its a starburts, you hick!

Lauren – Really?!

I can’t believe Angel didn’t comment on this.

What gets me is this is the old, “There should be a warning label” bullshit.

Right, as if this whale is even going to bother to read the label say “I may get TMJ” and not eat it.

I could literally list potentially 100 medical conditions associated with the chewing of one starburst.

36–Your argument sounds good when applied to candy, but all the same concepts apply directly to immunization programs and that is AFTER the pharmco’s do everything they can (supposedly) to make their drugs safe. So, their is a bit more meat to this case that warrents more than an immediate dismissal. As #38 counsels==she got past a lawyer and gets to make an argument in court.

36–Still, you got my motor running. Why are so many in Congress lawyers? Were they corrupt people who went to law school to learn how the system works–ie, corrupt to begin with, nothing to do with the law, or as you suggest is going to law school a corrupting enfluence. Anyhoo, I’m going to spend some time to research a bit. Some sociologist must have looked at this some time?? Let me know if you have anything, as will I.

Damn, there goes my TMJ. Who do I sue for getting TMJ syndrome after yawning?

Dorkmeister, in your sheltered life, you apparently have never encountered the extremely commonplace phenomenon of a greedy / amoral / unethical / desperate lawyer taking a totally bullshit case.

In case your drug addled mind didn’t grasp the idea, THE LAWYER HAS TO PROVE HIS CASE, first to a Judge that there is a case and then to a jury. He will be the one paying to file the complaint. He will pay for the expert affidavits. He will pay for the stenographer to take depositions. All before the suit ever makes it to trial. If he loses the trial and even if it is tossed as frivolous, the Judge has the option of making him pay for the Defenses expenses too.

Now those are FACTS. Nothing emotional. Nothing wildly claimed. Nothing insulting. No wild accusations.

40% of $25,000 doesn’t sound like he is being greedy / amoral / unethical or desperate. Especially when he stands a good chance of losing. Geeze, you really hate being wrong.

If this was Florida it would get a wacky FL tag.

We could have a wacky for most stories.

How about some even handedness?

Cursor_

[The tag is "Wacky News" from FL, not "Wacky FL." - .ed]

- – - – - – -

As to whether this case is ‘good’ – well, her mouthpiece would say it’s good, because it’s a possible big payday for very little work or expense. If it doesn’t fly, he’s not out much. But that doesn’t mean he’s on solid legal ground.

But the theory he’s offering is based on a rather shaky interpretation of the applicable liability laws, and doesn’t have much in the way of precedent going for it, either. Even if he wins, the likelihood of his prevailing on appeal is slim. That sort of thing is not a ‘good’ case – although ultimately, as is so often the situation, one would have to say it’s a matter of opinion… One man’s meat, & cetera.

Fusion makes a good point. Most likely a pre-existing condition that the Defendant wont be able to prove?

Its like craps. A good roll is one you win.

34–No. Its long been the name of the bone involved. Now why it is named that I don’t know, but it was named 1763.811.034 years before warp drive was discovered.

“Temporal”? Like some kind of freaky Star Trek:TNG temporal distortion kind of thing? Her jaw achieved the 4th dimension?

“Her lawyer either feels she has a very good case or would have advised her to forget about it.”

‘A very good case,’ my hairy yellow ass. The lawyer in question thinks he can convince a jury of 6 or 12 dimwits like you that that mean, nasty company recklessly ruined this innocent woman’s life and should be made to cough up big bucks, of which he, surprisingly enough, will get 30 or 40%.

Scumbag lawyers like this one don’t give two fucks whether the case is any good or not. The only criterion is this: Is it winnable?

And you compound your idiocy by suggesting that anyone in their right mind would try this piece of shit case before a judge. Only juries are stupid enough to actually take claims like hers seriously. And people like you, of course. You’re a PI lawyer’s dream.

Dork.

*

The woman must convince a Judge that she has enough evidence that Starburst injured her. If she can not present some evidence that
1) she was injured
2)it was by eating a Starburst
3)Starburst knowingly sold a dangerous or defective product (or should have known)
then she doesn’t have a case. In many cases like this, if she can not produce minimal evidence then the case is tossed as frivolous, often with costs to the plaintiff for bringing a frivolous suit.

Her lawyer either feels she has a very good case or would have advised her to forget about it.

My personal take is she most likely already had TMJ. Chewing the candy should not have exerted enough force for her muscles to pull the jaw out of the joint.