If a man belittles a woman, it could become a lawsuit. If women belittle men, it’s a Hallmark card. —Warren Farrell
Everyone wants to sue someone else and rarely is there a good reason
Everywhere I look this morning, someone is threatening to file a lawsuit against someone else. Of course, the big one in the news recently has been the threats on the part of the Republican nominee for President who claims he’s going to file a lawsuit against all the women who claim he sexually assaulted them. Most of us look at that threat as empty, yet another attempt on the part of the candidate to bully people because, you know, that’s all he really is: a big bully.
However, in response to that threat, there is news today that at least one of the women claiming to have been assaulted says that if the Republican candidate sues her, she’s going to turn around and file a lawsuit against him. She’s claiming emotional distress from him calling her names and such. Should any of this mess actually see the inside of a courtroom, which is probably won’t, she probably has a better case than the Republican candidate does against her.
Oh, and the candidate’s legal problems don’t end there. It would seem that some of his fellow Republicans don’t want to be associated with their party’s candidate in any way, shape, or form. So, when their party’s candidate created ads that imply there is a connection between the Congressmen and the Presidential nominee, the Congressmen threatened to, you guessed it, file a lawsuit. Understand, this isn’t just one Republican, which could be dismissed as petty. FIVE of them are threatening to sue. They’re claiming defamation of character. Go figure.
Oh, and just to prove we’re not all focused on politics, Suge Knight is threatening to sue Dr. Dre. Suge claims that Dre cut him out of the Apple deal for Beats by Dre. Understand, Knight is already in jail for the alleged murder of Terry Carter and claims Dre hired a hitman to remove his presence from this planet.
As utterly stupid as that whole mess sounds, we found some lawsuits that are worse. Americans can be really dense.
Budweiser Sued For False Advertising
I could almost see this one having some legitimacy if the beer maker was claiming that their beer actually tasted like something other than swill. They’re not, though. Instead, some dude in Michigan, whose brain, we assume, was frozen during the harsh winter they have up there, was upset because no bikini-clad models appeared out of nowhere for him as they did in the commercial.
No, seriously, he actually filed a lawsuit. You can read all about the damn thing here. Apparently, this guy doesn’t understand the difference between reality and fantasy. I’m betting he still thinks all the girls on OkCupid are real, too.
The Cases Against Amusement Parks
A lot of people apparently think that amusement parks are easy lawsuit targets. My guess is that someone told them all they have to do is file and that the parks will settle out of court. Sounds like an easy payday, right? Uhm, not necessarily so. While the parks do often settle legitimate claims privately when they’re obviously at fault, they don’t just throw money at everyone who sues them.
Back in March, 2009, the Orlando Sentinel ran a story about all the crazy reasons people give when attempting to sue the many amusement parks in that area. The list is somewhere between amusing and unbelievable. For example, a man from Virginia sued Disney World in 2005, saying food poisoning caused him to gag so badly he ruptured his esophagus. Now, I’ve had some really bad food at amusement parks, but gagging hard enough to rupture the esophagus? Dude, just spit it out and move on.
Then, there was the woman from Hawaii who sued Busch Gardens-Tampa Bay in 2006, saying she contracted a rare blood disease when a wayward vulture from a trained bird show clawed her legs. I’m guessing the lady looked so close to death that the vulture was just going for an early snack. Yes, that’s a cruel thing to say. No, I’m not especially sympathetic.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why it costs an arm and a leg to go to an amusement park. All these ridiculous lawsuits raise the park’s insurance and, naturally, they pass that cost along to those who buy the tickets. YOU are the reason we can’t have nice things. Again. Stupid.
Some People Don’t Learn
We’ve all heard about the high costs of higher education. People are frequently graduating from college with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of debt and are unable to find a job. I’m sure we can all understand and appreciate the amount of stress that causes. However, one young lady decided, after a grueling three-month job search (cue: What I Did Over Summer Vacation) decided to sue her alma mater, Monroe College, for the $70,000 she spent on a BS in IT.
Now, this wouldn’t be the first time that a college has gotten into trouble for allegedly promising its graduates jobs, especially in WTF fields such as court reporting and “general business.” However, this child has a degree in IT. Given all the IT jobs available across this country, if she’s not able to land one of them one has to assume one of the following problems must have occurred:
- She slept through all her classes and didn’t actually manage to learn a damn thing
- She has absolutely no interview skills, which is saying something considering the field she’s in
- She never actually filled out an application
- She mistakenly thought the IT recruiters were going to come to her
- She spilled hot coffee in the lap of every recruiter she met
Seriously, if one has any skill in IT at all, they should be able to get a job. Granted, it might mean moving outside the Bronx, which isn’t exactly the IT capital of anything. Still, the openings in IT are so voluminous that almost anyone who can spell IT can get a job in IT.
Following The Leader
Still, even with a treasure trove of really stupid reasons for filing a lawsuit available on the Internet (seriously, it was one of the easiest searches ever), we have to consider the fact that honest, hardworking, intelligent people would rather stay out of court unless they have a legitimate claim. If the police kill your child while he’s playing innocently in the park, then yes, you have good reason to sue. If a drug company suddenly raises the price of a life-saving drug by 5000% for no good reason, then yes, drop the hammer on those sons of bitches. If the airbag in your car is more dangerous than carrying a loaded gun with the safety off, then by all means, someone needs to be held accountable. There are legitimate reasons good people file lawsuits.
What we’re seeing, though, is that the person who wants to be leader of the free world uses the threat of lawsuits to get what he wants: more money. If he can get away with it, and he has for years, then everyone else on the freakin’ planet is going to try and follow that example. As clogged up as the courts already are, the situation could get so very much worse. There could be lawsuits because one failed to mention how pretty the candidate’s wife is. There could be lawsuits because one dared to call a delinquent child a troublemaker. If the Congressmen’s lawsuit stands, that would open the door for people being sued just because someone called them a friend!
Is this really the kind of leadership we need, people who misuse the courts to bully others around? We both know damn good and well it isn’t. Watch how you vote, though. If someone doesn’t win we might all get sued.
5 Things You Should Know: 12/21/2016
8:11:14 AM 12/21/2016
https://youtu.be/w1R_6E5YXRE
And A Happy Solstice To All
Hey there! Happy Winter Solstice! It’s the shortest day of the year, among other things, which means that from here on out the days start getting longer. That’s a good thing, isn’t it? We certainly hope it is. And we’re still looking at warming temperatures as we head toward the Christmas/Hanukkah weekend so hopefully travel problems will be few.
As we look at the news this morning, there is still a lot of clean up from Monday’s events. Police in Germany released the person they initially thought was the driver of the truck that slammed into a holiday market in Berlin and a manhunt is underway. Russia has doubled down on its relationship with Turkey. And officials in Geneva said that the person who shot up a mosque there was not a Muslim extremist. Those situations are likely to be ongoing for a while. So, our five things you should know this morning takes us in a slightly different direction.
And then things went boom
By now, if you’ve been on social media much at all, you’ve likely seen the video a passerby took yesterday as the San Pablito fireworks market in Mexico exploded yesterday1. While the site was a spectacular event to watch, the death toll in that chain reaction explosion now stands at 29, with 72 still being treated for injuries. Some of those injured have burns over 90 percent of their body.
There is no word yet as to who or what might have caused the explosion. Inventory at the market was higher than usual because of the upcoming holidays. The fireworks market is an integral part of the local economy and something that is carefully guarded. However, this is not the first time that the San Pablito market has gone up in flames. A similar incident in May of 2005 did a similar amount of damage, though fewer lives were lost in that explosion.
Amidst the chaos of the explosions and huge plumes of smoke, survivors ran for the nearest exit, many becoming separated from their families and leaving behind personal items such as cell phones. Relatives are still scrambling to find those who are missing. Sadly, explosions like this are all-too-common an occurrence in Mexico, especially around holidays and religious festivals. Yesterday’s explosion, however, was the worst the country has seen in several years.
Someone has to take responsibility
With tragedy inevitably come lawsuits as victims’ families look to hold someone, somewhere, responsible for the event that took the life of a loved one. Such is the case in Orlando as the families of three men killed in the Pulse nightclub shooting filed papers in Detroit federal court on Monday naming major social media companies Facebook, Twitter, and Google saying that the companies “provided the terrorist group ISIS with accounts they use to spread extremist propaganda, raise funds and attract new recruits.”2
While the grief of the families involved is understandable, one has to wonder if this is not yet again a case of an over-zealous attorney either trying to make a name for themselves or bilking the grieving families out of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees. The families would have to prove intentional and deliberate collusion on the part of the social media giants to win their case, something that is not likely to happen. Pile First Amendment arguments on top of that and the lawsuit is practically dead in the water before it ever starts.
While only Facebook responded to the lawsuit yesterday, the issue of shutting down the accounts of known terrorist cells has been a primary project for every social media outlet over the past couple of years. Twitter was very public back in August when it announced that it had deleted 360,000 accounts since mid-2015 for violating policies related to promotion of terrorism. All three companies, along with Microsoft, are part of a joint effort to prevent known terrorist accounts from proliferating online. Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act protects software companies from speech users post on their sites, making the lawsuit against them even more improbable.
Our sympathies are with the families of the victims, but this lawsuit is nothing but desperate foolishness.
American Apparel is dying
Anyone who once shopped the big malls across the country knows the name American Apparel. They’ve been a mainstay of malls everywhere for over 30 years. However, the retail market has not been nice toward mall-based chains and American Apparel has spent the past several months in the middle of bankruptcy proceedings trying desperately to keep the brand alive. Yesterday, however, a judge agreed to allow the store to close nine locations and approved a liquidation plan should a buyer not be found within a reasonable timeframe.3
The nine stores, which are among some of the brand’s highest profile locations in Atlanta and Dallas, may just be the tip of the iceberg. The entire chain goes up for auction next month, and Gildan Activewear has already set a starting bid of $106 million. However, Gildan is not required to follow through on that bid and analyst are pessimistic about any other buyers attempting to save all 107 locations.
What this means for shoppers is multiple rounds of clearance sales as the company begins divesting itself of as much inventory as possible. However, it is also a warning sign as other mall retailers are beginning to hire bankruptcy attorneys. Fast fashion retailers such as H&M and Zara have taken much of the fire out of mall stores and that entire sector of the industry has been in steep decline for five years now. Expect more fashion-oriented stores to fall over the next two years.
Bobbie Brown exits stage left
The beauty world was caught off guard yesterday as Bobbie Brown, founder of the incredibly popular Bobbie Brown cosmetics line, announced she is stepping away from the brand at the end of the year4. Ms. Brown did not say exactly what she was going to do next. She told WWD that the celebration of brand’s 25th anniversary was a milestone “that made me realize it was time to start a new chapter and move on to new ventures.”
The 59-year-old makeup artist certainly has plenty of options available to her as she has dabbled in a variety of closely-related ventures over the years. The brand itself is owned by Estee Lauder and will continue operating under Peter Lichtenthal, global brand president. Ms. Brown is known for being energetic and creative so it will be interesting to see just where she might apply her incredible talent next.
And Finally …
President Obama may have found something that the incoming administration can’t undo upon its arrival next month. Yesterday, the president banned new oil and gas drilling in federal waters in the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, a move that, understandably makes environmentalists extremely happy5. The move protects nearly 120 million acres of coastal waters controlled jointly by both the United States and Canada.
Normally, we might throw some shade at the move on the expectation that the next president would simply revoke the ruling using the same Presidential power with which it was made. However, this is one instance where the ruling is almost permanent. The president utilized the little-known Outer Continental Shelf Act that allows presidents to limit areas from mineral leasing and drilling. If Mr. Trump attempts to reverse President Obama’s move, he could only do so through a series of lawsuits that would likely take longer to get through the courts than his administration would be in place.
At the same time, it’s not like anyone has been chomping at the bit to drill in the Arctic waters. Shell Oil was the last company to give it a try and they abandoned those efforts after a tanker lost several thousand gallons of crude thanks to a giant gash in its side caused by ice flows in the area. Drilling there is extremely expensive compared to land-based operations. Still, the American Petroleum Institute criticized the move. The president-elect’s transition team has not yet responded.
We’re running incredibly late this morning, so we’ll have to end the conversation there for now. As always, we hope you’ll stay warm and safe. Don’t forget to subscribe, and we’ll be back with more tomorrow.
Share this:
Like this: