• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Lawsuits...Only In America

Michigan car owner sued after Jeep kills mechanic during oil change

A Michigan man who left his car at a dealership for an oil change and tire rotation is being sued after his vehicle was involved in the death of one of the dealership's employees.

Sergio Enrique Diaz-Navarro took his red 2019 Wrangler to a Chrysler Jeep Dodge dealership on March 13, 2020, and 19-year-old lube technician Daniel Thompson worked on the car. After the service was complete, the vehicle "lurched forward" as the young employee attempted to operate it, crushing 42-year-old mechanic Jeffrey Hawkins against a cabinet, court records show.

Entire article: https://www.foxnews.com/us/michigan-man-sued-after-car-kills-mechanic-during-oil-change

Guy drops his Jeep off at the dealership for an oil change. One employee changes the oil and test starts the Jeep. He doesn't know how to operate a manual transmission and doesn't have a driver's license. Jeep lunges forward killing another employee. Family of dead employee's lawyer can't sue the other employee or dealership because of legal standard preventing an employee from suing boss for negligence; so he's suing the car owner.

From the link:
"So in reality, the owner is going to be held responsible, but the dealership’s insurance company is paying," Femminineo told McClatchy News. He said he hopes a verdict in excess of $15 million is awarded.

Ok... so forget the details of the story for a moment. The owner is going to be held responsible, but the dealership's insurance company is paying? That makes no sense. If the owner is responsible, the owner's insurance should pay. The dealership's insurance should only pay if the dealership is responsible.

But the owner shouldn't be held responsible, anyway. That's just nuts. If I hand my vehicle off to a valet or a maintenance dude, I'm not handing my vehicle to "Joe", who happens to work for a Toyota dealership. I'm handing my vehicle to the Toyota dealership, and their representative. It's the dealer's responsibility to put capable people in that position. I understand that that terrible state (and many others) has laws that state you can't sue your employer for negligence (I understand that's so I can't sue for a papercut or some other lame thing). But you shouldn't sue the owner of the vehicle.
 
Upvote 0
From the link:


Ok... so forget the details of the story for a moment. The owner is going to be held responsible, but the dealership's insurance company is paying? That makes no sense. If the owner is responsible, the owner's insurance should pay. The dealership's insurance should only pay if the dealership is responsible.

But the owner shouldn't be held responsible, anyway. That's just nuts. If I hand my vehicle off to a valet or a maintenance dude, I'm not handing my vehicle to "Joe", who happens to work for a Toyota dealership. I'm handing my vehicle to the Toyota dealership, and their representative. It's the dealer's responsibility to put capable people in that position. I understand that that terrible state (and many others) has laws that state you can't sue your employer for negligence (I understand that's so I can't sue for a papercut or some other lame thing). But you shouldn't sue the owner of the vehicle.

And in the end it sounds like it will play out as it should ....

The dealerships insurance will pay out the damages. It's a shame that the vehicle owner is being dragged into this but, like the thread title says "only in America".
 
Upvote 0
Florida woman sues Kraft for $5M, saying Velveeta shells & cheese takes longer to prepare than packaging claim

Velveeta’s tagline might be “liquid gold,” but a woman in Florida has declared the company owes her quite a few pieces of silver.

On Nov. 18, Florida resident Amanda Ramirez sued the Kraft Heinz Co. for at least $5 million over what she claims is deceptive and fraudulent packaging. Ramirez says that because Kraft’s Velveeta Shells & Cheese Microwavable Shell Pasta takes longer than 3½ minutes to prepare even though its packing states “ready in 3½ minutes,” that constitutes fraud.

“To provide consumers with a Product that is actually ‘ready in 3½ minutes’ the Product would need to be cooked in the microwave for less than 3-and-a-half minutes, so that all the preparation steps could be completed in the 3-and-a-half minutes timeframe,” reads the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida.
.
.
.
Kraft Heinz said in a statement: “We are aware of this frivolous lawsuit and will strongly defend against the allegations in the complaint.”

Entire article: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...velveeta-shells-cheese-takes-longer-rcna59113
 
Upvote 0

Woman sues Disney over water slide wedgie that left her injured​

9ed147a751e48db487ab9212bbd850e7.jpg


A couple is suing Walt Disney Parks and Resorts after one of them sustained an “injurious” wedgie at Typhoon Lagoon water park.

Emma McGuinness got hurt while riding the Humunga Kowabunga water slide in October 2019, she and her husband Edward said in the lawsuit filed in Orange County, Florida last week.

She rode the slide – where guests speed 214 feet downhill – while visiting Walt Disney World with her family, in part for her 30th birthday. “The impact of The Slide and her impact into the standing water at the bottom of The Slide caused Ms. McGuinness’ clothing to be painfully forced between her legs and for water to be violently forced inside her,” the complaint said.

McGuinness, who was wearing a one-piece swimsuit, felt “immediate and severe pain internally” and was bleeding between her legs, the complaint said. She was taken by ambulance to a local hospital, and later transported to another hospital for “the repair of her gynecologic injuries.”

The couple is seeking “damages exceeding $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” Disney and attorneys listed for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The suit alleges Disney Parks was negligent “and breached its duties of reasonable care owed to Ms. McGuinness” by not giving her or other patrons protective clothing or equipment like shorts; failing to warn her of the dangers she and other women faced on the slide; not adequately maintaining or inspecting the slide to keep riders from becoming airborne and other shortcomings.

According to the complaint, riders are told to cross their legs at the ankles at the top of the slide, though they are not told why. While McGuinness assumed that position, she became airborne close to the end of the slide and was “slammed downward” against it, making it more likely her legs would become uncrossed, the suit alleged.

“Because of their particular anatomy, and as a consequence of the type of swimwear women frequently wear, the risk of water being forced inside their body is greater than it is for men,” the complaint said.

As a result, the complaint said McGuinness has faced pain and suffering, scarring mental anguish, loss of earnings and other impacts. Edward McGuinness also allegedly “suffered loss of his wife's care, comfort, consortium, support and services.”

Also:

76020669-12579347-image-a-140_1696106229211.jpg

76020667-12579347-image-a-141_1696106235546.jpg

The lawsuit included a catalog picture of a swimsuit similar to the one that McGuinness was wearing for her trip down the slide - which played a key part in her injuries.
 
Upvote 0

Elon Musk's $56 billion Tesla pay package has been tossed out by the court

The judge called Musk's compensation an 'unfathomable sum.'​

In 2018, Tesla awarded Elon Musk a $56 billion pay package that helped propel him to the top of world's richest lists. Now, a judge in Delaware has rendered the deal between the company and the CEO to be invalid and called the compensation an "unfathomable sum" that's unfair to shareholders. As initially seen and reported by Chancery Daily on Threads, the court of Chancery in Delaware has released its decision on the lawsuit filed by Richard Tornetta. The Tesla shareholder accused the automaker of breaching its fiduciary duty by approving a package that unjustly enriches its chief executive.

Judge Kathaleen McCormick wrote in the decision that Musk "enjoyed thick ties" with the directors who were in charge of negotiating his pay package on behalf of Tesla, which means there "was no meaningful negotiation over any of the terms of the plan." The judge also talked about how Musk owned 21.9 percent of the automaker when the package was negotiated. That gave him "every incentive to push Tesla to levels of transformative growth," because he stood to gain $10 billion for every $50 billion in market capitalization increase.

"Swept up by the rhetoric of 'all upside,' or perhaps starry eyed by Musk’s superstar appeal, the board never asked the $55.8 billion question: Was the plan even necessary for Tesla to retain Musk and achieve its goals?" the judge wrote in the court document. As The Washington Post notes, she ruled that Tornetta is entitled to a "rescission" and has ordered Tesla and its shareholders to carry out her decision and undo the deal. Musk's camp, however, can still appeal her ruling.

Elon Musk bashed by heavy metal drummer who cost him $56 billion

Elon Musk suffered one of the biggest legal losses in U.S. history this week when the Tesla CEO was stripped of his $56 billion pay package in a case brought by an unlikely opponent, a former heavy metal drummer.

Richard Tornetta sued Musk in 2018, when the Pennsylvania resident held just nine shares of Tesla. The case eventually made its way to trial in late 2022 and on Tuesday a judge sided with Tornetta, voiding the enormous pay deal for being unfair to him and all his fellow Tesla shareholders.

Tornetta could not be reached for a comment and his attorney declined to comment.

Until Tornetta's case, Musk prevailed in a string of trials accusing him of defamation, of breaching his duty to shareholders and of violating securities laws.

Based on his online presence, Tornetta seems to have more of an interest in creating audio gear for car-customizing enthusiasts than going after corporate excess and malfeasance.

He has posted light-hearted videos about gadgets he has created or mishaps, including describing how he torched his eyebrows.

Tornetta also turned up in videos drumming at the legendary former New York club CBGB with his now-defunct metal band "Dawn of Correction", which described its sound as "a swift kick to the face with a steel-toed work boot."

On social media, fans of Tesla and Musk seemed to find the case a travesty of justice and speculated about Tornetta's intentions and political affiliations, asking how an investor with such miniscule holdings could wield such power.

Delaware corporate case law is full of cases bearing the names of individual investors with tiny shareholdings who wound up shaping America's corporate law.

Many law firms that represent shareholders keep a stable of investors they can work with to bring cases, says Eric Talley, who teaches corporate law at Columbia Law School. They might be pension funds with a broad range of stock holdings but they are also often individuals like Tornetta.

The plaintiff signs paperwork to file the lawsuit and then generally gets out of the way, says Talley. The investors don't pay the law firm, which takes the case on contingency, as the lawyers did in the Musk case.

Tornetta benefits from winning the case the same way other Tesla shareholders benefit: saving the company billions of dollars that a subservient board of directors paid to Musk.
 
Upvote 0
And a salary plan that was approved by shareholders with Elon and his brother not voting their shares.

The issue is numerous other conflicts of interest on the board, paired with a massive package that has no comparison on the open market... it's a valid concern.
It's pretty rare for Delaware to side with the little guy; it's exactly why it's such a popular place for businesses to incorporate.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top