Stupid Law Suits

PORTLAND, Oregon - An Oregon man has filed a $1.6 million "loss of companionship" claim against a neighbor who ran over his family's 13-year-old dog, Grizz.

Raymond Weaver ran over the golden retriever and cocker spaniel mix in 2004 with a pick-up truck, forcing the owner, Mark Greenup, to have the animal euthanized, according to a lawsuit by Greenup.

Greenup, whose claim is usually reserved for the loss of a spouse, says the dog provided each member of his family with solace, affection, friendship, love and protection.

Larry Dawson, the driver's attorney, said the dog's injuries were not serious enough to require euthanasia and wants the court to dismiss the loss of companionship claim.

"I've owned dogs and I love them dearly," said Dawson. "But they are by law personal property and you do not get noneconomic damages for personal property."

The case goes to trial on Tuesday in Clackamas County Circuit Court.

What the fuck is wrong with people and why is this law suit even being entertained?

It's really starting to piss me off that courts are being tied up with this stupid shit and it's cluttering it up for people with real cases and I think it's time that court systems the world over started putting their foot down and just put the people that file this stupid shit into prison and then after they've dealt with the fucktarded applicants who have nothing better to do with their lives than waste it in litigation, they should then put into prisons the money hungry lawyers that told the fucktarded applicant that they really had a case.

Two reasons why this case should not go through:

First of all, a 13 year old dog? It was on its last legs anyway. In fact, this dog actually exceeded the average dog lifespan by a year and maybe his number was up.

The defendant only ran over the dog ONCE, so this was clearly an accident. It's only malicious and intentional if you run over it twice or more.

Seeing as we can now make up shit to suit our own needs, I present to the court this: If the fucktarded applicant is applying a law that is usually meant for the loss of a spouse then doesn't this mean that the State can now sue him for reckless endangerment of a spouse by letting the spouse roam free without a leash (think about it... and oink for me piggies) and for illegal euthanisation of said spouse?

When did it become okay to be so freaken retarded over the dumbest shit?

Posted By: Lint | 10:09 AM | Rants

« Freaken Spam | Main | Lordi Lordi Lordi »