 |
| |
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:25
|
|
Are you sure you want us to google 'stupid lawsuits'?
Okie dokie.
http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/s...t_month_all.asp
quote:
You've heard the stories where some poor schlub plays Dungeons and Dragons for weeks on end, then freaking out and imagining himself to be in a D&D adventure, before he was finally committed to a mental institution. Nobody sued TSR, Inc., publisher of the D&D manuals -- don't ask me how I know that. I just do, okay?! -- because their kid didn't have a firm grip on reality. Nobody sued the friends of the whacko for criminal negligence just because their game-playing somehow caused his mental breakdown.
So why is a Louisiana woman suing Nintendo of America after her son had a deadly seizure? According to a story in the Baton Rouge (Louisiana) Advocate, Esther Walker of Livingston Parish is suing Nintendo, claiming that her son Benjamin Walker, 30, suffered a seizure that caused his death, because he played on his Nintendo 64 game system eight hours a day, six days a week, since he bought it. Walker purchased his Nintendo 64 in May 1999, and then bought 10 more games in the weeks that followed.
According to Esther Walker's lawsuit, "Benji" Walker had six seizures as a result of the game. The sixth one happened on January 22, 2001. According to the lawsuit, ". . . Benjamin passed out, fell forward and hit his head and mouth on a table, which caused a severe closed head injury, loss of teeth, and moderate bleeding." Walker died in the hospital on January 26th, 2001.
The lawsuit also says that Walker had his first seizure in September 1999, and had five subsequent seizures over the next 17 months while playing the games. Esther Walker claims that Nintendo produced a defective product, but failed to give any adequate warnings about the health risks.
What should they have said? "WARNING: TABLES ARE HARD. DO NOT HIT YOUR HEAD ON THEM."
Or how about this: "WARNING: IF YOU SUFFER A SEIZURE AFTER PLAYING OUR GAME FOR 48 HOURS PER WEEK, MAYBE YOU SHOULD CUT BACK A LITTLE BIT, AND OH I DON'T KNOW, TAKE A WALK OUTSIDE OR SOMETHING? I MEAN, COME ON, YOU'RE PLAYING THE GAME LONGER THAN A REGULAR FULL-TIME JOB!"
The company has understandably denied any wrongdoing. And why shouldn't they? They're not like the tobacco companies who purposely made cigarettes addictive and then lied to the world about it for more than 60 years. Nintendo makes games for people to play. What is there to warn about? "WARNING: THERE IS A TENUOUS, NOT-YET-PROVEN LINK BETWEEN CERTAIN ELECTRONIC VIDEO IMAGES AND SEIZURES. SO DON'T PLAY THIS GAME. DON'T EVEN BUY IT. SURE, WE MAY GO OUT OF BUSINESS, BUT THAT'S OKAY. DON'T WORRY ABOUT US. WE'LL MANAGE SOMEHOW. WE CAN STAY WITH FRIENDS."
As sorry as I am for her loss, I can't believe that Esther Walker is somehow surprised by all of this. Let's look at her own statements. Benjamin Walker played his Nintendo 64 for eight hours a day, six days a week, for seventeen months! Of course the guy had seizures! Anybody who does something that much is bound to have some sort of problem. Whether it's morbid obesity owing to lack of exercise, an exploded bladder, or severe social awkwardness, if you sit in front of a TV for 48 hours per week, something will go wrong.
I can't even work for eight hours a day, let alone all in a row. I usually spend two or three hours a day playing computer games or cruising the 'Net for pictures of Pamela Anderson (Note: if my boss is reading this, that last sentence is completely untrue. I only put it in there for comedic effect. I actually work 40 hours a week, non-stop. Did I say 40? I meant 60 hours a week.).
But what makes it worse is that Benjamin Walker continued to play even after he suffered his first seizure four months after he bought the game. Not only that, he continued on his eight-hours-a-day-six-days-a-week playing schedule, racking up another four seizures. The fifth one happened while he was playing again, and it just happened to be the one that did him in.
Doesn't it make sense that if the family were able to establish a connection between the seizures and Walker's game playing, they would have stopped him from playing? One would expect him to think, "I seem to black out when I play. Maybe I should quit." But apparently this never occurred to him, or if it did, they chose to ignore it.
And here's the added bonus: Esther Walker is suing for unspecified damages for medical and funeral expenses, mental and emotional anguish, and the lost future earnings of her son. Medical and funeral expenses, I can understand. Mental and emotional anguish, no problem. But the "lost future earnings" of her video-game-playing-for-48-hours-per-week son? What kind of future earnings do you expect someone who plays that many hours to have? Grown men who spend that much time playing games don't have great career possibilities, let alone huge earning potentials.
And when you factor in the distinct possibility, although this is just a guess on my part, that Benjamin Walker did not have his own place (i.e. he lived in his mom's basement), the "future earnings" potential is pretty much in the toilet, unless someone finally starts paying video game geeks six-figure salaries for blasting bad guys and picking up magic coins.
So should we feel bad for Esther Walker? Absolutely. Should we learn something about playing video games in moderation. You betcha. Is she entitled to untold millions of dollars because her son didn't quit playing the games that caused his first five seizures? Certainly not.
If anyone should get any benefit out of this, it should be the new XBox game system and their latest advertising slogan: "Now, 64% Seizure Free." |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:25
|
|
This one isn't about injury, but it's a hoot.
http://www.kconline.com/deckers/1102.html#11024
quote:
Good Thing His Name's Not John Smith
Erik Deckers
Laughing Stalk Syndicate
Copyright 2002
When I was growing up, I thought I was the only Erik Deckers on Earth (my friends and family hoped for the same).
But a few years ago, while Internet "ego surfing" (looking for one's name on search engines), I made a startling discovery: I'm the only Erik Deckers in America, but I'm NOT the only one on the planet. As far as I know, there's only one other -- a 49-year-old real estate agent in Brussels, Belgium.
I've emailed my namesake a few times, and we've exchanged pleasantries, family history, and I've promised to stop using his credit card at Amazon.com.
Belgian Erik and I also realize it's not uncommon for two people with unique names like ours to share them, and we've had a good laugh about it. But we also drew up some ground rules: he promised not to write any humor columns, and I promised not to sell any houses in Belgium.
However, Belgian Erik used to be a journalist, and I've had a few people ask about this great little fixer-upper outside Brussels, so we may have to reconsider our options.
But other people aren't so fortunate. In 1998, former basketball superstar Kareem Abdul-Jabbar took issue with the name choice of Karim Abdul-Jabbar, the Miami Dolphins' running back. So Kareem sued Karim, claiming he took the name without permission, even though both men changed their names as required by their Muslim faith.
In April 1998, the two Abdul-Jabbars settled the suit, and agreed that Kareem held the commercial and merchandising trademark rights to the name, while Karim would be known simply as "Abdul" for the same reason. He later changed his name to Abdul-Karim al-Jabbar, but he's not playing football anymore, so it doesn't matter.
But what if someone demands that you stop using your name altogether, even though it was your name to begin with?
Bill Wyman, music reporter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, is being threatened with a lawsuit by Bill Wyman, former bassist for the Rolling Stones.
Why? Because English musician Bill Wyman doesn't want to be confused with American writer Bill Wyman.
"I must ask that you immediately cease and desist from authorizing or permitting any such use of our client's name," said Howard Siegel, English Bill Wyman's attorney, in a recent letter to American Bill Wyman.
But something makes me think that despite his indignation, Siegel isn't as concerned about this as he wants everyone to think. He doesn't seem to care whether there are other Howard Siegels in the world. Or if he is, he apparently hasn't threatened them with legal action.
Not that any of them could be confused with Howard Siegel the New York lawyer. Not Rabbi Howard Siegel of Bellaire, Texas. Not Howard Siegel, the realtor from Vernon Hills, Illinois. Not even Howard Siegel, the Canadian regional theater actor/director.
There was also no indication whether English Bill Wyman is going after other Bill Wymans either, like the Salon.com editor, or the ones who live in Dallas, Denver, or Oshkosh, Wisconsin.
American Bill Wyman recently wrote about this ordeal in a Journal-Constitution article, and the story has received worldwide attention, nearly all of it in American Bill Wyman's favor.
In his column, American Bill Wyman reported that Siegel would allow him to use his own name "if I could prove that I had come by it legally."
No problem. American Bill Wyman was born on January 11, 1961. English Bill Wyman didn't change his name until 1964.
American Bill Wyman 1, English Bill Wyman 0.
Siegel also said that American Bill Wyman could continue to use his own name if he added a disclaimer to everything he wrote "clearly indicating that (you are) not the same Bill Wyman who was a member of the Rolling Stones."
If I were American Bill Wyman I would require the same disclaimer of my English counterpart, especially when it comes to any Bill Wyman and the Rhythm Kings album.
What makes this demand so funny is that English Bill Wyman changed HIS name. He was originally William George Perks. I would need an overinflated sense of self-importance to demand that someone give up their real name when mine was originally just a stage name.
With all the negative press coverage I've seen on this story, I think English Bill Wyman should just quit while he's ahead. He may even want to consider changing his name.
English Erik Deckers has a nice ring to it.
=====
Erik Deckers
(published week of November 22nd, 2002) |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:25
|
|
Try a new government? It works for the Germans, the British, the French, Spanish, Canadians, Swedes, Norse, Belgians, Dutch, Italians, Indians, Turks, Poles, Portugese, Danes, Scots, Swiss, Greeks, Austrians, Australians...
Fer Chist's sakes!, it even works for the Australians!
What's wrong with you people?!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:25
|
|
Ram that ***** through and cue up the punitive damages limits! We've got an unexpected second term honeymoon on our hands.
quote:
Victory For Bush On Suits
New Law to Limit Class-Action Cases
By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 18, 2005; Page A01
President Bush this morning will sign legislation rewriting the rules for class-action lawsuits, a measure he has coveted for years and whose swift passage in the new Congress illustrates the expanded influence of Republicans and their business supporters.
The Class Action Fairness Act is designed to funnel most such lawsuits from state courts to the federal system -- a procedural change that could have substantive implications, because federal courts traditionally have been less sympathetic to class-action cases waged by plaintiffs claiming they have been victimized by fraud or negligence by corporations.
Bush's first legislative victory of his second term came after a lopsided vote yesterday in the House, where most Republicans and many Democrats approved the bill by 279 to 149.
The class-action bill -- the first part of a broader White House campaign to impose rules designed to limit what Bush asserts is a glut of meritless lawsuits seeking billions of dollars -- has been close to passage for several years. But it regularly fell just short, largely because of the success of Senate Democrats in throwing procedural roadblocks against a measure that had majority support.
Their inability to do that this year, both sides of the class-action debate agreed yesterday, showed how the addition of four more Republicans in the Senate -- combined with a determined public and behind-the-scenes lobbying effort by the White House -- can shift Washington's balance of power in decisive and potentially far-reaching ways.
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) called the vote a "historic first step towards breaking one of the main shackles holding back our economy and America's workforce -- lawsuit abuse."
Reflecting the frustrations of many Democrats, who knew their arguments had no chance of carrying the day, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) scored the bill as a "payback for big business at the expense of consumers."' The legislation calls for federal courts to be the proper jurisdiction for most class-action cases in which defendants are from multiple states. Only in certain cases -- such as when two-thirds of the plaintiffs are from the same state and the defendant also has headquarters there -- would class-action cases remain in state courts.
Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), who led the opposition in the floor debate, warned: "This is not a simple procedural fix. Moving the cases to federal court will result in many cases never being heard."
Ultimately, however, the skepticism of many Democrats to this argument pushed the measure to passage. In the Senate, the new rules for class-action suits were supported by Democrats with generally liberal voting records such as Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.). They agreed with such advocates as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that waging class-action lawsuits amid a patchwork of state laws produces irrational verdicts and invites abuse by plaintiffs' attorneys filing lawsuits in certain courts known to be sympathetic to the cases, no matter if there is any particular logic to hearing the case in that jurisdiction.
One of the most celebrated of these localities is Madison County, Ill., which Bush visited last month in his campaign to pass the legislation. A White House official last night said Madison County's record as a magnet for dubious class-action cases was one reason Bush was eager to sign the bill as quickly as possible this morning, before leaving for a European trip Sunday morning.
Just since the beginning of the year, the White House official said, there have been 23 class-action suits filed in Madison County -- 19 of them within the last week as lawyers recognized the imminent passage of the bill. The new legislation is not retroactive.
The new legislation removes the "tilt" against defendants by putting them into a federal system where there is a "clearer and more predictable body of law," said Robert C. Weber, a Cleveland lawyer who has defended such corporations as R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. against class actions as head of the product-liability practice at the firm of Jones Day. He said the existence of magnet courts such as Madison County's leads to "extortionate settlements" by companies who do not want to risk the unpredictability and expense of going to trial.
Opponents argued to no avail that federal courts are ill-equipped to handle class-action suits, which usually revolve around questions of state consumer protection laws. Federal judges, citing confusion about how laws from multiple states should be applied in cases, often refuse to "certify" a case for hearing in their courts.
Joan Claybrook, of the consumer group Public Citizen, said these procedural hurdles to class-action cases in the federal system is why business lobbying groups were so eager for the bill's passage. "Many, many class actions will not be brought" under the new rules, she predicted.
She said the largest class-action cases, involving the most expensive potential verdicts, will still find lawyers willing to pursue them, but as a practical matter class actions will no longer be a useful tool for victims seeking redress against credit card companies, insurers or other firms who commit "everyday frauds and deceptions that happen all the time."
Supporters of the measure, however, said that genuinely aggrieved consumers may fare better under the new legislation, which seeks to curb "coupon settlements." Under such settlements, trial lawyers have reaped big fees while consumers get low-value coupons that can be redeemed for more purchases. Under the new law, lawyers in a settlement get fees based only on the number of coupons that are redeemed -- typically a small percentage of the total.
Stanton D. Anderson, who led the Chamber of Commerce's effort to pass the bill, said the addition of Republicans in the Senate after the November elections "made a bigger difference atmospherically," beyond just four votes; opponents seemed to yield hopes for blocking the measure. In fact, the efforts of opponents in recent weeks have been not to defeat the bill but to amend what they regarded as its most objectionable provisions. But even these efforts failed -- largely after an unusual but effective tactical move by House Republican leaders. They announced that they would drop the House's version of the bill and accept the Senate's -- provided the Senate did not weaken the legislation with any amendments. |
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-02-2005 12:24
Yeah, sure... chances of that... well, let's say 1% is a bit much. We don't have an Ombudsman... we rely on our courts for that.
|