_These people had the most frivolous reason possible for filing a lawsuit. They could have chosen to forget about it and go on with their lives, but instead, they took a stand. _
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. What were they thinking??
[Article sources listed at the end of the article.]
Landlord Sues Couple For Using Enthusiastic Emojis
Be careful what you text: In May of 2017, an Israeli landlord filed a lawsuit against a couple for what he claimed was an inappropriate use of emojis.
According to the landlord, the couple used emojis that indicated they were ready to sign a lease for his apartment but then backed out, costing the landlord a month’s rent since he had taken the unit off the market.
The landlord cited as evidence a text message from the couple reading “interested in the house… when is a good time for you [to meet]?” and containing a variety of enthusiastic emojis, including a dancing lady, a squirrel, and a champagne bottle.
When the landlord responded to set up a meeting, he says the couple “ghosted” him, refusing to text him back. In retaliation, he brought them to court… and he won.
The judge’s ruling in the case was pretty hilarious:
“The [emoji laden] text message sent by the Defendant 2 on June 5, 2016, was accompanied by quite a few symbols, as mentioned. These included a ‘smiley’, a bottle of champagne, dancing figures and more. These icons convey great optimism. Although this message did not constitute a binding contract between the parties, this message naturally led to the Plaintiff’s great reliance on the defendants’ desire to rent his apartment.”
The couple had to pay the landlord $2,200, despite never having signed a lease or lived in the apartment.
According to American attorney and social media expert Bradley Shear, the lawsuit likely would have been dropped in an American court. As Shear argues, “What one emoji may mean to one person may mean something slightly different to another.”
Woman Sues Google Maps Because It Gave Her Bad Directions
In 2010, a Los Angeles woman named Lauren Rosenberg sued Google Maps for allegedly leading her onto a highway, where she was struck by a car.
She sought damages “in excess of $100,000” from both the man who struck her in his car and from Google at the same time.
She had used Google Maps to get walking directions from one location to another in Park City, Utah. One of the streets along the route was “Deer Valley Drive,” which sounded safe to her. It turns out that’s an alternate name for State Route 244, a “rural highway with no sidewalks.”
You’d think when someone noticed they were on a highway, they would realize that it maybe wasn’t safe to keep walking on it, but Rosenberg said Google Maps was the only one to blame.
Now hold on. Google Maps’ directions aren’t always perfect, but when they are unverified in a certain case, we should note that the map includes the warning, “Walking directions are in beta. Use caution — This route may be missing sidewalks or pedestrian paths.” Rosenberg says this warning didn’t show up on her Blackberry.
Basically, in this rural locale, there was no clear walking path to where Rosenberg wanted to go. Instead, Google Maps gave its best shot and turned up with a route that probably wasn’t a good one.
But if Google was responsible for Rosenberg actually getting hit by a car, that would mean anytime you give someone directions and they turn out not to be the best directions possible, they might be able to sue you. Imagine if someone could file a lawsuit against you for thousands of dollars, all because you didn’t give them the best directions to a subway station and they had arrived late to a meeting!
While the outcome of the case is not known, most observers said they expected the judge to dismiss it on the grounds that travelers should always be required to use their common sense when choosing their route.
Man Sues Foster’s Beer For Pretending To Be Brewed In Australia
In 2015, a New York man sued Foster’s beer on the grounds that they had falsely advertised their beer as being brewed in Australia, when it is in fact brewed in Fort Worth, Texas.
The complainant, Leif Nelson, pointed out in his court documents that both the can and the company’s marketing materials contain multiple references to kangaroos, walkabout, and the star constellation that appears on the Australian flag, as well as a recurring joke teaching consumers “How to speak Australian.”
The beer was indeed first brewed in Australia in 1888, however, it has been brewed in Texas since 2011.
The judge ruled in favor of Foster’s on the grounds that they had clearly labeled the brewing location on the packaging of their beer bottles, and also on their website.
Hellman’s Mayonnaise Sues A Competitor Over The Word “Mayo”
In 2007, Unilever, which owns Hellmann’s Mayonnaise, sued a California-based company called Hampton Creek over their calling a product “Just Mayo” when it did not contain any eggs. They claimed the product was therefore not mayonnaise.
According to Unilever, “Just Mayo” was unfairly taking market share away from Hellman’s Mayonnaise as a result of its false advertising. The company pointed out that both standard dictionaries and federal regulators define “mayonnaise” as a spread containing eggs.
In response, Hampton Creek argued that they are simply trying to deliver consumers a sustainable, plant-based diet as an alternative to the consumption of eggs. They argue that their packaging indicates clearly that their product is egg-free.
The dispute, which news publications dubbed the ‘mayo war,’ finally ended with Unilever dropping their lawsuit while maintaining that Hampton Creek should consult industry experts about their product labeling.
“We share a vision with Hampton Creek of a more sustainable world,” said Mike Faherty, Unilever’s vice president of foods in North America in a statement. “It is for these reasons that we believe Hampton Creek will take the appropriate steps in labeling its products going forward.”
Hampton Creek, though, showed no signs of changing its labeling, maintaining that they felt their labeling was an appropriate way to promote the use of plant-based proteins in place of eggs. So the dispute basically continues.
Dentist Sues British Airways For Flying Him To Grenada, Not Granada
In 2014, an American dentist named Edward Gamson and his wife accidentally flew to the Caribbean on their vacation when they wanted to go to Spain, and ended up suing British Airways for the mix-up. Gamson sought $34,000 compensation for both his flights and for the lost time when he could have been working.
Why the confusion? Well, it was pretty simple. Gamson had attempted to buy a ticket to Granada with an ‘a,’ hoping to visit the quaint historical town in southern Spain. Instead, he had received a ticket for a flight to Grenada with an ‘e’–the tropical island in the Caribbean.
Gamson claimed that he had secured the tickets with a British Airways booking agent via the phone and that he had been very clear that he wanted to go to Spain, not to the Caribbean.
The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed. The judge found that British Airways had made an adequate attempt to compensate for their error by offering Gamson a new flight to Granada, Spain free of charge.
Teenage Do-Gooders Sued By Woman For Leaving Cookies On Her Doorstep
Back in 2004, a couple of Colorado teenagers decided to do something incredibly nice for their neighbors and bake them homemade cookies, then deliver them in little boxes to their doorsteps. All for nothing in return, except the satisfaction of doing something nice.
They even attached little heart-shaped cards to the boxes that read “Have a great night. From the T and L Club,” a reference to their names, Taylor and Lindsey.
The teens explained, “We think outside the box a little more than usual. We just wanted to do something nice for other people, [to] let them know other people care about them even though they didn’t know who it was.”
But there was a surprise waiting for them.
The girls started delivering cookies–only to homes that had their lights on, and doing so anonymously because they didn’t feel the need to be recognized for their good deeds.
One door they knocked on belonged to a woman named Renita Young, whose house had been burglarized not too long before that. When she heard the knock, she panicked and had an anxiety attack. She called the police, and they eventually took her to the hospital.
When the girls found out, they sent Young an apology note and an offer to pay her medical bills. “We had no idea about the burglars,” they commented. “We felt so horrible when we found out that we had caused someone harm or made them feel upset.”
But Young’s response to their apology shocked them.
Instead of simply taking them up on their offer to pay her medical bill of $900, she decided to take them to court and sue them! Not only was this a stunning response to their good deed, it also likely forced the teens’ families to spend more money on legal services.
Young won the case, and the family was ordered to pay her the $900. The girls said they were saddened by the situation, but accepted the judge’s decision. “It kind of startled us because we were trying to do something nice. It was kind of a blow,” said Lindsey Zellitti.
Now the good news: when word got out about the story, the girls were invited to appear on Good Morning America. There was also huge support from Americans in the form of monetary donations that covered the girls’ fine and then some.
“America’s been wonderful,” said Zellitti. “They’re just supporting us, making us feel so much better about this.”
Man Sues McDonald’s After Getting Only One Napkin
A 2014 lawsuit saw a Los Angeles man sue McDonald’s following a dispute over napkins.
The man claimed he had only received one napkin with his meal during a busy time at the restaurant. When he went back to the cashier to ask for more napkins, he claims the manager insisted he had already given the man napkins and “developed a nasty attitude.”
The complainant argued this negative encounter had prevented him from working due to the emotional distress, and that he was thus owed damages of _1.5 million dollars. _Yep, you read that right.
Man Sues Local Dry Cleaner For Losing His Pants
In 2007, an administrative law judge named Roy Pearson filed his own lawsuit against a local dry cleaner that he claimed lost his pants after he dropped them off.
For this mistake, he sought a whopping $54 million in damages from the owners of the store, compensating him for his “mental suffering, inconvenience, and discomfort.”
That’s one pricey pair of pants!
When Pearson showed up in court, he made the argument that he was representing hundreds of thousands of people who were potentially falling victim to ‘Satisfaction Guaranteed’ signs like the one this dry cleaner had posted. He thus referred to himself as “we” in his arguments, until the judge bluntly told him, “Mr. Pearson, you are not ‘we.’ You are an ‘I,’ and he was forced to stop.
That was only the beginning of his courtroom antics.
In 2016, a Chicago woman named Stacy Pincus sued Starbucks Coffee for what she claimed was a practice of “misrepresenting the amount of Cold Drink a customer will receive” because they contained so much ice.
In her lawsuit, she pointed out that Starbucks drinks could contain roughly 10 ounces of ice in a 24 ounce “venti”-sized container, meaning that the drinks only contained 14 ounces of liquid.
The judge ruled against Pincus and dismissed the lawsuit, citing the fact that Starbucks uses clear cups so customers can see how much ice they’re getting, while the coffee chain never explicitly states on its menus how much liquid is in a given drink.
Starbucks responded to the lawsuit by noting that customers can always ask the barista for less ice or more ice when they place their order and can ask for a new drink if they’re not satisfied.
Those Pants Must Have Been Very Special
Pearson went on in his testimony to recount the confrontation he had with the owner of the dry cleaning store, Soo Chung, and actually became emotional while he spoke.
“These are not my pants… I have in my adult life, with one exception, never worn pants with cuffs,” he said he told Chung at the time. He said Soo Chung insisted that the pants were his.
At this point in his testimony, Pearson was so emotional that he literally got up from his seat in the courtroom and rushed out, tears streaming down his face.
It was also revealed during the court hearing that Pearson had actually been banned from this dry cleaning store in 2002 after he had apparently complained about them losing a different pair of pants and be compensated $150.
In 2005, when the second “lost pants” incident occurred, he had begged the owners of Custom Cleaners to let him back into the store because he was desperate for dry-cleaning services and there were no other stores in the area. They had hesitantly agreed to let him in… and then found themselves being sued for $54 million.
A number of legal professionals criticized Pearson for his legal action. “Frivolous lawsuits like this one are an embarrassment to the profession,” said one attorney.
As if that all wasn’t bad enough, it turns out that a week after Pearson dropped off his pants, the Chung family found his missing pants and tried to return them to him. There was even a receipt tag on the pants that matched the receipt Pearson had.
Instead of just taking his pants, Pearson decided to make their lives much worse by lying and launching a very costly lawsuit against them.
Turkish City Of Batman Sues Warner Bros Over The Rights To The Name
Okay, so fun fact: there’s a city in Turkey called Batman. Hilarious, right? Well, not to the inhabitants of the city, and not to Warner Brothers, the makers of the Dark Knight movie trilogy. In 2008, the city filed a lawsuit against the Hollywood production studio because they didn’t consult the town before using the name “Batman” in their movies.
The mayor of the town, Huseyin Kalkan, came up with this gem of a quote to justify the lawsuit: “There is only one Batman in the world.” He claimed that the city was entitled to royalties from the wildly successful films. He also said, ridiculously, that the movies had caused “psychological damage” to his town and were thus responsible for a variety of their social problems. Hey, maybe try actually addressing the social problems, Mister Mayor?
Man Sues His Friend After Being Attacked By Her Cat
In 2011, an Illinois man named William Baxter filed a lawsuit claiming that a friend’s cat had “viciously” ambushed him and sunk its teeth into his finger. For his “injuries,” he sought $100,000 in damages–$50,000 for the scratches on his arm, and another $50,000 for his swollen finger.
Baxter claimed he was attempting to feed the cat when it “without provocation, viciously attacked, bit and clawed” him, leaving said damages. He added that he “will in the future continue to suffer,” but didn’t specify exactly how or why he would be suffering as a result of some cat scratches.
A further investigation into the case by the Chicago-based newspaper Southtown Star, now _Daily Southtown, _found an added twist to the case.
According to the Star, they found a record showing that Baxter and Christine Bobak, the owner of the cat, were at least at the time husband and wife.
If this was a domestic issue between two spouses, that certainly casts a different light on this case of feline ferociousness. Which might be the reason that Baxter chose not to mention his marital status to the court when he filed his lawsuit.
New York Antique Dealer Sues Homeless Men For $1 Million
Karl Kemp is a New York businessman who owns Karl Kemp Antiques, a high-end store on Madison Avenue in New York City. In 2007, he got fed up with the handful of homeless men who were effectively living on the sidewalk outside his store. So he decided to sue four of them for a whopping $1 million in damages, plus a restraining order barring them from within 100 feet of his store.
To be fair, Kemp argued that he had tried a variety of more peaceful methods to try and get the homeless individuals to leave his premises, however, nothing had worked. He saw his lawsuit as a last resort to protect his business.
But there were many critics of Kemp’s decision to sue.
One of the most vocal critics was Shelly Nortz of the Coalition for the Homeless, who pointed out that just because the homeless individuals “occasionally occupy a space that is also home to Gucci and Chanel, doesn’t mean that they’re breaking any law.”
“I think it’s preposterous,” she added.
Kemp was probably aware that the defendants did not have the $1 million he was suing for, and instead he mostly just wanted the restraining order. But even his lawyer acknowledged that they weren’t technically breaking the law.
Man Sues The Kansas City Royals After Taking A Hot Dog To The Face
A 2009 case saw one of the most absurd “weapons” ever entered as evidence in a courtroom: a hot dog.
At a Kansas City Royals baseball game, the team’s mascot “Sluggerrr” was doing his job: tossing hot dogs into the crowd in between innings, as he did every game. But this game was different. This time, he hurled a hot dog into the stands… and it collided with a fan’s face.
Complainant John Coomer claimed in his lawsuit that he had suffered a detached retina in his left eye as a result of the hot dog collision, and hoped that the team would reimburse him for his $16,000 in medical expenses.
The jury found him to be completely at fault for the accident, due to what is known as the “baseball rule”–the idea that any fan who attends a baseball game is responsible for protecting themselves from any ball or even a bat that falls into the stands.
But Coomer wasn’t done, and he appealed the case.
In this second court case, jurors listened to evidence from all parties, and made a new verdict: that neither Toomer _nor _the team was to be held legally responsible for his injury.
Coomer told the media following the verdict, “I played sports [when I was younger], but when things come at you that you don’t expect or don’t anticipate or didn’t ask for, I think its a little unfair for me to have to react to that, that’s all.”
Pretty hilariously, the actor who played Sluggerrr at the time, Byron Shores, appeared to testify at the trial. He is quoted as admitting that the hot dog toss that allegedly injured Coomer’s eye was a “no-look, behind-the back” pass–which, aside from being a hilarious image, also suggests that it would not have been a very powerful throw.
Altogether, it’s kind of incredible to know the impact that one hot dog can have on a person’s life.
Note: Comments have been edited for clarity.