fear factor sued

dragon · Post by **dragon** » 2005-01-07 02:06pm

Man we americans are just to sue happy

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/01/0 ... index.html

CLEVELAND, Ohio (AP) -- A viewer is suing NBC for $2.5 million, contending that he threw up because of a "Fear Factor" episode in which contestants ate rats mixed in a blender

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-07 02:09pm

Aitken's handwritten lawsuit ....

Aitken, a 49-year-old part-time paralegal ...

Oh yeah, he sounds like a real pro!

I think I can speak for the first judge to get a hearing on this when I say:

"DISMISSED!"

He must not live in a state where the sanctions for frivolous suits are heavy.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-01-07 02:12pm

Chmee wrote:
Aitken's handwritten lawsuit ....

Aitken, a 49-year-old part-time paralegal ...
Oh yeah, he sounds like a real pro!

I think I can speak for the first judge to get a hearing on this when I say:

"DISMISSED!"

He must not live in a state where the sanctions for frivolous suits are heavy.

I still content that the penlity for frivolous lawsuits be raised to minium of 1000 hours of community service and wearing a giant "dumbass" sign on your back while your doing it

Yes plus the fine

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2005-01-07 02:23pm

Rats mixed in a blender? Please tell me they were dead first.

Robert Walper · Post by **Robert Walper** » 2005-01-07 02:59pm

Rye wrote:Rats mixed in a blender? Please tell me they were dead first.

I'd hope so, but wouldn't be surprised if they weren't. They had one one ages ago with eating live cockroaches or something. Kinds pissed me off really. Insect or not, I'm not one for unnecessarily killing anything, particularily for entertainment.

Furthermore, "fear factor" irritates me with the bullshit "eat this" segments. That's not "fear" factor, it "gross" factor. There's nothing "scary" about eating shit that ain't tasty or appealing. Just fucking gross. Walking a tight-rope between two buildings or performing some feat on a moving vehicle and other similar acts is fear factor.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-01-07 03:09pm

Chmee wrote:He must not live in a state where the sanctions for frivolous suits are heavy.

I'm waiting for the state with the penalties for making stupid shitty TV are appropriately high....

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2005-01-07 03:10pm

I don't think this lawsuit is as bad a sthe one where a mother tripped over her own misbehaving children at a store and sued the store---and won....

Mlenk · Post by **Mlenk** » 2005-01-07 03:42pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:I don't think this lawsuit is as bad a sthe one where a mother tripped over her own misbehaving children at a store and sued the store---and won....

WTF?

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2005-01-07 04:24pm

Fucking stupid isn't it?

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2005-01-07 05:26pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:Fucking stupid isn't it?

I think that story's an urban legend, and Snopes has a page on it.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2005-01-07 11:30pm

Mlenk wrote:
Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:I don't think this lawsuit is as bad a sthe one where a mother tripped over her own misbehaving children at a store and sued the store---and won....
WTF?

Well that event being proven an Urban Legend,i can tell you about a real lawsuit that hapen here 20 years ago,(A robber entered during the night in an hardware store on the corner of St Laurent street and Jean Talon,he tripped on a ladder that was lying on the floor,broke his ankle and in the morning the owner found him still there called the cops,but to his surprise the fucker sued him for his injury sustained during his robbery atempt and the dumbfuck judge ruled in his favor.

gotta love Quebec justice.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-07 11:37pm

You would understand that verdict if you understood the principles underlying liability law rather than leaping to an emotional conclusion.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-01-07 11:40pm

Darth Wong wrote:You would understand that verdict if you understood the principles underlying liability law rather than leaping to an emotional conclusion.

The guy broke into someones house, and got hurt doing so, not because
the evil house owner purposely left a ladder laying on the floor to cripple
him.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-07 11:43pm

Ah, I see another person who tries to prove that something runs afoul of the principles of liability law by simply emoting about it.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-01-07 11:47pm

Darth Wong wrote:Ah, I see another person who tries to prove that something runs afoul of the principles of liability law by simply emoting about it.

How the fuck can you be responsible for someone breaking the law? It's like
trying to sue pig farms because they're a convient place to dispose of a corpse.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-07 11:51pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Ah, I see another person who tries to prove that something runs afoul of the principles of liability law by simply emoting about it.
How the fuck can you be responsible for someone breaking the law? It's like
trying to sue pig farms because they're a convient place to dispose of a corpse.

The verdict does not require that you be responsible for someone breaking the law. If you are ignorant of how liability law works, you can always try to be mature and admit it rather than inventing caricatures of the system.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2005-01-07 11:55pm

Furthermore, "fear factor" irritates me with the bullshit "eat this" segments. That's not "fear" factor, it "gross" factor. There's nothing "scary" about eating shit that ain't tasty or appealing. Just fucking gross. Walking a tight-rope between two buildings or performing some feat on a moving vehicle and other similar acts is fear factor.

Considering that they use heavy safety equipment when doing so and there is virtualy zero percent chance of getting hurt it is not even about fear at all.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2005-01-07 11:57pm

Considering that they use heavy safety equipment when doing so and there is virtualy zero percent chance of getting hurt it is not even about fear at all.

The emotion of fear is not depenent of the reality of safety. If it was, we would never be afraid of horror movies.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2005-01-08 12:44am

frigidmagi wrote:The emotion of fear is not depenent of the reality of safety. If it was, we would never be afraid of horror movies.

To a point true, but on the other hand I watched the ads for that Renegade Billionaire show, and yippee, so a bunch of heavily harnessed people are wandering around high places...

Not that I want them going without the safety net and getting splattered, but it is kind of ridiculous to go on about how dangerous it is.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2005-01-08 01:10am

Not that I want them going without the safety net and getting splattered, but it is kind of ridiculous to go on about how dangerous it is.

Agreed it is over hyped to the point of idiotcy.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2005-01-08 06:25am

Fear Factor's "gross food" policy is that while insects may be eaten live as long as they are nontoxic, all mammal parts must be boiled first.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-01-08 07:25am

So, Mike, how exactly does liability law allow a robber to sue his victim?

Robert Walper · Post by **Robert Walper** » 2005-01-08 07:50am

The Shadow wrote:
Furthermore, "fear factor" irritates me with the bullshit "eat this" segments. That's not "fear" factor, it "gross" factor. There's nothing "scary" about eating shit that ain't tasty or appealing. Just fucking gross. Walking a tight-rope between two buildings or performing some feat on a moving vehicle and other similar acts is fear factor.
Considering that they use heavy safety equipment when doing so and there is virtualy zero percent chance of getting hurt it is not even about fear at all.

My point is that eating gross shit is not scary. It's just gross. And knowing you're virtually safe has nothing to do with fear factor. I'd still be shitting my pants in a shark cage with great whites chewing on the bars.

Fleet Admiral JD · Post by **Fleet Admiral JD** » 2005-01-08 09:51am

HemlockGrey wrote:So, Mike, how exactly does liability law allow a robber to sue his victim?

I have the same question. When someone breaks the law, don't they give up all of their rights?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-08 10:23am

HemlockGrey wrote:So, Mike, how exactly does liability law allow a robber to sue his victim?

Liability law has nothing to do with the plaintiff's moral character. It is strictly based on the question of whether the defendant was negligent. Suppose the store was not broken into and instead, an employee came in that morning and hurt himself in the same manner. He could easily sue the store owner, and no one would scream "bullshit!"

The purpose of liability laws is to discourage and punish negligence. Given that purpose, the moral character of the injured person is a red herring. Mind you, the robber would still go to prison for B&E, and I doubt he would get a really big award considering his situation.