This is why we hate lawyers

[GH85Carrera]

Lawyer Threatens Suit Over Coat - March 4, 2010

[legion]

@$$hat seems like an appropriate term here.

[VINMAN]

That's similar to recent case where some judge sued a dry cleaner for 65 millions dollars over a $40 pair of pants they lost. He claimed that their sign in the window said " satisfaction guaranteed", and he wasnt happy with the srvice. He dragged them through court for over a year.

He basicaly bankrupted the poor couple that owned it. I hope the $cumba& burns in hell.


Linky....
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3313923&page=1

[boba]

Originally Posted by legion

@$$hat seems like an appropriate term here.

+1000

It also seems to me that he admitted to negligence in the oversight of said property in his letter. Case Dismissed.

[Neilk]

I hope the letter is a hoax, otherwise, his partners will be thrilled at the negative publicity.

[legion]

Originally Posted by VINMAN

That's similar to recent case where some judge sued a dry cleaner for 65 millions dollars over a $40 pair of pants they lost. He claimed that their sign in the window said " satisfaction guaranteed", and he wasnt happy with the srvice. He dragged them through court for over a year.

He basicaly bankrupted the poor couple that owned it. I hope the $cumba& burns in hell.


Linky....
Judge Rules in Favor of Dry Cleaners in $54 Million Pants Lawsuit - ABC News

I believe the judge got in quite a bit of trouble over this as well--as he should have.

[masraum]

It's a shame that they can't have some guy give him the $800 and then beat the snot out of him.

Another issue with personal responsibility. You forgot the damn coat, it's your damn fault.

asshat is good, douchenozzle is another appropriate name for this guy.

[Dueller]

Originally Posted by legion

I believe the judge got in quite a bit of trouble over this as well--as he should have.

Ya think? He lost reappointment to his federal judgeship (which is under appeal for wrongful dismissal). Over $180K was raised for the dry cleaners defense fund, much from lawyers on both sides of the tort reform argument. So even lawyers rose to the occasion for this embarassment to the bar. Their total legal bill was "only" %85K so they did OK, I suppose.

An interesting side note was that the dry cleaners had an earlier dispute with him over lost clothing back in 2002. They paid him for the lost clothing and banned him from their business. He pleaded with them to allow him to continue using them as they were the only cleaners in his neighborhood.

As to the pants lawsuit, he took it all the way to DC Court of Appeals and abandoned it since cert was unlikely by SCOTUS.

He was also sanctioned in his own divorce suit the sum of $12K for filing frivolus motions and delaying litigation.

[tcar]

Originally Posted by Neilk

I hope the letter is a hoax, otherwise, his partners will be thrilled at the negative publicity.

Many operate under the slogan; "I don't care what you say about me, just spell my name correctly".

[gassy]

You're all missing the point that it was a Polo jacket and it had a plaid lining.

[cmccuist]

About the missing jacket - he has to prove that the jacket not only existed, but that he brought it into the pizza place. How's he going to prove that? We only have his word that the jacket was left there. Does he have any witnesses? He's hoping the pizza place will settle to avoid legal costs.

[legion]

He's also prove that the people he is suing knew the jacket was there and failed to take possession, or stole the coat, or allowed it to be stolen.

[Dueller]

Originally Posted by cmccuist

About the missing jacket - he has to prove that the jacket not only existed, but that he brought it into the pizza place. How's he going to prove that? We only have his word that the jacket was left there. Does he have any witnesses? He's hoping the pizza place will settle to avoid legal costs.

You can be your own witness...not necessary to corroborate. But still...his theory is a bit off base. This wasn't a bailment as there is no indication they accepted delivery of the coat. Assuming arguendo they somehow did accept it and it was a bailment, then its obviously solely for his benefit and in such cases the bailee would only be responsible for gross negligence such as mis-delivery. But like I said no indication a bailment.

Certainly no contract involved so that theory is out. Tortious conversion...that's a stretch. Tough to prove someone knew it was his and converted to their own use. That leaves negligence. To prove the tort of negligence you have to show 1) Duty owed 2) breach of that duty 3) proximate cause of damages (loss) AND 4) Damages. While he may have suffered damages (loss of coat), it will fail on the duty portion. Must have all 4 elements to prove recovery under tort theory. Even if they did you would have the defense of contributory negligence or comparative fault of the dapper polo wearing lawyer.

Class dismissed

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by tcar

Many operate under the slogan; "I don't care what you say about me, just spell my name correctly".

This is not that type of situation. If this gets any traction in the normal press (like the pants case got), this will not turn out well for this guy, personally or professionally.

Times must be really tough for that guy.

If I were the airport, I'd send him a letter and dare him to bring such a ridiculous lawsuit.

[boba]

Originally Posted by Dueller

You can be your own witness...not necessary to corroborate. But still...his theory is a bit off base. This wasn't a bailment as there is no indication they accepted delivery of the coat. Assuming arguendo they somehow did accept it and it was a bailment, then its obviously solely for his benefit and in such cases the bailee would only be responsible for gross negligence such as mis-delivery. But like I said no indication a bailment.

Certainly no contract involved so that theory is out. Tortious conversion...that's a stretch. Tough to prove someone knew it was his and converted to their own use. That leaves negligence. To prove the tort of negligence you have to show 1) Duty owed 2) breach of that duty 3) proximate cause of damages (loss) AND 4) Damages. While he may have suffered damages (loss of coat), it will fail on the duty portion. Must have all 4 elements to prove recovery under tort theory. Even if they did you would have the defense of contributory negligence or comparative fault of the dapper polo wearing lawyer.

Class dismissed

So, being a lawyer and supposed to know the above, could we call his action attempted extortion?

[porsche4life]

It's attempted douchebaggery at a minimum.... that should carry a 5yr penalty really....

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by boba

So, being a lawyer and supposed to know the above, could we call his action attempted extortion?

I think Felony Asshattery is a better term.

[VINMAN]

I can just picture the guy sitting on the holding cell bench, next to some violent murderer, and the guy asking him what hes in for. "First Deg. Asshattery", he replies . As the murderer looks at him in disgust and moves away from him...

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by porsche4life

It's attempted douchebaggery at a minimum.... that should carry a 5yr penalty really....

Gawd, would the world be a better place with a law like this. Felony asshattery would have a mandatory minimum too.

[Rick Lee]

The guy doesn't deserve to get his coat back. But how hard would it be to locate the surveillance camera footage of his coat being scooped up by someone? At least that would likely prove some random coat thief took it and not an employee of the airport, who would surely know they're being watched.