Arm and Hammer sued over lack of crack cocaine "warning" on product

Had a warning been in place, he would have done what with the inherently safe product? Baked, instead of boiled?

 

note he is pro se, as in not represented by a lawyer. Just so this isn't a trial lawyer bash session.


That said, the suit is hilarious.

 

Glad you think so ryan... that's still our tax dollars supporting this BS with court time. And that's a lawsuit the business still must defend itself against. It's an outrage.

Time for major reform... Loser pays all costs. Including court costs.

 

Bah. They'll throw a few lawyers at it (maybe even their in-house counsel staff) and it will be dismissed on motions. It's not going to go anywhere.

Loser paying costs is done in some countries, but it is bad because it is largely a deterrent for the poor. The wealthy and corporations will still sue. It will just tilt the calculus of deciding to sue away from the consumer and little guy, because if you couldn't pay for the corporation's $800/hr lawyers if you lost, you wouldn't even try. Most people would give up.

Statistics I've seen show that only a fraction of injured people sue in the first place - it is akin to the % rape victims who report it.

 

What do you call an attorney with an IQ of 75...? Your honor.

Any judge in his right mind will throw this crap out before anything serious actually happens with it.

 

Agreed. You'd see some changes then.

 

Anyone can sue anyone else for anything, so the fact the suit exists isn't IMO a major criticism of our legal system, it would only be so if it gets past the early phase without being dismissed.

Loser pays sounds good in theory, but if Arm and Hammer turned around and sued a person who said something negative about the company, and the person lost and it was deemed to be only a very minor deteriment to Arm and Hammer, the person could then be footed with a $100k legal bill on $1k of damages... great way to sink someone without actually ever having to win more than a slight judgement.

Having said that, I think that if the plaintiff is more at fault than the defendant, yet the plaintiff brings the suit and loses, they should pay the defendants legal costs. I am not sure a defendant should ever have to pay a plaintiffs legal fees because it was not their choice to bring suit. So for example, the lady who is suing the race track and Porsche for her hubby who died in his CGT, if it was deemed that the husband/estate (i.e. plaintiff) is more at fault, % wise, than the defendant (for example Porsche), then the plaintiff ought to pay the legal fees. This would prevent people bringing frivolous suits and would make the person most responsible pay.

I think one of the biggest problems in our legal system is not always the person bringing suit - it's the lawyers soliciting people to sue. We would be horrified if doctors were soliciting people who weren't really sick with late night TV commercials telling them to get free medicine and good painkillers if they come to see said Dr. But we tolerate lawyers soliciting people who may not really have been harmed to call the lawyer - not to get fair compensation, but to encourage bringing suit to help enrichen the lawyer. The lawyers then say they are just trying to help Joe Q Public. There should be some financial penalty for lawyers who are deemed to bring meritless suits beyond the money they sink into the suit. There should also be a cap on what lawyers can get when they get big settlements.