You sued over crunchberries?
Well, I think after a news item related to my title this week, it is time to share a couple of odd lawsuits
The big lawsuit news this week was that a lady from San Diego, California (like you had to guess, right?) sued the makers of Cap N Crunch Crunchberries cereal after realizing that the "fruit" in the cereal was actually colored cereal balls flavored with strawberry concentrate. So she decided to sue the cereal maker for fraud on behalf of all the crunchberry eating Americans. At least common sense prevailed in the court, as the judge said that a reasonable consumer would not be decieved into believing that the cereal was advertising a fruit that did not exist and tossed the lawsuit out of court. Also, the judge was uncertain how the lady could not explain how she purchased and ate the cereal for four years and not realize it was not fruit in that time. And what could seem like an even stranger foot note to this story? Apparently another court threw out a similar lawsuit the lady brought against the makers of Froot Loops. I guess in that case she was upset the cereal did not contain real "froots"?
Original story can be found here.
But that brings me to a few other odd court cases.
Such as this one from Germany, where a man and a wife could not conceive children because the husband was sterile. So the husband hired another man to have sex with his wife to produce a child. This went on for three nights a week for 6 months for a total of 72 times. Still no pregnancy. The husband then asks the man to be examined where it is discovered the man was sterile as well. When confronted, the hired man's wife admitted she knew that and that their own two children were not his. The original husband is now suing to get his money with the hired man claiming he never garunteed a pregnancy, but that he would try his hardest. Original story here.
Or maybe someone heard about the Hooters lawsuit that is explained in detail as here? Apparently Hooters sued a local chain of winghouses in southeastern US for trademark violations, including decor of restaurants and the uniforms of their waitresses, which included short shorts and small tiny shirts that accented the sure to be ample bosoms of the staff. After a three week trial (hey wouldn't that be an interseting jury to have been on?) it was decided that there was no trademark infringement and the lawsuit was tossed and Hooters was penalized for the frivilous lawsuit. More information can be found here on item 1 along with some other food related lawsuits.
The last one I want to share I will just copy and paste from the website here that has additional items as well. This is the kind of lawsuit I wish we could find all the members of the jury that decided this case and slap them with a wet mackeral or two.
In October 1998, A Terrence Dickson of Bristol Pennsylvania was exiting a house he finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up, because the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re- enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, so Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. This upset Mr. Dickson, so he sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of half a million dollars and change.
I wish I could say only in America could someone intentionally decide to cause harm and be rewarded, but if you keep your eye out on the news in the world, this is probably more common then we would like to admit.
And just so we dont end on a sad note, here is a kitten!!!!! 