[arrasleds]

If this guy ever shoots himself in the head, Glock's gonna be in big trouble.

--------------------------

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/16/D8GCLEN02.html

Man Hits His Own Car Then Sues Himself

Mar 16 7:17 AM US/Eastern
LODI, Calif.

When a dump truck backed into Curtis Gokey's car, he decided to sue the city for damages. Only thing is, he was the one driving the dump truck. But that minor detail didn't stop Gokey, a Lodi city employee, from filing a $3,600 claim for the December accident, even after admitting the crash was his fault.

After the city denied that claim because Gokey was, in essence, suing himself, he and his wife, Rhonda, decided to file a new claim under her name.

City Attorney Steve Schwabauer said this one also lacks merit because Rhonda Gokey can't sue her own husband.

"You can sue your spouse for divorce, but you can't sue your spouse for negligence," Schwabauer said. "They're a married couple under California law. They're one entity. It's damage to community property."

But Rhonda Gokey insisted she has "the right to sue the city because a city's vehicle damaged my private vehicle."

In fact, her claim, currently pending at Lodi City Hall, is for an even larger amount _ $4,800.

"I'm not as nice as my husband is," she said.

[thargeagsaf]

I wonder if his lawyer is charging him a retainer...

[Asianunta]

Wow. I'm not quite sure whether to laugh hysterically or break out in tears.

[rorsvierwelia]

Sad part is that under the law, SHE may actually have an valid cause of action if the damage was done in HIS capacity as a city employee rather than as HER spouse.

[arindiruppyr]

Sad part is that under the law, SHE may actually have an valid cause of action if the damage was done in HIS capacity as a city employee rather than as HER spouse.

Legislate as we might, people will always invent unprecedented ways to be morons. I think we can all agree that rewarding them is not the best policy.

I always thought it would be cool if judges were allowed to mete out a ruling of "waste of the court's time" whereby the lawyer representing the plaintiff had to pay punitive fines in the amount that he was seeking for his client. I would imagine this would put a cap on both the number of lawyers, and the lottery rewarding stupidity that is our court system - both of which are sorely needed.

[BigMovies]

drgoodtrips
Legislate as we might, people will always invent unprecedented ways to be morons. I think we can all agree that rewarding them is not the best policy. I think that if we were to apply the standard of not rewarding people for behaving stupidly or unwisely to all public policy, it would mean the end of the democratic party.

drgoodtrips
always thought it would be cool if judges were allowed to mete out a ruling of "waste of the court's time" whereby the lawyer representing the plaintiff had to pay punitive fines in the amount that he was seeking for his client. I would imagine this would put a cap on both the number of lawyers, and the lottery rewarding stupidity that is our court system - both of which are sorely needed. The opponents of tort reform would argue that the threat of those huge punitive awards is what keeps many big companies somewhat in check, and they are correct.

The way around this however is not to eliminate or limit punitives, but to treat them as fines by the state rather than awards to the plantiff. What plantiff's and their lawyer's receive SHOULD be limited to compensatory damages plus a percentage to cover legal fees; putitives should go to the jurisdiction the case is heard in. This eliminates the incentive for lawyers and plantiffs to play the litigation lottery, without eliminating the threat of these charges to business.

[Cinzomzm]

There is already established law which punishes lawyers for pursuing frivolous lawsuits. The various state and federal laws allow judges to impose hefty fines. I remember a case last year which resulted in a fine over $250,000

[gZAhTyWY]

Legislate as we might, people will always invent unprecedented ways to be morons. I think we can all agree that rewarding them is not the best policy.

I always thought it would be cool if judges were allowed to mete out a ruling of "waste of the court's time" whereby the lawyer representing the plaintiff had to pay punitive fines in the amount that he was seeking for his client. I would imagine this would put a cap on both the number of lawyers, and the lottery rewarding stupidity that is our court system - both of which are sorely needed.

GOD YES !!!!

[Dildos]

There is already established law which punishes lawyers for pursuing frivolous lawsuits. The various state and federal laws allow judges to impose hefty fines. I remember a case last year which resulted in a fine over $250,000

Aparently it's not enough.

There are so many frivolous lawsuits and garbage cases clogging the system.

[FinanseMikky]

A case made the news here in Australia a few weeks ago about an Australian local councillor who was holiday’s in the US, who whilst in a cinema watching a movie where a woman in the row in front of her answered her mobile phone and started having a conversation. The Oz lady reached forward and tapped her on the shoulder to ask her to stop, where upon the lady leaped to her feet screaming assault and invasion of personal space, ran out of the cinema, found a police officer, came back and charged the Oz lady, who appeared in court a few days later. Now, you ask if the US is to litigation happy. I would have thought that the question doesn’t even need to be asked as the answer is painfully all too bloody well obvious.

[indentKew]

A case made the news here in Australia a few weeks ago about an Australian local councillor who was holiday’s in the US, who whilst in a cinema watching a movie where a woman in the row in front of her answered her mobile phone and started having a conversation. The Oz lady reached forward and tapped her on the shoulder to ask her to stop, where upon the lady leaped to her feet screaming assault and invasion of personal space, ran out of the cinema, found a police officer, came back and charged the Oz lady, who appeared in court a few days later. Now, you ask if the US is to litigation happy. I would have thought that the question doesn’t even need to be asked as the answer is painfully all too bloody well obvious.

Was this national news? If so, I wonder how the image of the US has changed for those who saw it?

[C7JjVczP]

Well, if she wins, they may fire him. So they can get 4000 dollars and he can loose his job. That's a good trade.

[Herimoisige]

Well, if she wins, they may fire him. So they can get 4000 dollars and he can loose his job. That's a good trade.

Unless he is unionized, but that is another thread.

[OlgaBorovikovva]

Well, if she wins, they may fire him. So they can get 4000 dollars and he can loose his job. That's a good trade.

That would actually be the most fitting outcome, I believe. Good call.

[Obgrfbke]

Aparently it's not enough.

There are so many frivolous lawsuits and garbage cases clogging the system.

Apparently the judges don't agree with you. But what the hell do they know?

[AnypecekceS]

Was this national news? If so, I wonder how the image of the US has changed for those who saw it?

It did make the national news in Australia for a couple of days, including a efw days after the fact with the result, when the so-called assaulter pled guilty. If found a link to the story for you http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...037819272.html

[DuePew]

If this doesnt PROVE that this country needs lawsuit reform nothing will.

This is soooo sad its funny.
This lawsuit should get thrown out of court and this guy out of a job.

[LindaSmithXV]

If this guy ever shoots himself in the head, Glock's gonna be in big trouble.

--------------------------

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/16/D8GCLEN02.html

Man Hits His Own Car Then Sues Himself

Mar 16 7:17 AM US/Eastern
LODI, Calif.

When a dump truck backed into Curtis Gokey's car, he decided to sue the city for damages. Only thing is, he was the one driving the dump truck. But that minor detail didn't stop Gokey, a Lodi city employee, from filing a $3,600 claim for the December accident, even after admitting the crash was his fault.

After the city denied that claim because Gokey was, in essence, suing himself, he and his wife, Rhonda, decided to file a new claim under her name.

City Attorney Steve Schwabauer said this one also lacks merit because Rhonda Gokey can't sue her own husband.

"You can sue your spouse for divorce, but you can't sue your spouse for negligence," Schwabauer said. "They're a married couple under California law. They're one entity. It's damage to community property."

But Rhonda Gokey insisted she has "the right to sue the city because a city's vehicle damaged my private vehicle."

In fact, her claim, currently pending at Lodi City Hall, is for an even larger amount _ $4,800.

"I'm not as nice as my husband is," she said.

...and they wonder why insurance rates keep rising, followed by property taxes to pay for the insurance premiums, etc...!!