« What kind of perverts would stand idly by while a stranger rips the cover off his 9-iron and then serves a catered lunch? | Main | Howard Delivery Service v. Zurich American Insurance »
Stupidity Reigns Supreme
Lots of stupidity arising from the legal news out there these days. And since the merging of “the stupid” and “the law” is the meat and potatoes of these QuizLaw entries, we love it.
Stupid people, you say? Well, that obviously means we’re starting off with QuizLaw’s favorite flogged horse, Ms. Paris Hilton. Seems her cousin was driving Paris’ Mercedes back in 2004, and got in a little accident on the freeway when she failed to stop after the traffic started slowing down (seriously, what is with that gene pool?). A couple who was two cars up is now suing Paris, since she’s legally responsible for the car. They want $500,000, but the insurance company is saying it can’t cover it because Paris only has the absolute minimum policy coverage for property damage. All-in-all, this doesn’t register very high on the Paris-stupidity scale, since she wasn’t in the car. But it does show she’s cheap as hell, considering the money she’s got (by parental proxy, of course). And of course, this lawsuit may serve as a valuable lesson should she wind up back in court for her criminal hit-and-run incident, which is way high on the Paris-stupidity scale.
And speaking of greasy skin and bones, Kentucky Fried Chicken is in the middle of a finger-lickin’ lawsuit over its oils. Specifically, a consumer group and a retired Maryland doctor are suing the chain over its use of high-fat partially hydrogenated oil, insisting that KFC should use more healthy cooking oils simply because more healthy oils are available. The doctor has said that he would have reconsidered his choices if he had known that KFC used unhealthy frying oil. Uhm, because without that knowledge, he assumed that KFC was healthy? …moron.
Of course, that moron’s got nothing on this moron. A Florida family installed a hidden nannycam, which they used to find out that their nanny was shaking their poor 5-month-old baby. The criminal case against the nanny was eventually dropped because the prosecutors were worried about the quality of the footage. The nanny now says she was falsely arrested and embarrassed by the broadcasting of the footage, so of course she’s suing Tyco, makers of the nannycam in question. Her attorney says Tyco should warn consumers that the images are crappy and can be misleading. Maybe he should warn his client not to shake babies.
And finally, someone who needs to be shaken, repeatedly, is this “expert.” See, there was a mentally disabled high school student (IQ of about 50) who was sexually assaulted at her high school a few years ago by another student who had been assigned to her as a peer trainer. This student was assigned to her despite having a 0.0 GPA and having been suspended 20 times the prior year. The girl’s parents are now suing the school district over the whole mess, but they actually tried to mediate the case first, to avoid this very lawsuit. However, the school district decided to bring out a hired gun to avoid making any payments, and this douchebag argued that the girl found the experience to be “pleasurable,” and that “it ignited her female desires.”
Personally, I think he, the nanny and Paris should all be sentenced to 8 years of KFC meals.
Comments
You're surprised that PH doesn't have full coverage automobile insurance? Rich people don't need that crap! Doubtless she only has any at all because it's required by law. People who buy lawyers by the six-pack don't need insurance.
Posted by Keith | June 15, 2006 2:55 PM