John Parker made a pit stop at a McDonald's drive-thru window. After wedging
his chocolate milkshake between his legs and putting his burger and fries
onto the seat next to him, he headed back onto the road. When Parker leaned
over to reach for his fries he inadvertently squeezed his legs together,
causing the cold shake to leap out of its cup and onto his lap. A stunned
Parker then plowed his car into the vehicle in front of him. William Bailey,
who was at the receiving end of Parker's mishap, was not sympathetic. He
sued Parker and McDonald's, claiming that the fast-food franchise neglected
to warn customers of the dangers of eating and driving.
The Verdict, Please . . .
The judge wasn't stirred, never mind shaken, by Bailey's claim. He
dismissed his suit; however, he also denied McDonald's request that Bailey
reimburse them for their $10,000 in attorney's fees. In the judges words,
Bailey was "creative and imaginative and shouldn't be penalized for that."
http://www.mlaw.org/ The Whiplash Awards
Also check out the winners in the warning label contest.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 00:27:19 -0600, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>Perhaps if there weren't BS lawsuits like this one, McDonald's wouldn't have
>to carry as many attorneys on staff as they do now.
.. but then there would be that many more who might be
running around suing the rest of us :-)
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The Verdict, Please . . .
> The judge wasn't stirred, never mind shaken, by Bailey's claim. He
> dismissed his suit; however, he also denied McDonald's request that Bailey
> reimburse them for their $10,000 in attorney's fees. In the judges words,
> Bailey was "creative and imaginative and shouldn't be penalized for that."
I am betting that McDonalds was not out any extra for attorney fees. I
suspect they work full time for McDonalds.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George" <george@least> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > The Verdict, Please . . .
> > The judge wasn't stirred, never mind shaken, by Bailey's claim. He
> > dismissed his suit; however, he also denied McDonald's request that
Bailey
> > reimburse them for their $10,000 in attorney's fees. In the judges
words,
> > Bailey was "creative and imaginative and shouldn't be penalized for
that."
>
>
> I am betting that McDonalds was not out any extra for attorney fees. I
> suspect they work full time for McDonalds.
Perhaps if there weren't BS lawsuits like this one, McDonald's wouldn't have
to carry as many attorneys on staff as they do now.
todd
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 18:35:53 -0500, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>he also denied McDonald's request that Bailey
>reimburse them for their $10,000 in attorney's fees. In the judges words,
>Bailey was "creative and imaginative and shouldn't be penalized for that."
So if you are a creative and imaginative crook it's OK? Good to know
that.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George" <george@least> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > The Verdict, Please . . .
> > The judge wasn't stirred, never mind shaken, by Bailey's claim. He
> > dismissed his suit; however, he also denied McDonald's request that
Bailey
> > reimburse them for their $10,000 in attorney's fees. In the judges
words,
> > Bailey was "creative and imaginative and shouldn't be penalized for
that."
>
>
> I am betting that McDonalds was not out any extra for attorney fees. I
> suspect they work full time for McDonalds.
>
>
Actually, most major corporations do not keep litigation attorneys on staff.
Staff attorneys are usually specialized business law types that handle day
to day stuff. It is common enough to keep a firm on retainer, but that
comes with a cost as do the actual hours spent working on defending a case.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]