Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

298 | 299 | 300

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

NOV 24, 2004 08:09 AM

Benihana is facing one of the most ridiculous nuisance suits ever.

[A] sizzling piece of shrimp tossed at a man during dinner at a Munsey Park Japanese restaurant in 2001 led to his death, his family has claimed in a lawsuit against the Benihana chain.

Jerry Colaitis injured his neck while ducking from the shrimp, which a chef flipped his way during a family dinner to celebrate a son's birthday at the Northern Boulevard restaurant in January 2001, said Roslyn attorney Andre Ferenzo, who is representing Colaitis' estate.

About 10 months later, Colaitis, 47, of Old Brookville died because of complications from the surgery he needed to correct the pain in his neck, Ferenzo said.






Benihana is known for serving up theatrics with its Japanese fare, cooked table-side teppan yaki style by chefs who deftly chop meats and vegetables, at times flinging pieces into the air to the delight and awe of customers.

toothpickmoe

toothpickmoe

Los Angeles, CA
May 2004

NOV 24, 2004 08:16 AM

Unbelieveable

twigtech

twigtech

Atlanta, GA
September 2004

NOV 24, 2004 08:21 AM

if mcdonalds loses because their coffee was hot... frown mad

JonnyJonnyH

JonnyJonnyH

Seattle, WA
June 2003

NOV 24, 2004 08:21 AM

Point_Blank said:
Benihana is facing one of the most ridiculous nuisance suits ever.

[A]
About 10 months later, Colaitis, 47, of Old Brookville died because of complications from the surgery he needed to correct the pain in his neck, Ferenzo said.





He should have had rolfing done instead of surgery. He would probably be less dead now.

Aren't you supposed to OPEN YOUR MOUTH instead of duck when they flip the shrimp at you?

MissTyrios

misstyrios

NEWSWIRE

Allston, MA

NOV 24, 2004 08:49 AM

twigtech said:
if mcdonalds loses because their coffee was hot... frown mad



I'm betting you don't know the whole story on this. You can find the actual legal stance of this case here.

Basically, these are the real facts:

- The woman, while her car was stopped, attempted to remove the lid of her coffee, which spilled, giving her third degree burns over 6% of her body (thighs and genital area). She was hospitalized for 8 days, requiring several surgeries for skin grafting and tissue removal.

- Prior to this, there were more than 700 claims that McDonalds coffee was dangerously hot.

- Coffee served in other establishments, or that made in a home coffee maker, is approximately 135 degrees. McDonalds had a policy of keeping theirs at 180-190 degrees.

- The woman offered to settle the suit for $20,000, just enough to cover her medical expenses. McDonalds refused.

- The woman was actually found to be partially at fault (20%), and thus the jury reduced her compensatory damages from $200,000 to $160,000. They also awarded her $2,7 million in putative damages (equal to about 2 days of McDonalds coffee sales), which was later reduced to $480,000.

Please don't bitch about the out-of-control tort system without knowing the facts. And please don't demonize lawyers based on urban myths.

-

MissTyrios

misstyrios

NEWSWIRE

Allston, MA

NOV 24, 2004 09:04 AM

EnfantTerrible said:
O MY Fucking GAWD!!!


THAT is precisely why I say lawyers(most) SUCK!!!
Any lawyer that takes that case with a straight face is a stupid fuck, and unfortunately I believe there are ALOT of lawyers that would take a case just that(see also: litigation against McDonald's for making people fat)......frivilous isn't even the word for it. Insert your own word for it, if you like.



Again, please don't characterize the entire profession based on what you feel are a few frivilous, albeit widely publicized, cases.

Chances are, you're going to need legal help sometime in your life.

Most of us are good people. Most of us aren't money grubbers. Most of us love the law and the legal profession.

It really isn't fair to lash out at a profession based on your skewed views of what we are.

SexyBeast

SexyBeast

Covington, LA
July 2004

NOV 24, 2004 09:05 AM

If I was injured from ducking when someone threw something at my head, I'd sue. Shouldn't throw things at peoples head. If that sort of thing should have been expected when going there, then it is the guys fault for going there. If my mom died from surgery that I thought was needed because of the time she ducked and hurt herself, I'd sue

reprobate

reprobate

New Orleans, LA
December 2002

NOV 24, 2004 10:14 AM

EnfantTerrible said:

MissTyrios said:

EnfantTerrible said:
O MY Fucking GAWD!!!


THAT is precisely why I say lawyers(most) SUCK!!!
Any lawyer that takes that case with a straight face is a stupid fuck, and unfortunately I believe there are ALOT of lawyers that would take a case just that(see also: litigation against McDonald's for making people fat)......frivilous isn't even the word for it. Insert your own word for it, if you like.



Again, please don't characterize the entire profession based on what you feel are a few frivilous, albeit widely publicized, cases.

Chances are, you're going to need legal help sometime in your life.

Most of us are good people. Most of us aren't money grubbers. Most of us love the law and the legal profession.

It really isn't fair to lash out at a profession based on your skewed views of what we are.





HAHA! Still in law school? All of the lawyers that I know(granted it isn't THAT many, but I can say 100% of those) have either bent, skewed, or left behind that sense of idealism after practicing for a few years. I'm just operating on what I know from personal experience, what I hear from trusted friends and family secondhand, and what I see in the public eye.(See Also: "Great Attorney" Mark Geragos or Garegos...I forget) Sure some good is done by lawyers, and sure I might need one some day, but that doesn't mean that most are passing up the opportunity at profitting immensely and that many don't take that profiteering to an extreme with only winning or greed as their prime motivator. Volunteer, pro bono work, or public civil servant work is the exception from what I see.

I'll stick to my own OPINION. You are welcome to yours. wink



If clients were honest, nobody would need lawyers.

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

NOV 24, 2004 10:28 AM

EnfantTerrible said:

MissTyrios said:

EnfantTerrible said:
O MY Fucking GAWD!!!


THAT is precisely why I say lawyers(most) SUCK!!!
Any lawyer that takes that case with a straight face is a stupid fuck, and unfortunately I believe there are ALOT of lawyers that would take a case just that(see also: litigation against McDonald's for making people fat)......frivilous isn't even the word for it. Insert your own word for it, if you like.



Again, please don't characterize the entire profession based on what you feel are a few frivilous, albeit widely publicized, cases.

Chances are, you're going to need legal help sometime in your life.

Most of us are good people. Most of us aren't money grubbers. Most of us love the law and the legal profession.

It really isn't fair to lash out at a profession based on your skewed views of what we are.





HAHA! Still in law school? All of the lawyers that I know(granted it isn't THAT many, but I can say 100% of those) have either bent, skewed, or left behind that sense of idealism after practicing for a few years. I'm just operating on what I know from personal experience, what I hear from trusted friends and family secondhand, and what I see in the public eye.(See Also: "Great Attorney" Mark Geragos or Garegos...I forget) Sure some good is done by lawyers, and sure I might need one some day, but that doesn't mean that most are passing up the opportunity at profitting immensely and that many don't take that profiteering to an extreme with only winning or greed as their prime motivator. Volunteer, pro bono work, or public civil servant work is the exception from what I see.

I'll stick to my own OPINION. You are welcome to yours. wink



wow, congratulations on the most over generalized, uninformed, and grossly unqualified "opinion" of the day (thus far; it's still early). i'm guessing you have next to no legal experience, and even less knowledge of what most lawyers actually do - aside from what you have seen on "law and order," and bizarro cases like this. funny, most lawyers i know are the polar opposite of what you have described. i can only guess it is the same for misstyrios and other SG legal people. i'll take actual knowledge and experience over your second hand "knowledge" and "experience" any day of the week.

[Edited on Nov 24, 2004 by dead_ringer]

Idjit

Idjit

HOPEFUL

I'm lost

NOV 24, 2004 10:33 AM

Fuck, might as well sue the shrimp while they're at it - it might actually increase their chances of winning the case.

dem_z

dem_z

United Kingdom
June 2004

NOV 24, 2004 11:24 AM

MissTyrios said:
Basically, these are the real facts:


Also, a US national burn centre issued a warning to fast food outlets about the temperature of drinks. McD's ignored the warnings.

reprobate

reprobate

New Orleans, LA
December 2002

NOV 24, 2004 11:29 AM

demetrius_z said:

MissTyrios said:
Basically, these are the real facts:


Also, a US national burn centre issued a warning to fast food outlets about the temperature of drinks. McD's ignored the warnings.



Yep. And McDonald's repeatedly perjured themselves throughout the trial, hence the punitive award.

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

NOV 24, 2004 11:31 AM

reprobate said:

demetrius_z said:

MissTyrios said:
Basically, these are the real facts:


Also, a US national burn centre issued a warning to fast food outlets about the temperature of drinks. McD's ignored the warnings.



Yep. And McDonald's repeatedly perjured themselves throughout the trial, hence the punitive award.


Its always been interesting to me that in this case everyone took the evil corporation's side over the old lady's!

You've got to love the Mickey D's marketing team. Talk about great spin!

RubberSoul

RubberSoul

Los Angeles, CA
February 2003

NOV 24, 2004 11:32 AM

Will there be throwing of turkey parts at the reprobate Thanksgiving gathering? If so, I would consult with legal counsel in advance and have all those shady SGLAers sign a release before entering the premises.

Elisabeth

Elisabeth

San Francisco, CA
December 2002

NOV 24, 2004 11:37 AM

What about the chiropractor? What about a possible pre-existing condition that he may not have known that he had?

He also happened to be in the fur business. What if it's a conspiracy?

I'm curious why the family didn't just leave after the first or second time that the food was flung? That sentence just hurt my brain. surreal

Jeff_Fries

Jeff_Fries

Humptulips, WA
September 2003

NOV 24, 2004 11:38 AM

I always knew Benihanas would fall victim to a lawsuit, just not one this lame.

reprobate

reprobate

New Orleans, LA
December 2002

NOV 24, 2004 11:41 AM

souljacker said:
Will there be throwing of turkey parts at the reprobate Thanksgiving gathering? If so, I would consult with legal counsel in advance and have all those shady SGLAers sign a release before entering the premises.



Consenting to be in my immediate vicinity has been found by the courts to be the very soul of assumption of risk.

RubberSoul

RubberSoul

Los Angeles, CA
February 2003

NOV 24, 2004 11:44 AM

reprobate said:

souljacker said:
Will there be throwing of turkey parts at the reprobate Thanksgiving gathering? If so, I would consult with legal counsel in advance and have all those shady SGLAers sign a release before entering the premises.



Consenting to be in my immediate vicinity has been found by the courts to be the very soul of assumption of risk.



I am certain that the mass comsumption of alcoholic beverages only adds to this risk. Just watch out for the neck. Those things hurt.

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

NOV 24, 2004 11:45 AM

reprobate said:

souljacker said:
Will there be throwing of turkey parts at the reprobate Thanksgiving gathering? If so, I would consult with legal counsel in advance and have all those shady SGLAers sign a release before entering the premises.



Consenting to be in my immediate vicinity has been found by the courts to be the very soul of assumption of risk.


I can vouch for the veracity of this statement.

reprobate

reprobate

New Orleans, LA
December 2002

NOV 24, 2004 12:03 PM

bean said:

reprobate said:

souljacker said:
Will there be throwing of turkey parts at the reprobate Thanksgiving gathering? If so, I would consult with legal counsel in advance and have all those shady SGLAers sign a release before entering the premises.



Consenting to be in my immediate vicinity has been found by the courts to be the very soul of assumption of risk.


I can vouch for the veracity of this statement.



Well, look who's awake. wink

reprobate

reprobate

New Orleans, LA
December 2002

NOV 24, 2004 12:07 PM

EnfantTerrible said:

reprobate said:


If clients were honest, nobody would need lawyers.



Agreed


dead_ringer said:

EnfantTerrible said:
*other stuff ending with...*

I'll stick to my own OPINION. You are welcome to yours. wink



wow, congratulations on the most over generalized, uninformed, and grossly unqualified "opinion" of the day (thus far; it's still early). i'm guessing you have next to no legal experience, and even less knowledge of what most lawyers actually do - aside from what you have seen on "law and order," and bizarro cases like this. funny, most lawyers i know are the polar opposite of what you have described. i can only guess it is the same for misstyrios and other SG legal people. i'll take actual knowledge and experience over your second hand "knowledge" and "experience" any day of the week.

[Edited on Nov 24, 2004 by dead_ringer]



I will go with my personal experiences, to form my OPINIONS, and don't need somebody elses permission to do so.



No, but when you post your "OPINIONS" (ps: your caps lock is sticking) to a "discussion" board, other people are going to tell you what they think of them. When you start your opinion with a smug insult, chances are people are going to assume you're a dick and frame their responses accordingly.

TheJuanupsman

TheJuanupsman

Hopkins, MN
April 2004

NOV 24, 2004 01:39 PM

MissTyrios said:

twigtech said:
if mcdonalds loses because their coffee was hot... frown mad



I'm betting you don't know the whole story on this. You can find the actual legal stance of this case here.

Basically, these are the real facts:

- The woman, while her car was stopped, attempted to remove the lid of her coffee, which spilled, giving her third degree burns over 6% of her body (thighs and genital area). She was hospitalized for 8 days, requiring several surgeries for skin grafting and tissue removal.

- Prior to this, there were more than 700 claims that McDonalds coffee was dangerously hot.

- Coffee served in other establishments, or that made in a home coffee maker, is approximately 135 degrees. McDonalds had a policy of keeping theirs at 180-190 degrees.

- The woman offered to settle the suit for $20,000, just enough to cover her medical expenses. McDonalds refused.

- The woman was actually found to be partially at fault (20%), and thus the jury reduced her compensatory damages from $200,000 to $160,000. They also awarded her $2,7 million in putative damages (equal to about 2 days of McDonalds coffee sales), which was later reduced to $480,000.

Please don't bitch about the out-of-control tort system without knowing the facts. And please don't demonize lawyers based on urban myths.

-



Damn you beat me too this. I regularly find myself giving people the full facts on this case. Nicely done.

TheJuanupsman

TheJuanupsman

Hopkins, MN
April 2004

NOV 24, 2004 01:41 PM

EnfantTerrible said:

MissTyrios said:

EnfantTerrible said:
O MY Fucking GAWD!!!


THAT is precisely why I say lawyers(most) SUCK!!!
Any lawyer that takes that case with a straight face is a stupid fuck, and unfortunately I believe there are ALOT of lawyers that would take a case just that(see also: litigation against McDonald's for making people fat)......frivilous isn't even the word for it. Insert your own word for it, if you like.



Again, please don't characterize the entire profession based on what you feel are a few frivilous, albeit widely publicized, cases.

Chances are, you're going to need legal help sometime in your life.

Most of us are good people. Most of us aren't money grubbers. Most of us love the law and the legal profession.

It really isn't fair to lash out at a profession based on your skewed views of what we are.





HAHA! Still in law school? All of the lawyers that I know(granted it isn't THAT many, but I can say 100% of those) have either bent, skewed, or left behind that sense of idealism after practicing for a few years. I'm just operating on what I know from personal experience, what I hear from trusted friends and family secondhand, and what I see in the public eye.(See Also: "Great Attorney" Mark Geragos or Garegos...I forget) Sure some good is done by lawyers, and sure I might need one some day, but that doesn't mean that most are passing up the opportunity at profitting immensely and that many don't take that profiteering to an extreme with only winning or greed as their prime motivator. Volunteer, pro bono work, or public civil servant work is the exception from what I see.

I'll stick to my own OPINION. You are welcome to yours. wink



Not all the lawyers you know have left their idealism behind. At least one of em decided to leave the profession behind instead.
wink Or at least that is my current plan,

TheJuanupsman

TheJuanupsman

Hopkins, MN
April 2004

NOV 24, 2004 01:44 PM

EnfantTerrible said:

thejuanupsman said:

MissTyrios said:

twigtech said:
if mcdonalds loses because their coffee was hot... frown mad



I'm betting you don't know the whole story on this. You can find the actual legal stance of this case here.

Basically, these are the real facts:

- The woman, while her car was stopped, attempted to remove the lid of her coffee, which spilled, giving her third degree burns over 6% of her body (thighs and genital area). She was hospitalized for 8 days, requiring several surgeries for skin grafting and tissue removal.

- Prior to this, there were more than 700 claims that McDonalds coffee was dangerously hot.

- Coffee served in other establishments, or that made in a home coffee maker, is approximately 135 degrees. McDonalds had a policy of keeping theirs at 180-190 degrees.

- The woman offered to settle the suit for $20,000, just enough to cover her medical expenses. McDonalds refused.

- The woman was actually found to be partially at fault (20%), and thus the jury reduced her compensatory damages from $200,000 to $160,000. They also awarded her $2,7 million in putative damages (equal to about 2 days of McDonalds coffee sales), which was later reduced to $480,000.

Please don't bitch about the out-of-control tort system without knowing the facts. And please don't demonize lawyers based on urban myths.

-



Damn you beat me too this. I regularly find myself giving people the full facts on this case. Nicely done.




pissssssh...you suck too... tongue

wink



Please. You know you love me. love kiss kiss tongue

FermatsEnigma

FermatsEnigma

USA
August 2004

NOV 24, 2004 02:20 PM

Lawyers on their worst day are still better than journalists.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next