Comments on: The $33 million window

By: OBQuiet

OBQuiet — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:23:43 +0000

Adam,

You may not have suggested defenestration but you have given me that chance to use one of my favorite words.

By: Adam Freedman

Adam Freedman — Wed, 30 May 2007 20:10:44 +0000

But did she specify that she wanted to be on the inside of the window? Perhaps they could have put her on the ledge.

Of course sometimes the law allows hypersensitive plaintiffs to recover under the Eggshell Skull doctrine, but it used to be that the injury had to be something that would foreseeably cause *some* harm. Now sensitivity itself is your cause of action.

By: Anon E. Moose

Anon E. Moose — Wed, 30 May 2007 12:32:43 +0000

Is there just one trial attorney out there with the temerity to admit that they troll the reported pro se prisoner filings for their inspiration as to new theories of tort action? This is the kind of thing that only someone with no demands on their time, legal resourses at others' expense, and a desire to bollix the system could come up with.

By: nevins

nevins — Tue, 29 May 2007 20:56:58 +0000

But the irony is that she is suing a disabilities racket, uh firm regarding her alleged disability.

By: Stephen Macklin

Stephen Macklin — Tue, 29 May 2007 20:10:50 +0000

Just imagine how much it would have been if they had taken away her stapler.

By: Justinian Lane

Justinian Lane — Tue, 29 May 2007 17:11:56 +0000

But on the plus side, if they have to pay $33 million, they’ll probably have to scale back on their annoying commercials with the too-serious announcer voice.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Tue, 29 May 2007 16:24:29 +0000

$33 million? You could put professional-grade stadium lighting on her for less than 1% of that…

Do they use a random number generator (and add 6 zeroes on the end) or something?