Much inspired by the post about "stupid" warnings, a question pops up inside my head. Why is it, you americans (or some of you) sue companies for the silliest thing EVER? Head this story about a women diagnozed with cancer, who has been smoking tons of cigarettes for decades, suing a cigarette company and wins. Don't know if this is true, but it could very much have been. How come you guys do that ? I can't seem to figure it out. Suing a company for what should be dead obvious Come on, some of the labels shouldn't be necessary. Coffee just bought of a shop which is hot D'OH, and you have to write on it "Careful, may cause burn" Don't get my wrong, no mean to offend anyone. I like America, got several friends over there
It's just the culture that has developed, Canada is the same im assured by my friend from over yonder. It's infecting Britain as well, you cant do anything now without being sued by someone.
its not so ramped in canada but still does happen, there our entire sites with hundreds of stories about stupid law suits
Probably because these days lawyers will take any case on for a share of the take - no-win, no-fee. In the UK they're cold-calling people to drum up business. And a lot of companies find it's cheaper to make an offer than fight a case, however stupid it is.
Maybe it's just out east then? Over here justice seems pretty good\rational. Rather redneck, but it makes sense nonetheless
We're living in an age in which people do not like to take personal responsibility. It is always somebody else's fault/doing/responsibility. In the past, things would be firmly shoved onto the shoulders of God (but you can't sue Him), and now it is anonymous companies, or just your neighbour. Lawyers of course realise that they're on to a good thing here, and as lawsuits become more available to the common people, they are going at it like there is no tomorrow.
We live in an age where nothing is our fault anymore. stupidy is no longer our problem, its some corperations. my favorite is on the side of a hair dryer- "do not use in shower" just think that they had to put that on there for a reason
best one i've seen is "do not consume this product if you have nut alergies" the kicker is it was on a container of wasabi cashews.
Lol yeah sometimes it says "This product may contain nuts" I should bloody hope so!! And on some milk cartons you see "This product contains milk"
to be fair, it's not americans that are doin it - everyone in the world is getting in on it. ppl have got lazy and rather than blame themselves find it easier to place blame on others. There was a case a while back in uk - some guy walked into a roadsign, he successfully sued the local council cos "normally" the sign was too high for him to walk into. it's a crazy world we live in these days, everyone seems to be waiting for their big pay-off rather than working for it...
( I only read the first post) To answer your question some people do it because there stooped, and becasue they were "popular, and hot" they think they can get enything they want and most the time do. But come enyware near me and act like a million when your not and I'll show you the real world! EDIT: Like everyone said people want to blame it on others.
Just another example. ______ In November 2000, Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32 foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having joined the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the Winnie left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the handbook that he could not actually do this. He was awarded $1,750,000 plus a new Winnebago. ______ Except this one turns out to be false, I checked the story out with snopes (and copied their much better written version here), but thought it amusing enough to include. Anyway it sounds just about right.
if a company doesn't prodtect it's consumers they are open to lawsuits. you know those "Do Not Enter" signs you see on the road? they were put there because drunk people would mistake offramps for onramps and would end up crashing head on after going against traffic. since the gov't did not warn these drunk drivers, they were not technically doing their job, and thus open to lawsuit.
the story or my explaination? i cannot fathom someone getting hit by a drunk, and then suing the gov't. the police force's bread and butter is drunk drivers, if they knew about it the guy would be in jail, yet it is still their fault. this is like suing the marine corps. for 9-11... hmm , i think i have a case!
