Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

[raymondpickens]

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011...-cheese’s-contains-illegal-gambling-machines/

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

 

[bigdee]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

This kind of nonsense would stop if the person that is filing the lawsuit had to PAY the defendants legal costs if it turns out to be a frivolous case. Only in this country can a person cause another to incur lost time & money and come out scot free. I have a magistrate friend who told me that many of the people who take out warrants against another person do it as revenge to cause someone else to lose a day's pay in order to defend themselves in court. He said it is a legal alternative for kicking someone's butt.

 

[j_martin]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

If you took all the lawyers and laid them head to toes around the equator, what would be the result?


A much improved world because half of them would drown.


I still remember sitting in a theatre watching Jurassic Park. The crowd roared in approval when the dinosaur ate the lawyer.

 

[aspeck]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

Lot's of blame here ... the judicial system for allowing frivolous lawsuits, and not punishing the filer of such suits, the lawyers for taking such cases and being willing to argue them, the filer for falling into the game of filing suits with the reasoning that it will cost the defendant so much to win the case that they will be willing to settle for that amount or slightly less. And the ones that pay in the end are the consumers because the cost of teh suit gets passed on to all the rest of us. GRRRRR!

 

[JB]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

Isn't there an opportunity to counter frivolous litigation? If there isn't there dang well oughta be.

I was sued years ago. The judge didn't call it frivolous, but made the plaintiff pay all my costs of defending myself.

There must be a civil equivalent of false arrest that can be used here.

 

[Fireman431]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

The only reason we take our boy to Chuck E. Cheese is because they serve beer....if they had craps tables there I'd teach him to play...

 

[jtmarten]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

I'm sooooooo not suprised. What a lunatic.
I would be suprised if Cali didn't have something on the books about frivilous lawsuits. I think the plaintiff should pay all of the defendant's associated costs, plus pay all their own attorney's fees (especially if its a contingency case).
But .... they'll prob throw her a cookie to shut her up, or end up with a bunch of morons on the jury, like the ones that gave the idiot woman $60k+ for spilling coffee in her own lap at McDonalds.

 

[jtmarten]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

The only reason we take our boy to Chuck E. Cheese is because they serve beer....if they had craps tables there I'd teach him to play...

Oh, the audacity! (You will teach him to count cards too, right; gotta be diversified) LOL

 

[mscher]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

If this is not "game of chance", gambling maching, then I don't know what is. Pop one of these, with quarters in it, at your business and see what happens.

"tokens' are paid for with real money and "prizes" have value, even if most of it is junk.

Wheel of Fortune is a coin-pusher machine. The customer deposits a token in a slot
near the top of the machine and the token slides down a chute where it rolls and bounces
to a resting position on a tray below. The machine has an automated pusher arm that
sweeps back and folih on the tray. The tray contains hundreds of other tokens that have
piled up near a ledge. Based on where the token lands, there is a possibility that the
newly-deposited token will cause the pusher arm to push one or more of the other tokens
over the ledge and into a collection tray. The number oftokens that fall into the collection
tray determine the amount of tickets the player receives. There is no ability to control or
predict whether tokens will fall into the collection tray.

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuter...ngs/2011/03_-_March/ChuckECheeseComplaint.pdf


Both parties are at fault, IMO.

Chucky Cheese for putting addicting games of chance and parents for not having the ability to say "enough".

If She wants to go after them for breaking gambling laws, then so be it, but IMO, there is not need for a $5M pay day.

 

[Fireman431]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

they'll prob throw her a cookie to shut her up, or end up with a bunch of morons on the jury, like the ones that gave the idiot woman $60k+ for spilling coffee in her own lap at McDonalds.

Just to make you feel better, she actually got almost 3 MILLION!!!!

 

[dockwrecker]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

Would've been easier to spill your soda and fall on your ***** in it and claim whiplash. What some people come up with to abuse the legal system is unbelieveable.

 

[fishrdan]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

"The civil action claims several popular games found in the restaurants are ?based entirely or predominantly on chance or hazard,? with little chance of the player affecting the outcome.
"

Now wait a minute, doesn't that sound like our judicial system....

Just to make you feel better, she actually got almost 3 MILLION!!!!

Yup, told you so

 

[wifisher]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

I agree that frivolous lawsuits cost society millions of dollars annually, but it is a hard thing to stop. It becomes a very slippery slope to call a lawsuit "frivolous" What is frivolous to one person may not be to another. The only way to stop the lawsuit is to have a judge declare it frivolous and throw it out. If there is no basis in law, or no evidence, this can be done. But even if there is an accusation (true or not) of negligence, with very little evidence, throwing out the case would be denying the plaintiff of their rights.

To have a law that requires the loser of the case to pay both sides' related costs is also a difficult subject. This could easily be abused by the winning party inflating their costs. There is no way to prove or disprove the number of hours that were spent by the legal team in research, court, travel, etc.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that this type of case will continue to inflate our insurance rates for many years to come.

 

[DJ]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

Loser Pays legislation will never happen. Lawmakers are predomintly lawyers and the trial attorneys lobby is one of the most powerful in the country.

 

[bigdee]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

Isn't there an opportunity to counter frivolous litigation? If there isn't there dang well oughta be.

I was sued years ago. The judge didn't call it frivolous, but made the plaintiff pay all my costs of defending myself.

There must be a civil equivalent of false arrest that can be used here.

Yeah,you can always counter sue but spending time in court and feeding lawyers is self-punishment. I had a punk teenager take out a warrant on me for communicating threats ( I told him to stay away from my daughter) he shows up in court with a lawyer and I went alone without a lawyer because it was such a ridiculous accusation that I thought for sure the judge would throw it out......WRONG, it cost me $300 and a years probation!!! This kid had a criminal record for stalking. After court I had a lawyer approach me and tried her best to counter the case but I told her I did not want to spend another minute in a courtroom again. If I had known before hand that I was going to lose a day of pay and $300 I would have used the redneck judicial system.

 

[veritas honus]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

What do an attorney and a sperm cell have in common?




Each has about a one in ten million chance of EVER becoming a human being...:facepalm:

 

[Tim Frank]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

Just to make you feel better, she actually got almost 3 MILLION!!!!

Not even close.
One of the biggest contributors to the perception of vastly unreasonable litigation is the propensity some people have to grossly inflate subsequent accounts of the $$$ involved....for whatever reason.

The last report in here of the Stella Liebeck case (about a year ago) was a $1 million dollar award....and that was more than twice the reality.
Now we are at "almost 3 million" ??
Must be inflation at work.

Remember granny got over a million bucks settlement from MickeyD because she spilled the hot coffee that she had just ordered on her lap?

That case (Stella Liebeck) is one of the most misreported I have ever seen.
The final court award was actually $640K and there was a secret settlement reached after the fact that is obviously, well, secret....but clearly somewhere between 0 and 640K.

If you read the details of the case :
From http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html , Stella was not driving when she pulled the lid off her scalding McDonald's coffee. Her grandson was driving the car, and he had pulled over to stop so she could add cream and sugar to the cup.
Stella was burned badly (some sources say six percent of her skin was burned, other sources say 16 percent was) and needed two years of treatment and rehabilitation, including skin grafts. McDonald's refused an offer to settle with her for $20,000 in medical costs.
McDonald's quality control managers specified that its coffee should be served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. Liquids at that temperature can cause third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Such burns require skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments to heal, and the resulting scarring is typically permanent.
From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, usually slightly but sometimes seriously, resulting in some number of other claims and lawsuits.
Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature, admitted that it did not warn customers of this risk, could offer no explanation as to why it did not, and testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat even though it admitted that its coffee is "not fit for consumption" when sold because it is too hot.

I wouldn't dispute the frequently over-litigiousness of society these days, but I don't think that this a a good example of a "benevolent" large corporation being taken advantage of by a gold-digger.

 

[Fireman431]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

Tim...thanks for the accurate info. I was trying to go from memory (BIG mistake) and I had remembered incorrectly. Happens more than I care to admit. For some reason, a 3M settlement with McDonalds is still sticking in my head. Must be from another case, though.

 

[jeffnick]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

Ironic - going to court is a gamble...for a case against gambling. But I wonder why we always blame the lawyers -- isn't it the jury who decides? I'm pretty sure the lawyers would lose interest in these cases if juries didn't make it so lucrative. It's kind of like us blaming the politicians when we're the ones who put them in office?

 

[Tim Frank]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

. I was trying to go from memory (BIG mistake) and I had remembered incorrectly. Happens more than I care to admit. .

I hear ya! I'm usually wearing the T-shirt :facepalm:
I think we ALL tend to recall these things on the high side...hopefully you didn't think i was trying to be critical.

The coffee thing does seem to have a second side, which often gets overlooked.