I can't believe this is making it to court

[lady_zana]

As I drove back from court this morning, I thought of an example that might drive home my point.

Many of us on this board, myself included, put no limit on the value of our pets' lives. No amount of money could 'make me whole' if I lost one of my beloved animals to the negligence of another. The justice system, in many states, DOES place a value, sadly, usually at the cost of the pet. I think this is wrong. Very wrong, and needs to be changed (an example of 'tort reform').

But, there are more people out there that have the 'get over it, it was just an animal' attitude. So, is their valuation of my 'loss' right? Not in my eyes.

So as to this situation. The slight twist here is that this guy is trying to send a message, and had this been a big chain retailer/manufacturer (uh, how about Iams, for example?), this would have been applauded by some, I imagine.

This truly is not about the value of the pants.

Yes, there are people who will say 'it's just an animal; get another one' but I think most people would understand that while you could get another pet, it still wouldn't *be* your pet back. If one of my cats passed away, I could adopt another and I know I would love her as much as my old one but she still wouldn't be Grey Girl or Eepie, or any of my others. I think most people understand that animals have faces, and feelings, and souls. They aren't actually material objects.

Pants are pants. You can replace pants. They are material objects. And none of the articles I read about mentioned that these pants had any other value, sentimental or otherwise, than any other pair of pants you could buy off the rack.

I know I am not a sentimental person; there are things in my house that if they got lost or stolen, I'd be upset over but nothing to the degree this man has went to over a pair of pants. I tried to think of something that meant that much to me and I couldn't. Even my wedding dress, if it got stolen or lost, I'd be sad over for a bit but then I'd be fine. I'm not the sort of person who needs the object to keep the memories. (Then again, if someone stole my metal Kingdom Keyblade, I'd have to come after them! )

Also, Iams is a large corporation; they have the money to defend themselves. Not that I mean you should never sue a mom-and-pop business but in this case, this man has deliberately ruined a family who had came to America trying to live the American Dream. There are things Iams should have done to protect the consumer and there are things this dryer cleaner should have done to protect the consumer. But Iams has literally thousands of people who let the ball drop, not a little family trying to make their rent.

I also don't understand why the owner of the cleaners didn't try to settle out of court. A $50 pair of pants doesn't seem worth going to court over, from the cleaners perspective. It'd be cheaper to pay the money for the pants than the amount the man is suing for. Like I said, maybe they didn't have the option to settle out of court???

This article doesn't mention it but the dry cleaners did try to settle out of court three times, the final time for around $12,000. The judge who is suing them refused to settle.

Lady Zana.
What a VERY excellent post.

Thank you, wombat. I'm glad to hear from you; I always enjoy your posts, especially the jokes you post.

[wombat2u2004]

$54 million lawsuit over misplaced pair of pants goes to trial in Washington

WASHINGTON: Roy Pearson Jr. wanted to dress sharp for his new job as an administrative law judge here. So when his neighborhood dry cleaner misplaced a pair of expensive pants he had planned to wear his first week on the bench, Pearson was annoyed.
So annoyed that he sued - for $67.3 million.
The case of the judge's pants, which opened for trial in a packed courtroom here Tuesday, has been lampooned on talk radio and on the Internet as an example of American legal excess. And it has spurred complaints to the District of Columbia Bar and to city officials from national tort reform and trial lawyer groups worried about its effect on public trust in the legal system.
"I don't know of any other cases that have been quite this ridiculous," said Paul Rothstein, a professor of law at Georgetown University.
The trial, laced with references to inseam measurements, pants cuffs and designer labels, got off to a rocky start. Judge Judith Bartnoff of District of Columbia Superior Court limited Pearson's last-minute bid to broaden aspects of his case and cut short his efforts to portray himself as a "private attorney general" championing the rights of every Washington consumer.
"You are not a we, you are an I," Bartnoff said in one of several testy exchanges with Pearson, 57, who is representing himself. "You are seeking damages on your own behalf, and that is all."
Later, while recounting the day he says the cleaners tried to pass off a cheaper pair of pants as his, Pearson began to cry, asking for a break and dabbing tears as he left the courtroom.
The lawsuit dates to the spring of 2005. Pearson, a longtime legal aid lawyer, was appointed to a new job as a District of Columbia administrative law judge.
Pearson says in court papers that he owned exactly five suits, all Hickey Freemans, one for each day of the workweek. But the waistlines had grown "uncomfortably tight." So he brought the suits to Custom Dry Cleaners, in a strip mall in gritty northeast Washington, for alterations.
When the owners, Korean immigrants who came to the United States in 1992, could not find one pair of pants, Pearson demanded $1,150 for a replacement suit. The owners did not respond; he sued.
Using a complicated formula, Pearson argues that under the city's consumer protection law, the owners, Soo and Jin Chung and their son, Ki Chung, each owe $18,000 for each day over a nearly four-year period in which signs at their store promised "Same Day Service" and "Satisfaction Guaranteed."
In opening statements, Pearson cast himself as a victim of fraud on a historic scale, perpetrated by malicious business owners who had no intention of delivering on those promises.
"You will search the D.C. archives in vain for a case of more egregious or willful conduct," he told the court. He called a series of witnesses who complained of rude or unresponsive treatment at Custom Dry Cleaners.
The defendants' lawyer, Christopher Manning, told the judge that his clients were the victims. He characterized Pearson as a man embittered by financial woes and a recent divorce who had nursed a grudge against the Chungs since a spat over a different pair of pants in 2002.
Manning said there was no mystery about the whereabouts of the pants: They have been hanging in his office closet for a year. Pearson, however, has said that those are "cheap" knockoffs the Chungs had substituted for his pinstriped Hickey Freemans.
He has rejected three settlement offers, the latest, in March, for $12,000. Last week, Pearson revised a few claims and lowered his damages request to $54 million.
Pearson's future as an administrative law judge is in limbo. His two-year term expired on May 2, and a panel has yet to decide on his reappointment. In the meantime, he remains on the city payroll as an attorney adviser to the Office of Administrative Hearings, at a salary of $100,512.

OMG....haven't the courts in USA enuf REAL issues to handle ????
The world is watching.......and LAUGHING !!!!!!!
Wom

[lizbud]

quote:

"OMG....haven't the courts in USA enuf REAL issues to handle ????
The world is watching.......and LAUGHING !!!!!!!
Wom "


You might be getting a kick out of it, but I doubt the WORLD cares one
way or the other.

[wombat2u2004]

quote:

"OMG....haven't the courts in USA enuf REAL issues to handle ????
The world is watching.......and LAUGHING !!!!!!!
Wom "


You might be getting a kick out of it, but I doubt the WORLD cares one
way or the other.

You must admit tho LB......this IS bordering on the ridiculous !!!!
Wom

[Taz_Zoee]

Well, I didn't realize they had tried to settle out of court three times. I also didn't realize this man is a judge!! That explains a lot.
And yes, it is becoming ridiculous!! So you don't like that dry cleaners.....go somewhere else!!! Is that the only dry cleaners in the state??
This has gotten blown up way out of proportion, IMO. I just keep thinking something like this could happen to my parents. That's not cool.

[RICHARD]

LOLOLOLOL,

What a PW.

Crying over a pair of pants?

I can see where he is upset that the pair of pants that the cleaners had were not his.

His pair had a hole in the rear so he could duck his head into them.

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


Any man who would make a big deal outta a pair of pinstriped Hinky Peeman pants doesn't deserve the time of day.


But then again, anyone who has to namedrop the brand of pants they wear deserves a little ridicule.

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


Next we will see suits for people who have lost their minds or their virginity.

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

I love the line about a person who represents himself as having a fool for a client.

I think we can amend the client to triple AH, in this case!

[wombat2u2004]

His pair had a hole in the rear so he could duck his head into them.

LOLOLOLOL

[joycenalex]

[QUOTE=RICHARD]


Next we will see suirs for people who have lost their minds or their virginity.

HEY! i got an idea.....
naw i got too much common sense to do something like that

[lizbud]

You must admit tho LB......this IS bordering on the ridiculous !!!!
Wom

It doesn't matter if we think it's ridiculous, the law allows it to be
considered. If we don't like it, we can vote to change the law. I for
one, am glad that these laws exist.Who knows, I might want to use
this process one day for myself.

[wombat2u2004]

It doesn't matter if we think it's ridiculous, the law allows it to be
considered. If we don't like it, we can vote to change the law. I for
one, am glad that these laws exist.Who knows, I might want to use
this process one day for myself.

Well thats fine, so long as you and everyone else are REASONABLY responsible for your/their own actions.
Wom

[lizbud]

Well thats fine, so long as you and everyone else are REASONABLY responsible for your/their own actions.
Wom

How kind of you to allow me a right under OUR laws.