AND THE WINNER IS......
Jan. 18th, 2004 11:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sparkindarknessEvery year the Law Society of England and Wales (being an incredibly ancient and prestigious organisation, usually made up of fat old men with grey hair drinking brandy and shooting peasants foxes in their spare time - alright that's harsh, especially since I'm a member now) holds an award for "Stupidest legal case of the year."
Now there are mnay categories, but the one that always draws notice is the "stupidest legal case of the year that actually WON in a court that has any credibility."
We're falling behind. It's been an American case every year for the past decade *sigh* of course that may change, since some members are putting question marks over the "credibility" requirement. A few others are ignoring that and debating the word "court."
Anyway, the winner for 2003 is:
A man driving a mobile home/caravantte/winobago(sp?) thing. He sets the car on cruise control. He goes INTO THE BACK AND MAKES A CUP OF COFFEE. The vehicle crashes (no surprises there). The man is severly injured. He sues (successfully) the manufacturer of vehicle for not having a warning in the manual about not going into the back and making a cup of coffee rather than WATCHING THE BLOODY ROAD.
He received $1,250,000. I have no words.
I think the warning should be "not to be used by idiots."
Now there are mnay categories, but the one that always draws notice is the "stupidest legal case of the year that actually WON in a court that has any credibility."
We're falling behind. It's been an American case every year for the past decade *sigh* of course that may change, since some members are putting question marks over the "credibility" requirement. A few others are ignoring that and debating the word "court."
Anyway, the winner for 2003 is:
A man driving a mobile home/caravantte/winobago(sp?) thing. He sets the car on cruise control. He goes INTO THE BACK AND MAKES A CUP OF COFFEE. The vehicle crashes (no surprises there). The man is severly injured. He sues (successfully) the manufacturer of vehicle for not having a warning in the manual about not going into the back and making a cup of coffee rather than WATCHING THE BLOODY ROAD.
He received $1,250,000. I have no words.
I think the warning should be "not to be used by idiots."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-19 06:48 pm (UTC)Have you ever read a list of odd warning labels on things? Like on an iron: Do not iron clothes while being worn. And you know that someone had to have done it for the warning label to be put on. *sighs* Ah, the stupidity that is humanity.
(http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=874)
(Will make no comment about the barbarism that is fox hunts. Really. Not saying anything. *covers mouth* Mmf.)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-19 09:25 pm (UTC)Actually, the law society doesn't have all that many fox hunting members (I will remain silent on the peasant shooting issue). The law society doesn't indulge because:
A) Most high ranking members of the law society are a little (lot) elderly to be chraging round the countryside.
B) Many are also on the... portly side, think of the poor horses...
C) Most are cerebral, their idea of strenuous physical activity is an EXQUISITE brandy in front of a roaring fire and generally pretending it's 300+ years ago.
D) The law society has strict codes of conduct on what its members can/cannot do to ensure the profession isn't brought into "disrepute". While fox hunting isn't banned per se, it is frowned upon...
And I have already ranted on fox hunting: http://www.livejournal.com/users/dark_prophet/122321.html