馃攳
Lawsuits That Actually Weren't Ridiculous - YouTube
Channel: LegalEagle
[0]
the mcdonald's coffee cup case the case
[2]
where the ant
[3]
sued her nephew for hugging her these
[5]
are all examples of
[6]
the most ridiculous frivolous lawsuits
[9]
ever
[10]
or are they one of the hallmarks of the
[11]
american legal system is that if you've
[13]
been injured you have the right to have
[15]
your grievance heard in a court of law
[17]
of course one of the downsides of the
[18]
american legal system is that if you
[20]
haven't been injured
[21]
you also have the right to have your
[22]
grievance heard in a court of law but
[25]
not every newsroom or tv show has a
[27]
legal consultant on hand so they
[29]
often leave out key details and nuances
[31]
about particular cases they have a hard
[33]
time determining which ones are
[35]
which and occasionally the sensational
[37]
headlines that focus only on the dollar
[38]
amounts can sometimes give people the
[40]
wrong impression about the merits of the
[41]
case so today we're going to discuss
[43]
some of the most frivolous lawsuits that
[45]
actually
[45]
might not have been so frivolous after
[47]
all
[48]
[Music]
[51]
and of course if we're discussing
[53]
lawsuits that have been labeled as
[54]
frivolous but actually might have a
[56]
kernel of truth to them
[57]
there is no better place to start than
[59]
the ur frivolous lawsuit
[61]
that is of course the mcdonald's coffee
[63]
cup lawsuit so let's start this
[65]
discussion with the story of stella
[67]
liebeck the woman who spilled scalding
[69]
hot mcdonald's coffee on her lap
[70]
and sued the restaurant now here are the
[73]
facts as you might not have ever heard
[75]
them before
[75]
on february 27th 1992 stella liebeck
[78]
then a 79 year old woman from
[80]
albuquerque new mexico
[81]
ordered a cup of mcdonald's coffee at
[83]
the drive-through window libec was
[85]
sitting in the passenger seat of her
[86]
parked car as her grandson
[88]
stepped inside to grab some cream and
[90]
sugar since the car had no cup holders
[92]
libec placed the coffee cup between her
[94]
knees and
[94]
pulled to open the lid she then spilled
[96]
the entire cup of scalding hot coffee on
[99]
her lap
[100]
causing third-degree burns on her thighs
[101]
buttocks and groin all i remember is
[103]
trying to get out of the car
[105]
i screamed not realizing i was burned
[108]
that bad i knew i was in terrible pain
[110]
she was actually hospitalized for eight
[112]
days and underwent skin grafting
[113]
lipic was permanently disfigured after
[115]
the incident and was partially disabled
[116]
for two years
[117]
some of the trial exhibits that were
[119]
used in this particular case
[121]
shine light on just how devastating her
[123]
injuries were now of course libec sued
[125]
mcdonald's accusing the company of gross
[126]
negligence and for selling coffee that
[128]
was quote unreasonably dangerous
[130]
and defectively manufactured at trial it
[132]
was uncovered that mcdonald's had been
[133]
serving coffee between 180 and 190
[135]
degrees fahrenheit
[136]
much higher than the industry norm and
[138]
which expert testimony revealed could
[140]
cause third-degree burns in as
[142]
little as two seconds other internal
[143]
documents obtained
[145]
from mcdonald's showed that between 1982
[147]
and 1992
[148]
the company had received more than 700
[150]
reports of people being burned by their
[152]
coffee with mcdonald's having settled
[154]
claims from said injuries for more than
[156]
five hundred thousand dollars in this
[157]
case the jury awarded libec two hundred
[159]
thousand dollars in compensatory damages
[161]
but reduced that by twenty percent to
[163]
one hundred and sixty thousand dollars
[164]
to account for her own negligence in
[166]
spilling on herself the jury also
[168]
awarded her 2.7 million
[170]
dollars based on her attorney's
[171]
suggestion to penalize mcdonald's for
[173]
two days worth of coffee revenue or
[175]
about 1.35 million dollars per day the
[177]
punitive damage awards was supported by
[179]
the discovery that 700 people had been
[180]
previously burned by hot coffee
[182]
demonstrating that the company had
[183]
actual knowledge that the coffee was
[185]
being served too hot but failed to
[186]
remedy the issue the judge reduced the
[188]
punitive damages to
[189]
three times compensatory damages or 480
[192]
000 for a
[193]
total judgment of 640 thousand dollars
[196]
this decision
[197]
was appealed but the parties settled for
[199]
an undisclosed amount of probably less
[201]
than six hundred thousand dollars now if
[203]
prior to watching this video you thought
[204]
that this was a case about a clumsy
[206]
greedy woman trying to get rich quick
[208]
over her own mistake you're probably not
[210]
alone thanks to a perfect storm of
[212]
shortened news reports and outraged
[214]
political conservatives who used the
[215]
case to advocate for sharp limits on
[217]
tort lawsuits so-called
[219]
tort reform the general public was
[221]
really misinformed about the nature of
[223]
this case
[224]
she spilled hot coffee on her lap while
[226]
sitting in her car and claimed it was
[227]
too hot
[228]
every day we hear about another
[230]
outrageous lawsuit
[231]
as a result the general public wrongly
[234]
believed libec spilled coffee while she
[235]
was driving her car she was in fact just
[237]
a passenger in a parked car and that the
[238]
injuries were minor she was in fact
[240]
permanently disfigured late night
[241]
comedians and sitcoms have also heavily
[244]
parodied the case
[244]
contributing to the false image of this
[246]
particular lawsuit
[248]
you get me one coffee drinker on that
[249]
jury you won't walk out of there a rich
[251]
man
[252]
and despite what you might have heard
[254]
libec did not sue mcdonald's for
[256]
millions of dollars in fact
[257]
she didn't want to sue them at all she
[258]
originally requested only 20 000
[260]
to cover her medical bills and lost
[262]
income mcdonald's responded with
[264]
an insulting 800 settlement offer
[266]
libec's council had also
[268]
offered settlement amounts ranging from
[269]
ninety thousand to three hundred
[270]
thousand dollars but
[271]
mcdonald's also rejected all pre-trial
[273]
efforts to settle the case
[275]
i was not in it for the money i was in
[277]
it because i want them to bring the
[279]
temperature down
[280]
so that people other people will not go
[282]
through the same thing i did the most
[284]
that liebeck asked for a trial was eight
[285]
hundred thousand dollars and it was the
[287]
jury that awarded her 2.7 million
[289]
dollars which she never actually
[290]
received because the punitive damages
[292]
were
[292]
chopped and her critics claimed that
[294]
lybeck shouldn't recover anything
[295]
because she spilled coffee on herself
[296]
but
[297]
the jury did in fact find liebeck
[299]
partially responsible for her injury
[301]
applying the principles of comparative
[302]
negligence
[303]
in which liability is a portion based on
[305]
how much at fault each party was for the
[307]
injury the jury found that liebeck was
[309]
20
[309]
at fault for her injury and her
[311]
compensatory damages were reduced by
[313]
20 the amount that she was at fault but
[316]
in the past decade the libec case has
[317]
received renewed attention in the form
[319]
of the 2011 documentary hot coffee
[321]
and a 2013 retro report video from the
[324]
new york times but the false perception
[326]
about this case continues to this very
[328]
day
[328]
that stella liebeck needed to defend her
[331]
reputation
[332]
is the saddest piece of this whole story
[334]
but now what do you think completely
[336]
frivolous or is there some merit to it
[338]
let's move on to the next case about
[339]
the famous man who was trapped in a
[341]
phone booth and hit by a drunk driver
[343]
but sues
[343]
the phone company as you might recall
[345]
the 1980s were a unique period
[347]
in our history when people wore
[348]
parachute pants and mtv actually played
[350]
music that was also when the tort reform
[352]
movement which claimed america was under
[354]
assault by unscrupulous lawyers bringing
[356]
frivolous lawsuits
[357]
first began to pick up steen and fewer
[359]
is instrumental in cementing this image
[361]
of out-of-control lawsuits into the
[362]
american consciousness than
[364]
president ronald reagan but more on that
[366]
in a moment because in 1974
[368]
charles bigby following a night shift as
[370]
a custodian in the city of los angeles
[372]
used a public telephone booth to call
[374]
his girlfriend as the two spoke
[376]
bigby saw a car driving erratically
[378]
towards him but while bystanders and a
[380]
man in a
[380]
neighboring phone booth were able to get
[382]
out of the way bigby's phone booth
[384]
jammed trapping him inside
[386]
for the near fatal collusion and this is
[388]
how president reagan described that case
[389]
in a speech to the american tort reform
[391]
association
[392]
it's no surprise that the injured man
[394]
sued but you might be startled to
[396]
hear whom he sued the telephone company
[400]
and associated firms that's right
[404]
reagan claimed that this loony case was
[406]
an example of a broken tort system
[407]
sounds pretty bad
[408]
right well it might surprise you to know
[409]
that reagan left out a few key details
[412]
about this case which would not be the
[413]
first time
[414]
a few months ago i told the american
[416]
people i did not trade arms for hostages
[419]
my heart and my best intentions still
[421]
tell me that's true
[423]
but the facts and the evidence tell me
[425]
it is not
[426]
so here's what president reagan actually
[428]
left out first two years prior
[430]
a driver had destroyed a phone booth
[432]
that had been placed in the identical
[433]
spot now the phone company replaced the
[435]
booth but
[436]
didn't include a guardrail or a warning
[438]
and the replacement phone booth had a
[439]
malfunctioning door accordingly
[441]
the phone company was on notice that the
[443]
placement of the phone booth might be
[444]
dangerous
[445]
and didn't take what most would consider
[447]
reasonable measures to remedy the risk
[449]
and contrary to reagan's implication
[450]
bigby did not merely sue the phone
[452]
company bigby sued everyone he felt had
[454]
contributed to his accident including
[455]
the alleged drunk driver
[457]
as well as the horse racing track he
[459]
believed served the alcohol to the
[460]
driver and this is
[461]
typical of lawsuits where you name all
[463]
the parties that you believe are
[464]
responsible
[465]
and let the facts take the jury where
[468]
they will and the jury can apportion
[470]
faults among all of the different
[471]
defendants and finally
[473]
reagan left out just how badly bigby was
[475]
injured bigby had to have his right leg
[477]
amputated four inches above the knee and
[480]
while his left leg required skin grafts
[482]
to be saved bigby would eventually
[483]
require an artificial leg a wheelchair
[485]
and a knee brace for his left leg and
[487]
because insurance would not cover
[488]
everything bigby's unpaid medical bills
[490]
amounted to more than fifteen hundred
[492]
dollars
[492]
twenty percent of his yearly janitor
[494]
salary of seventy three hundred big
[496]
was physically unable to work and became
[498]
severely depressed and was hounded by
[500]
collections agents but in the end
[501]
frivolous or not
[503]
bigby settled for a mere twenty five
[505]
thousand 000 with the
[506]
alleged drunk driver paying half and the
[508]
racetrack vendors paying the other half
[509]
but since this is american we love our
[511]
cars almost as much as we love our guns
[513]
let's talk about the supposedly
[514]
frivolous case of the man who won 1.25
[516]
million dollars after stealing his own
[518]
car
[519]
this is a case that you just read the
[520]
headlines and it seems completely insane
[522]
man steals his own car and wins
[524]
1.25 million dollars well reading below
[527]
the headline reveals a harrowing story
[529]
of discrimination
[530]
and police brutality in 2015 dr lawrence
[533]
crosby then a 25 year old engineering
[535]
doctoral student
[536]
was fixing a loose molding on his car a
[538]
woman witnessed crosby who was wearing a
[540]
hooded sweatshirt at the time
[542]
fixing his car and assumed that he was
[543]
trying to steal the car she proceeded to
[545]
follow him
[546]
in her car from his home to the
[548]
university before she called the police
[549]
report that she saw a black man in a
[551]
hoodie steal a car
[552]
in the arrest video crosby can be heard
[554]
telling the police that he was trying to
[555]
fix his own car the police dash cam
[557]
video shows crosby getting out of his
[558]
car with both hands up holding a cell
[560]
phone in one hand
[561]
officers approached crosby with their
[562]
guns drawn police then ordered crosby to
[564]
get down on the ground and when he did
[565]
not immediately comply a group of
[567]
officers rushed crosby and threw him to
[569]
the ground
[569]
crosby said that the officers piled on
[571]
top of him proceeded to hit and knee him
[573]
and as an officer screamed to stop
[575]
resisting crosby who had his own dashcam
[577]
video can be heard saying
[578]
i'm cooperating sir you're on video
[580]
that's an fyi
[581]
officers quickly learned that crosby
[583]
owned the car and was in good standing
[584]
and even though crosby had not actually
[586]
stolen a car that belonged to him crosby
[588]
was still arrested and charged with
[589]
disobeying officers
[590]
and resisting police to repeat even
[592]
though crosby was cleared by the police
[594]
for stealing his own car
[595]
the police still arrested him for
[597]
resisting an arrest for a crime that he
[599]
in fact did not commit
[600]
a judge later threw out the charges and
[602]
the following year crosby filed a civil
[603]
lawsuit against the city of evanston
[605]
illinois
[606]
citing false arrest and excessive force
[608]
in the suit crosby demanded that the
[609]
city
[610]
and the arresting officers pay at least
[611]
50 thousand dollars for compensatory
[612]
imputative damages fees costs and such
[614]
other relief
[615]
in january 2019 the city council voted
[618]
eight to zero to settle with now
[619]
dr crosby for 1.2 million dollars after
[622]
the settlement dr crosby stated that he
[624]
was working on mending his reputation
[626]
having found himself often defending his
[628]
actions and explaining what happened
[629]
that night
[630]
once the case became a national headline
[632]
and it makes sense if you just read the
[633]
headlines one could have gotten the
[635]
wrong idea about what happened but
[636]
moving forward dr crosby said that his
[638]
first steps post-settlement
[639]
would be holding an implicit bias forum
[641]
for students and faculty at stanford
[643]
university where he earned his
[644]
undergraduate degree
[645]
okay fine you've probably heard about
[647]
police brutality before so that one
[649]
might not be
[650]
that surprising but have you heard the
[651]
one about the ant who sues her 12 year
[653]
old nephew for 127 thousand dollars
[656]
because he hugged her well there's an
[658]
old saying that when it comes to family
[660]
blood is thicker than water but in the
[661]
rough and tumble world of litigation
[663]
it's not that uncommon for grieved
[664]
relatives to sue one another for
[665]
personal injury but what
[667]
is uncommon is when the plaintiff is an
[669]
adult suing a very small
[671]
child and so goes the story of jennifer
[673]
connell the woman dubbed the ant from
[675]
hell
[675]
who sued her nephew for 127 thousand
[678]
dollars over a birthday hug gone wrong
[680]
you probably heard some of the facts of
[681]
this case when the story first went
[682]
viral
[683]
in 2011 an upper east side ant attended
[686]
a birthday party for her then
[687]
eight-year-old nephew shawn the
[688]
precocious lad was riding around on his
[691]
brand new bicycle his first two-wheeler
[693]
when he saw his beloved aunt and when he
[695]
spotted her sean who was technically the
[696]
son of a cousin but refers to connell as
[698]
his aunt
[699]
dropped his new bike on the ground and
[701]
ran to his aunt at full speed
[702]
he leapt into her arms exclaiming auntie
[705]
jen
[706]
i love you auntie jen was caught off
[707]
guard by the leaping nephew causing her
[709]
to fall and break her wrist
[710]
two years later she sued young sean for
[712]
127 thousand dollars now if this sounds
[715]
ridiculous
[716]
you would not be alone in thinking so
[718]
when word of the case broke out people
[719]
blasted the ant who was a human
[721]
resources manager
[722]
on social media dubbing her the ant from
[724]
hell and the
[726]
worst and ever and antichrist and the
[728]
news media also piled on portraying her
[730]
as a greedy money grubber bringing an
[732]
inherently ridiculous case against a
[733]
child
[734]
the trial didn't help her image auntie
[736]
jen testified that her injury harmed her
[738]
social life by making her unable to hold
[740]
the plate of hordurbs she further
[741]
testified
[742]
quote i live in manhattan in a third
[744]
floor walk-up so it's been very
[745]
difficult and we all know how crowded it
[747]
is in manhattan
[748]
she argued that young shawn had been
[749]
negligent when he jumped into her arms
[751]
and broke her wrist and therefore that
[752]
she was entitled to 127 thousand dollars
[754]
as compensation for her medical bills
[756]
now the jury disagreed deciding that she
[758]
deserved zero compensation after a mere
[760]
20 minutes of deliberation now this
[762]
seems like a textbook case of
[763]
overzealous litigation well here's the
[765]
rub and
[766]
hold on because it involves both legal
[768]
nuance and
[769]
insurance law i know everyone keeps
[770]
asking for more insurance law and
[772]
extremely nuanced legal points so
[774]
uh you know here you go under
[776]
connecticut law she literally had no
[778]
choice auntie jen first submitted her
[779]
claim to the homeowner's liability
[780]
insurer of sean's parents
[782]
in response the insurer offered her a
[783]
mere one dollar settlement offer and
[785]
when auntie jen wanted to litigate her
[787]
damages claim
[788]
her attorneys informed her of an
[789]
inconvenient fact about connecticut law
[791]
it's illegal to name a homeowner's
[793]
insurance policy as a defendant in a
[795]
personal injury case
[796]
the only way she could get a homeowner's
[797]
insurance policy to pay her medical
[799]
bills
[800]
was to get a judgment against the person
[802]
who injured her so
[803]
regardless of how silly it might have
[804]
appeared to outside observers auntie jen
[807]
was required as a matter of law
[809]
to sue the party that she thought
[810]
injured her which in this case
[812]
means suing a young child auntie jen did
[814]
not win her case but just because a
[816]
party loses a lawsuit doesn't mean that
[817]
it was filed without any legal basis a
[819]
minor can be held liable for injuring
[821]
another under connecticut law in 1960
[824]
the connecticut supreme court had
[825]
held that a 17 year old girl could be
[827]
held liable to her minor siblings
[829]
arising out of her negligence in a car
[831]
accident and in outlining the legal
[832]
standard of care for minors who injure
[834]
third parties
[835]
the connecticut supreme court wrote a
[836]
minor is liable for injuries negligently
[838]
inflicted by him
[839]
upon another it is true that in
[841]
determining the negligence of a minor
[843]
the law applies to him a standard of
[844]
conduct which will vary according to his
[846]
age judgment and experience
[847]
but the law does not grant him a
[849]
complete immunity from liability for his
[851]
torts
[852]
even in negligence so this lowered
[854]
standard of care for miners is
[856]
consistent with what happened in auntie
[857]
jen's case
[858]
at trial the judge instructed the jury
[860]
that had sean been 18 at the time of the
[862]
incident
[862]
he probably would have been expected to
[864]
act like a reasonable adult however
[865]
because the boy was only eight years old
[867]
at the time
[868]
the jury had to consider only what a
[870]
prudent eight-year-old boy would have
[871]
done and on that basis the jury held
[873]
that young sean was not liable for any
[875]
damages after the case miss connell
[877]
appeared on the today show with her then
[879]
12 year old nephew to clear the air she
[881]
explained that
[882]
her relationship remained sound and she
[883]
deeply regretted that connecticut law
[885]
forced her to take this route
[887]
i was informed that we had sean had to
[889]
be named i was never comfortable with
[891]
that
[891]
as for young sean he stands by his aunt
[893]
sean what do you want people to know
[895]
about your aunt that i love that i love
[898]
her
[898]
and she loves me either way this will
[901]
probably make for some awkward family
[902]
reunions in the future
[904]
but you can tell that sometimes what you
[905]
see in the news can be misleading or it
[907]
might just be
[908]
half of the story but not with today's
[910]
sponsor morningbrew
[912]
i've actually been subscribed to
[913]
morningbrew for forever it's one of my
[915]
absolute favorite newsletters and it's
[916]
awesome that they wanted to sponsor this
[918]
channel morningbrew if you didn't know
[920]
is a free daily newsletter delivered
[921]
monday through sunday it gets you up to
[923]
speed on business finance tech and law
[925]
in
[926]
just five minutes and it provides a
[927]
fantastic quick survey of the most
[929]
important issues while being witty
[930]
irreverent
[931]
and informative and did i mention it's
[933]
completely free
[934]
it tells me how much my stocks are going
[936]
up and how much everyone else's crypto
[938]
is going down
[939]
yesterday for example i learned about
[941]
all the crazy stuff going on with the
[942]
britney spears conservatorship
[944]
that high schoolers have a right to cuss
[946]
outside of school according to the
[947]
supreme court
[948]
and that the chinese government is
[949]
shutting down the only free newspaper in
[951]
hong kong it's basically exactly the mix
[953]
of news that i'm actually interested in
[955]
and it's one of the few emails that i
[957]
actually open so legal eagles this one
[959]
is a complete
[960]
no-brainer morning brew is completely
[962]
free and it takes less than 15 seconds
[964]
to subscribe
[964]
just click on the link in the
[965]
description to get morning brew for free
[967]
and not only will you get a newsletter
[969]
that you will actually read
[970]
but you'll actually help out this
[972]
channel too so click on the link in the
[973]
description to get morningbrew right
[975]
away
[975]
so do you agree with my analysis leave
[977]
your objections in the comments and let
[979]
me know if there are some other lawsuits
[980]
that are frivolous or
[982]
seem frivolous but aren't and check out
[984]
this playlist over here with all of my
[985]
other legal reactions including a whole
[987]
video about
[988]
lawsuits that really are frivolous so
[990]
click on this playlist or i'll see you
[992]
in court
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage