The "What in the fuck kind of lawsuit is this?" Thread

I figure it was time to roll out a thread that handles bullshit lawsuits the way the other WTF thread handles bullshit bills. And the legal clusterfuck that inspired this?

Our old friends at the RIAA, in their ongoing suit against the filesharing service Limewire (which has been dead since 2010, BTW), has asked for damages to the tune of $72 trillion. (That's "$72,000,000,000,000"). Which is $12 trillion more than the current estimated combined wealth of Earth.

The presiding judge rejected this sum (which was based on the RIAA's argument of "every download = a lost sale"), but (what's left of) Limewire is still looking at a potential $1.65 billion fine.

I just wonder if the RIAA actually expected to see that kind of money or are they trying to literally sue Limewire into oblivion?

It's official. The RIAA has finally gone off the deep end.

Freezer wrote:

The presiding judge rejected this sum (which was based on the RIAA's argument of "every download = a lost sale"), but (what's left of) Limewire is still looking at a potential $1.65 billion fine.

I just wonder if the RIAA actually expected to see that kind of money or are they trying to literally sue Limewire into oblivion?

Are the RIAA also going to claim for legal costs? Because that would be insult to injury, big time.

TheIan wrote:

It's official. The RIAA has finally gone off the deep end.

I'm surprised James Cameron didn't find them swimming in the Mariana Trench.

Freezer wrote:

are they trying to literally sue Limewire into oblivion?

Bingo. RIAA's gone to great lengths to try and get people to think of it as part of the government and a powerful law enforcement agency at that. They've been doing everything they can to make themselves look unstoppable so the consequences of crossing them are dire.

It's brute force intimidation through the legal system; they're basically trying to make an example out of Limewire.

But you'd think the RIAA would choose a target that, you know, still existed.

They're ruthless in defending an obsolete business model. They might be driven, but they are also very stupid.

Gonna let the headline speak for itself:

Man Claims His Genitals Were Burned By Urinal In Arby’s

Freezer wrote:

Gonna let the headline speak for itself:

Man Claims His Genitals Were Burned By Urinal In Arby’s

The plaintiff claims he was burned by a jet of steam. So, scalded. It's possible.

although LOL DID A JET OF FIRE COME OUT HUR HUR IDIOT is certainly a funnier and more smug interpretation

Cyberwulf wrote:

The plaintiff claims he was burned by a jet of steam. So, scalded. It's possible.

Scalded: Possible.

Scalded by a urinal? Skeptical.

The fact that he apparently waited two years after teh fact to file doesn't add to his credibility.

What I want to know is what urinal was he pissing in? Urinals aren't usually connected to a boiler or anything.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Freezer wrote:

Gonna let the headline speak for itself:

Man Claims His Genitals Were Burned By Urinal In Arby’s

The plaintiff claims he was burned by a jet of steam. So, scalded. It's possible.

although LOL DID A JET OF FIRE COME OUT HUR HUR IDIOT is certainly a funnier and more smug interpretation

A jet of anything is awfully implausible. It'd either have to be so high-pressure that it shot out of the joints at just such an angle that it hit his junk, or when flushed, such a huge quantity of it was fired into the urinal that it bounced off the back of the urinal and hit him in the genitals.

Also, nothing really explains why having the kitchen sink running would cause the urinal to spontaneously shoot steam, unless their water heater supplies steam to the sink rather than hot water.

From what i heard on the radio this morning, apparently there was an issue with the plumbing there in the Arby's. When they ran the dishwasher (note that restaurant dishwashers are NOTHING like the ones you use at home and they are generally MUCH HOTTER), then there would be a backflush of scalding hot water when the urinal was flushed.

Right. That still doesn't explain a "jet of steam." Urinal flushing is not particularly violent and incoming water is always aimed at the back of the urinal. It's not like it'd dump a gallon of boiling water in the process, causing a steam cloud either.

Penguin wrote:

Right. That still doesn't explain a "jet of steam." Urinal flushing is not particularly violent and incoming water is always aimed at the back of the urinal. It's not like it'd dump a gallon of boiling water in the process, causing a steam cloud either.

Nor does it explain the 2-year pause and the hand-wavey "clearly this is just an inconvenience" reaction that happened at the time.

Maybe it was shooting up from below? I've seen a toilet do that when there was something very wrong with the plumbing (only happened when the washing machine was on), but instead of hot steam, it was cold and smelly and terrible.

Went poking around and it appears the radio had it wrong. It was the sink, not the dishwasher, that was the problem.

Quote :

“Dejoie claims he reported the incident to an employee who, according to the lawsuit claimed ‘we have that bathroom problem again,’ and ‘this happens when the sink in the kitchen is running.’”

I'm mostly wondering if he really was burned there, why he would wait two years to file suit.

In that case the water going to the sink is hooked up to a waste line, which has even more disturbing implications. I still can't really see it causing a steamy piss geyser, though.

Penguin wrote:

In that case the water going to the sink is hooked up to a waste line

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Given the things I've seen go on in the back of the house in various restaurants, I would not be entirely surprised.

WD40 wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Right. That still doesn't explain a "jet of steam." Urinal flushing is not particularly violent and incoming water is always aimed at the back of the urinal. It's not like it'd dump a gallon of boiling water in the process, causing a steam cloud either.

Nor does it explain the 2-year pause and the hand-wavey "clearly this is just an inconvenience" reaction that happened at the time.

Is there at least some medical record at the time of the alleged ball boiling that would back this up?

I mean, if I got steam burns on my testicles, I'd PROBABLY mosey on over to the doctor.

There is the legendary lawsuit in which a man bought an RV, set it on cruise control, then left the wheel to fix himself a cup of coffee. Needless to say, the thing got totalled and he blamed the RV company for not stating in their user manual that cruise control was NOT the same thing as autopilot. He won $900,000 and a new RV.

Even better: a man broke into his neighbor's home, intent on a robbery, and was severely bitten by the family dog. He sued for $100,000, but "only" won $27,000 because he also injured the dog.

SouthSimGal wrote:

There is the legendary lawsuit in which a man bought an RV, set it on cruise control, then left the wheel to fix himself a cup of coffee. Needless to say, the thing got totalled and he blamed the RV company for not stating in their user manual that cruise control was NOT the same thing as autopilot. He won $900,000 and a new RV.

Even better: a man broke into his neighbor's home, intent on a robbery, and was severely bitten by the family dog. He sued for $100,000, but "only" won $27,000 because he also injured the dog.

The dog should have killed him. Problem solved.

SouthSimGal wrote:

There is the legendary lawsuit in which a man bought an RV, set it on cruise control, then left the wheel to fix himself a cup of coffee. Needless to say, the thing got totalled and he blamed the RV company for not stating in their user manual that cruise control was NOT the same thing as autopilot. He won $900,000 and a new RV.

Even better: a man broke into his neighbor's home, intent on a robbery, and was severely bitten by the family dog. He sued for $100,000, but "only" won $27,000 because he also injured the dog.

Cruise (Un)Control

Lady Anne wrote:

SouthSimGal wrote:

There is the legendary lawsuit in which a man bought an RV, set it on cruise control, then left the wheel to fix himself a cup of coffee. Needless to say, the thing got totalled and he blamed the RV company for not stating in their user manual that cruise control was NOT the same thing as autopilot. He won $900,000 and a new RV.

Even better: a man broke into his neighbor's home, intent on a robbery, and was severely bitten by the family dog. He sued for $100,000, but "only" won $27,000 because he also injured the dog.

Cruise (Un)Control

You beat me to it, I was just about to ask for a source because both of those "lawsuits" sound like makey-uppy bullshit spouted by people griping about how everyone is "sue-happy" and gleefully repeated by morons who take it as gospel.