Comments on: Reading is fundamental

By: David Nieporent

David Nieporent — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:38:45 +0000

Deoxy has it right. Of course the parlor owes him a refund and should be responsible for the cost of fixing the error. But (aside from the amusing mental picture this suit conjures) it’s the overselling of the damages that makes the case comment worthy. Emotional distress? It’s not like the person tattooed “That’s so gay” on his chest, after all.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:29:53 +0000

I think the point here is the “emotional distress from public ridicule” charge. Um, put a shirt on?

If the parlor is unwilling to pay for removal and correction, then a lawsuit is certainly warranted, of course, but “emotional distress from public ridicule”? Only if you xposed yourself to it before having the offending stuff removed. (Thank goodnss for modern technology!)

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:07:39 +0000

I shudder to think of the possible bad outcomes had he been a resident of “Blue Balls’ PA.

By: KipEsquire

KipEsquire — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:49:13 +0000

Actually a great modernization of the basic question in Hawkins v. McGee.

By: jb

jb — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:24:43 +0000

I have no problem with this one. Services(or possibly goods, depending on how one characterizes body art) were contracted, and different services were provided. It’s expensive and painful to fix, and clearly the tattooist’s fault.

Now, if he sued for $250 million, it’d be ridiculous, but for the costs of removal of the last 2 letters, another appointment at another tattoo parlor, time missed from work for doing this, and something for pain and suffering…I’d say he has a case.

By: susu

susu — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:14:31 +0000

Let’s hope the tattoo parlor at least pays to get the thing fixed, since they screwed up.