for wanting to build on my property. . . Is this weird or what? I am unable to do anything about it. We go to trial soon. Got any suggestions?
Posted by: Lee | March 16, 2004 10:15 PM
look up erwin rommell school of law on the internet. they will show you how to win this.
pay them for instuction or buy what ever peter simpson suggests will point you in the right direction. FIRE YOUR USELESS LAWYER TODAY .
Posted by: jeff | April 18, 2004 10:40 AM