Not Actual Image A paraplegic man in California is suing two retail department stores in a mall after they refused to let him inside the stores on his service animal – which was actually a small horse.
The horse, 29 inches tall, is used to pull the paraplegic mans wheelchair, the man is seeking U.S. $ 4,000 for each company. Sounds like he needs a top up to his bank balance.
Looking for Horse Racing Tips?
Heather Peters was awarded close to $10,000 in small claims court after proving her Honda Civic did not live up to the mpg estimates the automaker advertised.
Heather Peters sued the automaker in November 2011, proving that her Civic not only failed to live up to the advertised EPA fuel-efficiency estimates, but also that her mileage per gallon reduced after she volunteered to have her Civic’s software reprogrammed, at Honda’s recommendation, claiming to extend the hybrid’s battery life. In Heather Peters claim, Peters stated that the automaker "fraudulently represented gas mileage and hybrid performance. Also fraudulently induced me to do software update that made things worse."
The automaker countered with a stack of claims by "happy" customers whose Civics are at lease meeting the EPA efficiency reports, and by arguing that EPA’s numbers are guides and individual driving methods will vary outcomes. It was in Feb 2011 the small claims court commissioner in LA recently ruled in favor of Heather Peters and granted Heather Peters $9867, however the Automotive manufacturer is appealing the case.
The Peters case is just another public-relations hit for the Automotive manufacturer, which is currently struggling to recover from the tsunami disaster last year and from the unsuccessful launch of its new Honda Civic redesign for 2012. If this ruling stands up, it could be a landmark case for Automotive manufacturers everywhere.
Looking for some Weird News? make sure you check out our Weird News Stories Website
Two professional Paralympians Jon and Jason Dunkerley from Canada who were both born blind, are currently facing a personal-injury lawsuit for crashing into another runner on a morning jog along Ottawa's Rideau Canal in 2010.
The athletes are being sued for $350,000 in a statement of claim filed by jogger Mimi Lepage, who has since had to have hip surgery after the crash on the morning of Jan. 24, 2010.
Her statement of claim reports that she will need treatment and therapy for the rest of her life, citing tears of the hip, and injuries to an elbow and shoulder. None of the allegations have been proven in court.
The collision happened around 10 a.m. on Jan. 24, 2010 along the Rideau Canal jogging path.
The claim reports that after the collision the Dunkerleys fell on top of Lepage, injuring her so badly she had trouble walking and has been unable to tend to housekeeping, let alone run.
“The collision was caused by the negligence of the defendants, Jon and Jason, who, as elite runners and users of the public recreational path, owed a duty to other users of the path not to create a risk or harm to those users,'' the statement of claim alleges.
This Funny Lawsuit against the blind runners also alleges they were “running at an unsafe speed given the circumstances, including their abilities, their method of communicating with their guides, the terrain of the path, the size of their running group, and the number of other users of the path at the time.''
The lawsuit also alleges that the running group attempted “to pass other users of the recreational path when it was unsafe to do so'' and that the nine-member formation failed to share the popular jogging path.
Lepage's statement of claim alleges that the blind runners “owed a duty of care to other users of the recreational path not to create a hazard or situation of danger that the other users cannot avoid.''
The claim also states that the running group failed to “take other evasive measures to avoid striking Ms. Lepage.''
Lepage also named her son, born in 2002, as a plaintiff in the claim. In that part of the claim she has cited “loss of care, guidance and companionship.''
Reached Thursday, Jon Dunkerley, 31, told the Ottawa Citizen that he feels “horrible'' about what happened to Lepage but said it was an accident. He said he is seeking legal advice with the full intention of vigorously defending himself, as is his brother.
We’re not sure how the court proceedings would work or even what the hell you’d do in the actual event (clones, perhaps?), but it can apparently be done. But first, you need a few things if you’re going to shout in a mirror at yourself and demand money, all before a judge who will grade the magnificent performance.
Fame. This can be any kind of course, via criminal or legitimate activity. Still, fame is the most essential ingredient and it was also the most important, if not key element, for the rapper Rick Ross. Actually, the guy is not suing himself, but instead being sued by “Freeway” Ricky Ross. The difference? One’s a drug dealer, one’s a rapper.
“Freeway” Ricky Ross is actually among the list of top drug lords to have ever trafficked the finest coke money could buy. In his eyes, his name and reputation were promptly stolen by artist Rick Ross. This could be argued as inspiration, but Freeway doesn’t see this as being so. To him, this is thievery of the highest grade. And certainly to a drug dealer, theft is impossibly wicked!
Freeway actually went as far as trying to make this Federal, as well as bringing down Def Jam, Jay-Z, and Universal Music Group. Why? Because those thieving scumbags quite literally stole his name. Freeway never said if Def Jam had to break a locker combination to grab the goods, but he probably doesn’t need to because damn it, the law must be obeyed!
Ultimately, the artist Rick Ross won, Sir Freeway not earning a single dime. This was a load off of Def Jam and Universal, but Jay-Z didn’t care the slightest. Now, why did it fail? In the judge’s own words, a life of crime cannot establish a “secondary meaning”. If this is true, then how is Franc Lucas making his cash? Not on 110th St, obviously.
Source: Rising Stars
This little gem appeared online recently and not only given its content but whom the actual lawsuit involves, it guarantees hilarious reactions. Someone who’s not very famous at all named Sacha Baron Cohen decided to make a film about his fictional character, “Bruno”. For one of the film’s gags, he attended a Proposition 8 rally and of course, attempted to offend and irritate as many people as possible.
This did not going without consequence, however. While attending the rally, Cohen and his crew apparently assaulted a protester simply for “laughs” and filmic value. It didn’t go over very well and now, a man named Mark Skiff, is suing Cohen over punitive damages and medical expenses.
According to the gay cameraman, Skiff asserts that Cohen deliberately held negative banners and posters to incite anger and mob-mentality in the gathering. When asked why, Skiff replied that it was “to enhance the drama” of what the team could’ve captured on film. In his closing statement, Mark added that he has, “the right to go about his business free from violence and intimidation directed at his sexual orientation.”
Source: Justice News Flash
Something wonderful about America happens to be the judicial system. Even more breathtaking and triumphant are the legislative branches and the inspiring laws it makes. Especially if you’re in California! If you’ve ever had a rainy day, you could move to the west coast, because in CA, sunshine is guaranteed to the masses. Hurricanes and storms are immediately held accountable for breaking this law. The rule has its heart in the right place, but it was dumb to assume that only people would be preventing bounties of sunshine.
In Blythe, you’re not allowed to wear Cowboy boots unless you happen to already posses at least two cows. This dumb California law is good for weeding out imposter’s. In Baldwin Park, no one is permitted to ride their bike in swimming pools. You can see Johnny Noxville having issues with this, especially when his film’s reviews go down the drain because the director isn’t allowed to tape him and his buddies using a 12-gear mountain bike in an Olympic swimming pool.
Source: SanDiegoNewsNetwork
Divorce. Say it again, but this time, slower: divorce. You could go for a round of threes, but I’d recommend against it. It’s 2010 and nothing is more interesting than statistics in such a staggering time. Before going over some actual statistics on divorce, you may want these to tie them into it. Here are some “practical reasons” (as quoted from various sources) why it’s time for a man to get a divorce.
Listing off a few in no order: you come home to find that food stamps have replaced the usual spot where your dinner plate is. Or, perhaps, your wife makes holiday plans… that don’t include you. Lastly, but most importantly, you notice your wife’s photo framed in your house and your friend’s. Alright, it’s all fun and chuckles, but now on to some factual results. Recommendation for a lawyer is good practice once you view these statistics.
The current divorce rate in America is roughly 50%. That means between you and your friend, one of you is very likely to separate. Scratch that: one of you will separate. But, for whatever reason, don’t look to a higher power to resolve your issues. In fact, that’s the worst possible thing you could do. According to a recent survey, divorce rates among Christians were significantly higher than other faith groups. You could say “hail Mary”, but in the end, you’ll only being hailing your Mary for a limited amount of time (or Susy, Jane, whatever your better half’s name is).
Divorce rates are also high for affluent couples. Take, for example, the prominent Rollins family. They created Rollins Inc., one of the nation’s largest pest control companies. The family is now in turmoil after Mrs Ruth Rollins lawyer-ed up and divorced her husband of 45 years Mr Gary Rollins. Two days prior to the divorce filing, Mr Rollins’ own children filed suit against him over the family trusts. If these two decided to cut ties after 45 years of bliss, what are the odds for the rest of us?
Source(s): Religious Tolerance, ScribD, Atlanta Family Law News
What happens when you combine redneck technicians, sexual discrimination and racial slurs? Either another episode of South Park or, and least preferably, a lawsuit that ends in crying shame. This one is a bit older, but it’s a little gold nugget that shouldn’t be missed.
Back in 2007, ESPN Sports reports NASCAR settled a lawsuit for 25 million. Why? A woman named Mauricia Grant was not only sexually harassed but subjected to racial slurs and lewd behavior as a technical inspector in NASCAR’s ring. The insults went from “Nappy Head Mo” to “Queen Sheba” by her wonderful co-workers. Apparently, there was even a designated “color people” time.
Initially, NASCAR inspected the issue and promptly fired two employees. The fun doesn’t end there, though. Accusations continued to fly, NASCAR’s own Brian Grant defended his business, ensuring this was never to happen. Grant denied these claims, asserting that she’d climbed the chain of command with no results.
Now, while this is just a plain lawsuit with a few dashes of fame thrown on top, it takes a bizarre twist at the end. Grant, while winning a settlement for a large sum of cash (to pay off all those tears of course) received a phone call. She was contacted by human resources at NASCAR, then fired not long after. The kicker? NASCAR is not disclosing why Grant was fired at all.
Weird Lawsuits, Funny Lawsuits & Dumb Lawsuits
Weird News New York Gigs Confessions