Gypsies can sue IBM for Holocaust!

Kirby

Kirby

2
#1
Messages
4,917
Likes
18
Location
Reading,PA
#1
Ubelievable..... A Swiss court has ruled that the Gypsies can sue IBM because IBM computers were used by Hitler to track names of 600,000 gypsies killed in the holocaust.

CNN Money Article

Nothing against the gypsies - but this Holocaust, US Civil War, etc. lawsuit stuff is ridiculous! With that logic, the manufacturers of the paper to print the list of names should also be defendants in the suit! How about the paper mills that made the paper?
 
mrferg

mrferg

Guest
#2
Messages
1,021
Likes
0
Location
Lansing, Michigan
#2
Why stop there? Why not sue the loggers for bringing down the trees to make the paper, or even sue the bird the dropped the seed 100 years before! People suck [thumbd]
 
tool fan

tool fan

2
#3
Messages
2,339
Likes
3
Location
Germany
#3
Anything for a buck or a million. This is kinda off topic but it is related. I read an article a number of years ago about a man that sued McDonalds. Nothing unusual about that...right? Well he sued McDonalds because his wife had bought a cheesburger and in the process of eating it she burned her lip on a pickle. she was unable to perform oral sex for 3 days, so the man sued McDonalds and WON 25,000 dollars on the grounds that due to this burn his wife was unable to perform her "wifely" duties. Sexual Distress.

One other one, a man breaks into an apartment in New York to rob the place. He steals a bunch of jewlery, and the TV....on his way out the door he tripped over the phone cord and breaks his leg. The owner of the house comes home sees the thief on the ground with his and his wifes jewlery and the busted TV, calls the police and the man is taken away to the hospital and then to jail. While in jail the Burgerler gets an attorney and sues the guy whose house he broke into for "negligence" (phone cord on the ground) and with the arguement that it could have caused "anyone" to trip and break a leg or get hurt...the thief wins the verdict and gets some unreasonable amount of money for pain and suffering.

This is what is wrong with America today. You could sue a retarded cross eyed man for looking at you by saying it caused undue distress. I know we have some Lawyers on the board....whats up with this stuff?
 
codex57

codex57

2
#4
Messages
3,476
Likes
0
Location
Lincoln, CA
#4
tool fan: if those are true, the trial judges should immediately be taken out and shot for not having dismissed those before a trial took place. Usually the appeals court takes care of that, but they never should have gotten to trial in the first place. If a judge is that dumb, he not only has no use in court, but no use in society. He's just sucking up our oxygen and consuming our resources.
 
tool fan

tool fan

2
#5
Messages
2,339
Likes
3
Location
Germany
#5
codex57 said:
tool fan: if those are true, the trial judges should immediately be taken out and shot for not having dismissed those before a trial took place. Usually the appeals court takes care of that, but they never should have gotten to trial in the first place. If a judge is that dumb, he not only has no use in court, but no use in society. He's just sucking up our oxygen and consuming our resources.
Click to expand...
Why dismiss them? I am beginning to think that there are no clean Judges anymore. I would rule in favor of some dumb shit if I was going to receive a 10,000 kick back for it. Just kidding, I would shoot the Lawyer that actually tried to present such a case before a Judge. It is embarressing, but this world we live in today.
 
gizzy

gizzy

Member
#6
Messages
243
Likes
0
Location
Oswego, IL
#6
Murder somebody and get 5 to 10. While in prison, get a free education - sue because you didn't get to watch the last episode of the serprano's because you were in lock down for fighting in the yard - sue because one of your twinkies got squished and walk out a millionair.

Kill someone in self defense and get life for agrivated murder and sued for 10mil by the family of the criminal.
 
aNoodle

aNoodle

1000 Post Club
#7
Messages
1,137
Likes
0
Location
Athens, GA
#7
People let themselves get so worked up thinking our courts are out of control. They are not. ToolFan, there is no way those stories you described could survived summary judgment.

The IBM accusations are that IBM was complicit and knew they were selling their specialized tabulating machines to track people for extermination. If that is true, then I have no sympathy for IBM...except the time has lapsed to deal with old wrongs. I think we can all agree with what's called the Statute of Limitation. The law that cuts off the time people have to sue is a good idea...you can argue whether it should be 3 years or 4 or 5 or whatever depending on the type of suit....but after some point people have to move on.

50+ years later!?! Give me a break.
 
B

Bryan330i

2
#8
Messages
1,617
Likes
0
Location
Dallas TX, Kennesaw, GA
#8
Some people are just crazy. I am being personally sued at this very moment, the first time since 1995 when my wife was in a car accident (her fault) and the lady she hit wanted to clean up, she ended up getting $9,000.00 from the insurance company with no documented injuries.

Anyway, the case now is complex but not big $$$$ and essentially if I lose I will have been really screwed because there is no way the law can even be twisted against me. But at the same time I have seen stranger things so I’m not sure. There is about $28,000.00 at stake and I actually thought about just paying it to make the problem go away but that would be stupid, I’d rater pay it to the attorney than give into a scum bag worthless piece of sh!t that cant live up to his end of a mutually agreed upon deal.
 
codex57

codex57

2
#9
Messages
3,476
Likes
0
Location
Lincoln, CA
#9
aNoodle said:
People let themselves get so worked up thinking our courts are out of control. They are not. ToolFan, there is no way those stories you described could survived summary judgment.
Click to expand...
Actually, quite a few of those survived summary judgment. Dunno about those exact ones, but I've read other ridiculous ones that have. The ones that piss me off most are intruders who get injured and sue. Usually the upper courts toss em out and stuff, but they never shoulda made it to trial in the first place.
 
tool fan

tool fan

2
#10
Messages
2,339
Likes
3
Location
Germany
#10
I don't claim these stories to be true, and may very well be an exageration of an actual event, I am just relaying a couple of stories I have read about. There is a true story of woman that sued McDonalds and won 25 million dollars because the coffee she bought was "to hot" and she put it between her legs as she was driving. She had to brake or something and squeezed the cup to hard and the coffee spilled all over her crotch and she got "severely" burned, and now has no external sexual feeling due to scar tissue on her "button". How do you sue a place for having coffee that is "To hot"...how do you win 25 million for being a dumb-ass and putting coffee that is "to hot" between your legs while you are driving? This is a TRUE story.
 
aNoodle

aNoodle

1000 Post Club
#11
Messages
1,137
Likes
0
Location
Athens, GA
#11
tool fan said:
I don't claim these stories to be true, and may very well be an exageration of an actual event, I am just relaying a couple of stories I have read about. There is a true story of woman that sued McDonalds and won 25 million dollars because the coffee she bought was "to hot" and she put it between her legs as she was driving. She had to brake or something and squeezed the cup to hard and the coffee spilled all over her crotch and she got "severely" burned, and now has no external sexual feeling due to scar tissue on her "button". How do you sue a place for having coffee that is "To hot"...how do you win 25 million for being a dumb-ass and putting coffee that is "to hot" between your legs while you are driving? This is a TRUE story.
Click to expand...
This one is a favorite of the tort "reformers." Actually, the award for this lady was reduced significantly on appeal. You should read that case that led 12 jurors to go crazy on punitives. McD apparently knew it was buying from some supplier certain machines that were going nuclear...and they changing out some but not others. The burns were not like out of your home coffee machines...they were something like 3rd degree burns almost down to the bone. I don't think 12 jurors are complete dumb asses...but yeah they may have gone crazy on the punatives...and that was corrected on appeal.

What I don't get is why the far right peddles these stories and leaves out the details so that they can push "tort reform." There are PACs in Washington that regularly send out misleading emails and other propoganda about court cases...all to leave the public with the mistaken impression that big business is somehow not protected enough in the law. What's funny is that many people who want limited government and less intrusive regulations won't just leave the complaints to the free market.
 
codex57

codex57

2
#12
Messages
3,476
Likes
0
Location
Lincoln, CA
#12
Actually, that wasn't the case. It was kind of a stupid case, but it was definitely worse than those sue cuz I'm fat cases.

Yeah the lady got burned. No her "button" didn't get injured. She did get some minor burns though. What caused the high punitive damages was the callousness of the McDonald's execs. Apparently, McDonald's knew the machines were hot enough to burn. But, they said enough people liked it that way that marketing said to keep it so they could brag that their coffee stayed warmer longer than competitors. They knew some people would get injured, but the benefits outweighed the costs in the execs minds. When the jury heard that, they went nuts. Kinda like how Ford or GM (can't remember anymore) knew one of their cars was totally dangerous, but thought the cost of changing that 50 cent plastic part would be more than any payouts in damages. Basically, profit over the health of customers.
 
gizzy

gizzy

Member
#13
Messages
243
Likes
0
Location
Oswego, IL
#13
codex57 said:
Actually, that wasn't the case. It was kind of a stupid case, but it was definitely worse than those sue cuz I'm fat cases.

Yeah the lady got burned. No her "button" didn't get injured. She did get some minor burns though. What caused the high punitive damages was the callousness of the McDonald's execs. Apparently, McDonald's knew the machines were hot enough to burn. But, they said enough people liked it that way that marketing said to keep it so they could brag that their coffee stayed warmer longer than competitors. They knew some people would get injured, but the benefits outweighed the costs in the execs minds. When the jury heard that, they went nuts. Kinda like how Ford or GM (can't remember anymore) knew one of their cars was totally dangerous, but thought the cost of changing that 50 cent plastic part would be more than any payouts in damages. Basically, profit over the health of customers.
Click to expand...

Ford did a cost/revenue comparison on the Pinto when they found out that it had an <i>explosive</i> personality and decided that they would not fix it and deal with lawsuits when they came.

My favorite lawsuit is still the guy in one of the Illinois prisons that sued because his twinkie got squished [fake] . I hope that one never made/makes it to court. It would just be an insult to the whole system imo.
 
aNoodle

aNoodle

1000 Post Club
#14
Messages
1,137
Likes
0
Location
Athens, GA
#14
Here's possibly a balanced report from the Wall Street Journal on the famous single coffee spill...I guess reprinted on this lawyer's site...who knows...but could be worth some background.

As Codex pointed out, the execs did have a certain cost/benefit calculation going on in their minds, after settling just so many (400? Down to the bone?) burn cases out of a million or so happy customers. This article might do a good job of descirbing how 12 jurors ever got snookered into awarding this lady a little less than $3 million. (Apparently, we don't know what was paid in reality....yet the story is infamous...how did such diceit enter the public consciousness?)

http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Top