Tuesday, May 22, 2012

The Top Three Most Ridiculous Law Suits


Written by Ewan Cambell MacDougall.

Despite what TV court rooms would have you believe court cases are by and large fairly dull, but every now and then somebody tries to bring a case to court so ridiculous or so petty that you can’t help but wanting to know how it turns out. Here are three of our favourites, the most astonishing part of it is one of them won, see if you can guess which one! If after you’re done reading you find yourself compelled to check out more exact details about these driving offence and personal injury laws we recommend the Panonne law blog.
  
1. The man who tried to bill a new car to the tax payer

An Australian man who was board of his old car hatched what seemed to him, a genius plan to get a new vehicle. He sued his local government claiming that one of their trucks crashed into his car causing it extensive and expensive damage that he thought they were liable to pay for. At first look he did seem to have a string case, his parked car was indeed hit and servilely damaged by a government truck. So you might think it’s fair enough that they should pay, however as it turns out this man was also the government employee that was driving the truck that caused the damage. The council argued that the man was therefore effectively suing himself and therefore the case shouldn’t even be heard. Did he win? Read to the end to find out.

2. The $54 Million dollar trousers

We’ve all been frustrated when a service we trust lets us down, so you might well feel sympathetic towards Judge Roy Pearson who had problems with his local dry cleaner when they temporarily lost his trousers after he put them in for some minor alterations. However you’re sympathetic for Pearson might waver when you learn how he dealt with the Chung family that run the offending dry cleaners. Claiming that the loss of his off the rack suit trousers caused severe mental distress he sued the small family run business for $54 million dollars, far more than the business could ever hope to make in a life time.
The $54 million in compensation was to cover not only mental distress, but also the judges transport costs to his next nearest dry cleaner (who had not breached his trust) and of course the judge’s valuable time during these extended journeys. You might think that a case like this wouldn’t even make it to court, but Judge Pearson has a long legal career behind him as well as considerable wealth, which he was able to use ensure the case was brought to trial, the Chung family on the other hand could barely afford the costs of their lawyer.
Was Judge Pearson’s wealth and legal knowledge enough to secure him his additional $54 Million? Take a guess and read to the end to find out if you’re right.

3. The woman who billed her employers for sex

Back in Australia a woman who injured herself whilst having “hard” sex tried to claim compensation from her employer. The employers who were somewhat bemused by the idea that they should be expected to fork out cash due to their employees sexual appetite refused, and then found themselves in the middle of a law suit filed by the woman.
The Sexual act in question took place in a hotel where the woman was staying as part of a business trip. The woman (who later took out a court order to ensure she could not be named in the press) had made a friend who lived in the area and invited him back for drinks in her hotel room one evening during the business trip. Drinks quickly turned into more and before long the two were having, what was described in court as, “hard” sex. So hard in fact the pair broke a lamp in the hotel room and the woman sustained injury.
The woman claimed that this injury came about in the course of a business trip and therefore her company was liable to pay her compensation, her company thought differently. Did this woman persuade the court? Or was it one of the other two hopefuls?

Well our man who wanted a new car never even made it to court, the judge ruled that he would be suing himself which is not legally acceptable and therefore the case could not be heard. Not content with this the man is trying again, this time having his wife file the suit. Unfortunately however the law also states that married couples cannot sue one another, so the case is also unlikely to be heard. No win here.

You might have thought as a Judge, Pearson stood a better chance against his dry cleaner with all his legal experience. However somewhat reassuringly even legal minds and deep pockets such as his are not able to convince the courts to rule in favour on a case as absurd as $54 million dollars for a pair of trousers, and he lost… or did he? Although the courts ruled against him Pearson is using his extensive legal knowledge to file appeal after appeal. It seems unlikely that he’ll ever win the case, but the legal costs the Chungs are facing with frequent court appearances defending themselves is quickly bankrupting them. Pearson might not ever get his $54 million but he’s being quite successful at vindictively ruing the Chung’s lives, which was quite possibly all he wanted anyway. Still the courts said No, so we’re not counting this as a win either.

That just leaves the woman who billed her employees for sex. How could a case this ridiculous ever be won? Well, her employer had a policy of paying for injuries sustained during the course of a business trip and it was ruled that when away from home on a business trip, sex was a valid and natural form of entertainment to take part in, “as natural as brushing ones teeth, showering or playing cards” said the court. Sex was therefore a of the business trip and her employers were liable to pay for the injuries that resulted from it. So there you go, if you picked this woman, both you and she just got lucky!

No comments:

Post a Comment