Kucinich sues cafeteria over olive pit in sandwich

[DarrinS]

WTF?

:cry

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/01/rep_dennis_kucinich_sues_cafet.html





Rep. Dennis Kucinich has sued a U.S. House of Representatives cafeteria for selling him a sandwich wrap that caused dental damage when he bit into an olive pit, according to a Jan. 3 lawsuit filed in Superior Court for the District of Columbia.

The Cleveland Democratic congressman's lawsuit seeks $150,000 in damages from companies that operate the Longworth House Office Building's cafeteria.

It says he bought the suspicious sandwich wrap "on or about April 17, 2008," and eating it caused "permanent dental and oral injuries requiring multiple surgical and dental procedures."

"Said sandwich wrap was unwholesome and unfit for human consumption in that it was presented to contain pitted olives, yet unknown to plaintiff, contained an unpitted olive or olives which plaintiff did not reasonably expect to be in the food prepared for him, and could not visually detect prior to consumption," the lawsuit said.

Kucinich's congressional office confirmed he filed the lawsuit. The document says the congressman believes he's entitled to damages for future dental and medical expenses and to compensate him for pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment.

Kucinich's attorney, Andrew R. Young, declined further comment on the litigation or the extent of Kucinich's injuries.

"It truly is a private matter," said Young, a former aide to Kucinich who has also served as a North Ridgeville council member.

A spokeswoman for the North Carolina-based restaurant company that operates the cafeteria, Compass Group, confirmed it has received the lawsuit and is reviewing the matter.

"Beyond that we don't comment on pending litigation," Compass Group Vice President Cheryl Queen said in an email.

[TeyshaBlue]

I expect Bush to sue that bag of pretzels!:ihit

[Drachen]

Maybe he could have taken the high road and not sued. Or at least sued only for the dental bills, that way he is setting an example. BS CRAP

[ElNono]

loss of enjoyment

Is that a crime? Shit, we should be suing everyone in Washington then...

[Winehole23]

Is Rep. Kucinich too lofty in income or station to seek a remedy for dental injuries caused by a misrepresented sandwich?

[TeyshaBlue]

That's what he gets for eating in the VRWC Cafe.

[Winehole23]

:lol

[coyotes_geek]

WTF? The House of Representatives doesn't have a dental plan?

[baseline bum]

That's what he gets for eating in the VRWC Cafe.

:rollin

[Nbadan]

......maybe it was really a bad sandwich

[jack sommerset]

Maybe he could have taken the high road and not sued. Or at least sued only for the dental bills, that way he is setting an example. BS CRAP

No Shit. God forbid a congressman be a good example.

[LnGrrrR]

Is Rep. Kucinich too lofty in income or station to seek a remedy for dental injuries caused by a misrepresented sandwich?

I think the problem is that the "damages caused" don't quite fall in line with the monetary amounts requested.

[fraga]

http://snl.jt.org/caps/impressions/SiRi-Dennis%20Kucinich.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

This will play over well when he tries to get reelected...

[jack sommerset]

It's a private matter so I'm sure it would not effect his re-election,l. lol

[ChumpDumper]

I doubt it will have any effect on a 2012 election.

[Winehole23]

I think the problem is that the "damages caused" don't quite fall in line with the monetary amounts requested.btw, who are you and DarrinS and jack to put a monetary value on another man's dental pain, probable complications, and current interruption of the enjoyment of life's ordinary procedures? Seriously.

Perhaps you'd like to share just how you arrived at the conclusion that the equities are out of whack here. Did the grandiose sum of $150,000 impress you?


(Please recall, lawyers must also be paid and court costs covered.)

[Winehole23]

WTF? The House of Representatives doesn't have a dental plan?One wonders, but it is hard to put an exact numerical value on pain and suffering, while giving due discouragement to heedlessness. There shouldn't be an olive pit in anybody's sandwich. Just saying.

[Winehole23]

Woe to the cafeteria, a US Rep was allegedly injured by the pit. You all suggest he's a whiny <archaic vulgarism> for suing, but would you all sue in his place? I might, and I never sued anybody.

[diego]

I run a food business, and unfortunately this kind of thing can happen- you purchase pitted olives from a provider and one of the olives was not correctly processed. Besides not being practical, it is not hygenic to squeeze every olive to check for pits, or check your walnuts or crabmeat for bits of their shells, etc. The only time it resulted in injury I paid for the customer's dental bill plus a small severance payment (not sure if im using the word correctly). 150.000, with or w/o lawyers fees, is just absurd, and if someone tried to do that to me I would shift blame to the provider of the olives. Of course, its quite different to have a problem like that, then to be serving stale/decomposing food, not comply with health regulations, and things of that ilk.
I find it kind of amazing that there is this kind of legal action for one faultily pitted olive, while the US has had dozens of E coli and salmonella outbreaks in the fast food meat industry, as far as I know with no major litigation in those cases. Of course, the people eating fast food meat probably cant afford the lawyers

[jack sommerset]

btw, who are you and DarrinS and jack to put a monetary value on another man's dental pain, probable complications, and current interruption of the enjoyment of life's ordinary procedures? Seriously.

Perhaps you'd like to share just how you arrived at the conclusion that the equities are out of whack here. Did the grandiose sum of $150,000 impress you?


(Please recall, lawyers must also be paid and court costs covered.)


One can reasonably expect that something natural might be in a product. Cherries, watermelons, apples, popcorn, cantelope, OLIVES that you could possibly chip a tooth or cause pain in this all so private matter the good congressman is going though right now. This cause the little cupcake so much pain it took almost 3 years to file this ridiculous lawsuit.

My buddy cracked a tooth on kernal of popcorn. You don't sue, he didn't sue. This is what so many people talk about today that the would like to see fixed, frivolus lawsuits. Congressman Kucinich should be embarrassed to file such a lawsuit but as we know most politicians have no shame. It could be 150 dollars or in this case a whopping 150,000 dollars, it's still bullshit and he will lose.

[sickdsm]

Apparently if your the jackass dancing in the middle of the street on Tosh the other night, you sue if you get hit by a ice cream truck.

[sickdsm]

Woe to the cafeteria, a US Rep was allegedly injured by the pit. You all suggest he's a whiny <archaic vulgarism> for suing, but would you all sue in his place? I might, and I never sued anybody.


You're pathetic.

[Blake]

I run a food business, and unfortunately this kind of thing can happen- you purchase pitted olives from a provider and one of the olives was not correctly processed. Besides not being practical, it is not hygenic to squeeze every olive to check for pits, or check your walnuts or crabmeat for bits of their shells, etc. The only time it resulted in injury I paid for the customer's dental bill plus a small severance payment (not sure if im using the word correctly). 150.000, with or w/o lawyers fees, is just absurd, and if someone tried to do that to me I would shift blame to the provider of the olives. Of course, its quite different to have a problem like that, then to be serving stale/decomposing food, not comply with health regulations, and things of that ilk.
I find it kind of amazing that there is this kind of legal action for one faultily pitted olive, while the US has had dozens of E coli and salmonella outbreaks in the fast food meat industry, as far as I know with no major litigation in those cases. Of course, the people eating fast food meat probably cant afford the lawyers

that's a good post.

:tu

[ChumpDumper]

You're pathetic.Would it be better if he called it applying for a subsidy?

[SnakeBoy]

Woe to the cafeteria, a US Rep was allegedly injured by the pit. You all suggest he's a whiny <archaic vulgarism> for suing, but would you all sue in his place? I might, and I never sued anybody.

Well he's suing because he eats like a pig and busted a tooth in the process and now wants to profit off of it. So yeah he's a whiny <archaic vulgarism>.

[LnGrrrR]

btw, who are you and DarrinS and jack to put a monetary value on another man's dental pain, probable complications, and current interruption of the enjoyment of life's ordinary procedures? Seriously.

Perhaps you'd like to share just how you arrived at the conclusion that the equities are out of whack here. Did the grandiose sum of $150,000 impress you?


(Please recall, lawyers must also be paid and court costs covered.)

It's my totally ignorant gut feeling, to be honest. Probably beacuse I've bit down on something unexpected before, and wasn't willing to sue and claim mental suffering.

Also, because the incident seemingly occurred in early 2008, over two and a half years ago and he's suing now. Did it take two years for him to get all the paperwork together?

As someone above mentioned, it's an olive pit in an olive. He didn't find a human thumb, or rat feces, or anything else that might have indicated gross negligence on the part of the food provider.

Unless he busted a tooth in half, then I don't really see the amounts requested lining up with the damages received.

[LnGrrrR]

As far as the "putting monetary value on someone else's pain", we all do that.

If he asked for 10,000,000,000 dollars, would you say the same? Would you then argue that we couldn't possibly put a monetary value on him missing out on life's enjoyments? Of course not.

Given the price of the suit, Kucinich set a price on the value of these things himself. We're just questioning his judgment, and rightfully so.

[Winehole23]

It's my totally ignorant gut feeling, to be honest. Probably beacuse I've bit down on something unexpected before, and wasn't willing to sue and claim mental suffering.So you admit your reasoning is PFA. That's a start.

Also, because the incident seemingly occurred in early 2008, over two and a half years ago and he's suing now. Did it take two years for him to get all the paperwork together?More fiat here. How does the timing affect the validity of the merits, at all?

As someone above mentioned, it's an olive pit in an olive.As mentioned in the OP, it was an olive pit in a sandwich.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that sandwiches we are sold by commercial establishments will be free of olive pits, chicken bones, ball bearings, broken glass and other impedimenta?

Unless he busted a tooth in half, then I don't really see the amounts requested lining up with the damages received. Unless you can show us he didn't, you're basically admitting you have no sound basis to assume the damages are excessive.

[TeyshaBlue]

Unless you can show us he didn't, you're basically admitting you have no sound basis to assume the damages are excessive.

I dunno Winehole. I had my entire lower jaw rebuilt after a motorcycle accident...fake teeth and the whole nine yards. It was about 15k.
I lost a shitload of "enjoyment of life" and probably incurred some amount of pain and suffering. I'm no masochist (despite my frequent postings here:lol), but I'm not sure I'd feel entitled to get rich off of it.

[doobs]

What does PFA mean? Pure fucking awesomeness?

Kucinich has a hot wife, right? If he got depressed and couldn't get it up ... well, I suppose there might be some suffering that goes along with the frustration.

[ChumpDumper]

I dunno Winehole. I had my entire lower jaw rebuilt after a motorcycle accident...fake teeth and the whole nine yards. It was about 15k.
I lost a shitload of "enjoyment of life" and probably incurred some amount of pain and suffering. I'm no masochist (despite my frequent postings here:lol), but I'm not sure I'd feel entitled to get rich off of it.Who was at fault?

[Winehole23]

I dunno Winehole. I had my entire lower jaw rebuilt after a motorcycle accident...fake teeth and the whole nine yards. It was about 15k.
I lost a shitload of "enjoyment of life" and probably incurred some amount of pain and suffering. I'm no masochist (despite my frequent postings here:lol), but I'm not sure I'd feel entitled to get rich off of it.If it was somebody else's fault, you wouldn't have sued? And because you wouldn't, a US Rep shouldn't?

(Just trying to tease out the reasoning here, such as it is.)

[Winehole23]

PFA = "pulled from air"

[TeyshaBlue]

Who was at fault?

The driver of an 1968 Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser. You know, if I'm gonna get hit, it might as well be by a big car.

[ChumpDumper]

Did they pay you anything?

[TeyshaBlue]

If it was somebody else's fault, you wouldn't have sued? And because you wouldn't, a US Rep shouldn't?

(Just trying to tease out the reasoning here, such as it is.)

I don't claim to have any particular rationale at work here...just my take on the Kucinich event. As for suing....I was made whole by the insurance...the rest is part and parcel to breathing.

[TeyshaBlue]

Did they pay you anything?

Their insurance paid for my dental reconstruction....and fixed my bike.

[ChumpDumper]

Well there you go. Kucinich might settle for less than the suit calls for, and suing for $150k doesn't exactly seem like a get rich quick scheme.

[TeyshaBlue]

Well there you go. Kucinich might settle for less than the suit calls for, and suing for $150k doesn't exactly seem like a get rich quick scheme.

Yeah, 150k aint exactly the jackpot, but it aint chicken feed either. I guess the whole notion of suing for loss of enjoyment makes me look sideways at it a bit.
I'm not even sure what the hell loss of enjoyment means in this context.

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah, 150k aint exactly the jackpot, but it aint chicken feed either. I guess the whole notion of suing for loss of enjoyment makes me look sideways at it a bit.
I'm not even sure what the hell loss of enjoyment means in this context.

Just seems like a different phrasing for pain and suffering.

[TeyshaBlue]

Just seems like a different phrasing for pain and suffering.

That was listed in addition to pain and suffering.

[Winehole23]

You're pathetic.Thanks for keeping your post short. That was a kindness to us all.

[elbamba]

Listing 150,000 is probably a statutory number rather than the amount he will actually seek and receive. Its not uncommon in PI cases where you have to meet a threshold of 2-4,000 in damages before you sue, but in places like Kansas you sue for $75,000 because that is the statutory amount. Most minor PI cases will never come close to that, but you request that amount in the petition.

DUring discovery, most defendants will submit a document that requires the plaintiff to state their specific damages. At this point, them amount usually comes down unless the medical bills hit 150,000.

There is nothing wrong with someone suing when they suffer legitimate damages. Even a congressman.

[Winehole23]

Well he's suing because he eats like a pig and busted a tooth in the process and now wants to profit off of it. So yeah he's a whiny <archaic vulgarism>.Well, at least that is honest. :tu

[elbamba]

Their insurance paid for my dental reconstruction....and fixed my bike.

That is on you. You had the right to sue and you settled for less. There is nothing wrong with that, it was just your preference. However, you would have been justified in seeking monetary compensation. Yo would not have made millions but you would have recovered more than your bills.

[LnGrrrR]

So you admit your reasoning is PFA. That's a start.

I try to admit my bias occasionally.


More fiat here. How does the timing affect the validity of the merits, at all?

Timing can affect many issues. For instance, I believe that in some cases, if you don't report a problem within a certain timeframe, then you're viewed as having "accepted" said service. As an example, say that a worker is supposed to be on time at 8:00, but he often comes in at 8:10 to 8:15.

Now, I don't verbally counsel him, I don't reprimand him, I don't do anything. Then, two years after working for me, I suddenly fire him for not showing up on time.

He could point to the lack of standard enforcement as a reason why he didn't show up on time. Because he had ignored the issue for so long, he gives the impression he "accepted" it.

Again, using your argument, do you think there should be no "statue of limitations" on it? That he should be able to sue for this problem, say, 25 years from now? I doubt you would argue that.


Isn't it reasonable to assume that sandwiches we are sold by commercial establishments will be free of olive pits, chicken bones, ball bearings, broken glass and other impedimenta?

First off, caveat emptor. Second, there is a big difference between an olive containing a pit, and an olive containing, say, broken glass. I'm sure you are aware of that and are just playing Devil's Advocate.

Did said establishment guarantee that all food served would be free from possible injury?

If Kucinich swallowed something the wrong way, and then choked on it, would the restaurant be at fault for not cutting up his food into smaller pieces as well?


Unless you can show us he didn't, you're basically admitting you have no sound basis to assume the damages are excessive.

Hogwash. I'm opining as is everyone is. You make it sound as if the number that Kucinich bandied about is some solid number. As you stated above, it is hard to put a price on damages, especially emotional/mental ones.

I have no more "sound basis" to counter his claims of monetary damages than you do for agreeing with it. I'm not denying that the man suffered damage, and I'm not denying that the restaurant may have some small amount of culpability. I'm denying that their culpability, and Kucinich's damages, are equal to such a high amount.

[boutons_deux]

the Food and Drug Administration's stunningly poetic-sounding "Food Defect Action Levels" -- the level of screwiness you are allowed to have in your food before the FDA will take action. You never actually want to get some FDA action, but you might be surprised at how much gunk can be in your product before they will show up with some bad news.

Say you're a frozen broccoli processor. Can you guess how many aphids, thrips, and/or mites you can have in 100 grams of your frozen broccoli before FDA agents will get all sad at you? Fifty-nine. You can have 59 aphids, thrips and/or mites in every three-and-a-half ounces of your product and be in the clear. Sixty is a problem, but 59? Play on, player!

Some other lines that the FDA will not allow you to cross:

Ground paprika: Average mold count is more than 20 percent; or average of more than 11 rodent hairs per 25 grams; or average of more than 75 insect fragments per 25 grams. (There is a glossary in the handbook that helpfully details "insect fragments" -- to get the equivalent of a "whole insect," all you have to do is count the body portions that have heads.)

Red fish and ocean perch: Three percent of the filets exampled contain one or more copepods accompanied by pus pockets. (Back to the glossary: "Copepods -- Small free-swimming marine crustaceans, many of which are fish parasites. In some species the females enter the tissues of the host fish and may form pus pockets." Yum-O!)

Hops: Average of more than 2,500 aphids per 10 grams (!!!).

Macaroni and noodle products: Average of 225 insect fragments or more per 225 grams.

Mushrooms, canned and dried: Average of 20 or more maggots of any size or average of five maggots 2 millimeters or longer per 100 grams of drained mushrooms and proportionate liquid or 15 grams of dried mushrooms.

Paging Rep. Kucinich! Pitted olives: Average of 1.3 percent or more by count of olives with whole pits and/or pit fragments 2 millimeters or longer.

Popcorn: 20 or more gnawed grains per pound and rodent hair is found in 50 percent or more of the subsamples.

http://www.salon.com/food/francis_lam/2011/01/27/fda_food_defect_action_levels/index.html

[LnGrrrR]

If it was somebody else's fault, you wouldn't have sued? And because you wouldn't, a US Rep shouldn't?

(Just trying to tease out the reasoning here, such as it is.)

This is why I think it depends on how much actual damage was done to the tooth. Did it crack? Did it break in some way that constituted serious reconstruction?

And, though I'm getting a bit in the weeds, is the damage caused by the olive pit considered "normal"? Ie. would a normal person eating that sandwich, biting into that olive pit, normally cause a good amount of damage? Or was it a relatively freak accident?

[Drachen]

I guess we know one of the congressmen who will not vote for tort reform. If he is going to go out and abuse it himself, that is.

[Drachen]

Listing 150,000 is probably a statutory number rather than the amount he will actually seek and receive. Its not uncommon in PI cases where you have to meet a threshold of 2-4,000 in damages before you sue, but in places like Kansas you sue for $75,000 because that is the statutory amount. Most minor PI cases will never come close to that, but you request that amount in the petition.

DUring discovery, most defendants will submit a document that requires the plaintiff to state their specific damages. At this point, them amount usually comes down unless the medical bills hit 150,000.

There is nothing wrong with someone suing when they suffer legitimate damages. Even a congressman.

I truly hope this is the case, and if it is then shame on the author for not including this information.

[Winehole23]

I have a hard time seeing what supports the prevalent assumption here that Kucinich wasn't injured. Maybe people just do it for the satisfaction of calling liberal elitists whiny.

(shrugs)

[Winehole23]

Timing can affect many issues. For instance, I believe that in some cases, if you don't report a problem within a certain timeframe, then you're viewed as having "accepted" said service. As an example, say that a worker is supposed to be on time at 8:00, but he often comes in at 8:10 to 8:15.

Now, I don't verbally counsel him, I don't reprimand him, I don't do anything. Then, two years after working for me, I suddenly fire him for not showing up on time.

He could point to the lack of standard enforcement as a reason why he didn't show up on time. Because he had ignored the issue for so long, he gives the impression he "accepted" it.

Again, using your argument, do you think there should be no "statue of limitations" on it? That he should be able to sue for this problem, say, 25 years from now? I doubt you would argue that.I didn't argue that.

And rather than argue some barely relevant hypothetical, can't we just focus on this case?

Does Rep Kucinich's legal action lie outside the statutory limitation? If not, then you basically lose this point. It should be a fairly cut and dried legal issue.

Did said establishment guarantee that all food served would be free from possible injury?I have no idea. What difference does that make? Kucinich claims he was injured. If the cafeteria is found responsible, they are liable for damages.

Hogwash. I'm opining as is everyone is. For a minute you pretended to have a reasonable view. It's to your credit you've dropped the conceit. :tu

You make it sound as if the number that Kucinich bandied about is some solid number. As you stated above, it is hard to put a price on damages, especially emotional/mental ones.El Bamba just addressed this.

I have no more "sound basis" to counter his claims of monetary damages than you do for agreeing with it. I never said I agreed with it. I only claimed your opinion was rationally faulty.

I'm not denying that the man suffered damage, and I'm not denying that the restaurant may have some small amount of culpability. I'm denying that their culpability, and Kucinich's damages, are equal to such a high amount.How you arrived at this conclusion is still anybody's guess, but you're certainly welcome to it. :toast

[Winehole23]

For example, one might reasonably forbear to sue until the extent/cost of one's injury becomes clear over time.

[RandomGuy]

Three pages on some guy suing about biting into an olive pit?

Of all the threads on the first page, this is the one that I would think would not make it past the first few posts. :lol

[Winehole23]

There's a directly proportional relationship between triviality and thread length.

Hadn't you noticed? :lol

[Winehole23]

You're pathetic.For considering a hypothetical lawsuit? If you say so, internetz tough guy.

[baseline bum]

There's a directly proportional relationship between triviality and thread length.

Hadn't you noticed? :lol

Interesting hypothesis, wh. So is the product of the importance and the length of a thread constant over the whole web? Or just in the political forum?

[Winehole23]

I don't have a refined, scientific grasp on it yet. More of a conversational one. So yeah, I meant here. :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Interesting hypothesis, wh. So is the product of the importance and the length of a thread constant over the whole web? Or just in the political forum?

Start a thread about it and let's see how it progresses.:toast:lol

[Winehole23]

The relationship isn't necessary IMO but the correlation is strongly felt.

[baseline bum]

Start a thread about it and let's see how it progresses.:toast:lol

It obviously wouldn't get many replies.

[Spurminator]

It obviously wouldn't get many replies.

Just add: ", said Sarah Palin" to the thread title.

[Winehole23]

Start a thread about it and let's see how it progresses.:toast:lolGrade inflation. I protest. Offhand comments make poor stand alone threads.

[TeyshaBlue]

Grade inflation. I protest. Offhand comments make poor stand alone threads.

You are preventing me from enjoying something. I'm gonna have to sue. :nope:lol

[Winehole23]

'member the iPod thread?

[TeyshaBlue]

....searching.....

[Winehole23]

Bowing recently came up again. Again!

[TeyshaBlue]

search fail.:depressed

[Winehole23]

Carrie Prejean.

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121430&highlight=iPod

[TeyshaBlue]

Ahhh....that thread is the gift that keeps on giving.:toast

[TeyshaBlue]

"The next head of state is getting a six pack of Schlitz and a Sham Wow":lmao

[Winehole23]

Just add: ", said Sarah Palin" to the thread title.Please don't.

[LnGrrrR]

Does Rep Kucinich's legal action lie outside the statutory limitation? If not, then you basically lose this point. It should be a fairly cut and dried legal issue.

That's for the lawyers to decide, isn't it? Whether the time elapsed from the injury and when he filed is relevant is something the lawyers will hash out.

My point was that time obviously does have some effect on people's opinions as to the validity of the claim.


I have no idea. What difference does that make? Kucinich claims he was injured. If the cafeteria is found responsible, they are liable for damages.

Of course. I've never argued otherwise. I've argued that the amounts requested are out-of-wack for the damages listed.


El Bamba just addressed this.

Yes, that was posted as I was typing my reply up.


I never said I agreed with it. I only claimed your opinion was rationally faulty.

My opinion that the amount he's requestion doesn't seem equal to the damages received is flawed? I wouldn't mind you pointing out how that opinion could be "flawed".

Do you have some precedence for monetary damages awarded in similar cases?


How you arrived at this conclusion is still anybody's guess, but you're certainly welcome to it. :toast

I used my rational thinking that biting down on an olive pit, in an olive, isn't worth $150,000 in damages. Do you think that's the proper amount?

[LnGrrrR]

For example, one might reasonably forbear to sue until the extent/cost of one's injury becomes clear over time.

Fair enough, but I would imagine that an injury to one's tooth/teeth would be readily evident. And I personally can't imagine any great deal of emotional scarring such an event might cause.

[LnGrrrR]

Listing 150,000 is probably a statutory number rather than the amount he will actually seek and receive. Its not uncommon in PI cases where you have to meet a threshold of 2-4,000 in damages before you sue, but in places like Kansas you sue for $75,000 because that is the statutory amount. Most minor PI cases will never come close to that, but you request that amount in the petition.

DUring discovery, most defendants will submit a document that requires the plaintiff to state their specific damages. At this point, them amount usually comes down unless the medical bills hit 150,000.

There is nothing wrong with someone suing when they suffer legitimate damages. Even a congressman.

And if that's the case, then I don't really have any beef with it. As I've stated above, the damages don't seem equal to $150K. If it's merely a perfunctory procedure, and he's seeking less, then no biggie.

[Winehole23]

Was emotional scarring mentioned?

[LnGrrrR]

I have a hard time seeing what supports the prevalent assumption here that Kucinich wasn't injured. Maybe people just do it for the satisfaction of calling liberal elitists whiny.

(shrugs)

Has anyone said that Kucinich wasn't injured?

[Winehole23]

Seemed so to me.

[LnGrrrR]

Seemed so to me.

Could you find a post stating that?

[Winehole23]

No. I said it was suggested. Not that somebody said it. I presume you are alive to the difference.

[Winehole23]

Could you find a post stating that?It seems plain to me that calling someone a whiny <boorish vulgarism> in public, strongly implies virtuous outrage at feigned or exaggerated suffering.

[LnGrrrR]

No. I said it was suggested. Not that somebody said it. I presume you are alive to the difference.

Exaggerated =/= feigned.

I don't think anyone denied there might have been some damage. The pertinent questions were:

1) How much damage?

2) Was said damage worth $150K (later info by elbamba withstanding)

3) Was said restaurant responsible/culpable?

Are any of those three invalid questions? I don't think it's wrong for any of us to put an assumed price on the damages Kucinich claimed. Now, if there's some info in the thread that corrects anyone (say, for instance, if someone posted info that the injury Kucinich suffered usually results in a monetary award of X amt), that'd be different.

But we're all opining on the scant amount of info contained in the OP, the only further info provided by elbamba.

[LnGrrrR]

No. I said it was suggested. Not that somebody said it. I presume you are alive to the difference.

To be fair, you went from "the prevalent assumption that Kucinich wasn't injured" to someone may have suggested it. A bit of goalpost moving.

As for the whole "emotional scarring", it's simply a more colorful term for "pain and suffering" and "loss of enjoyment".

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not even sure what the hell loss of enjoyment means in this context.
I think it means it hurts to suck dick. Who knows how much money he lost since he can't whore himself out.

[Yonivore]

I think it means it hurts to suck dick. Who knows how much money he lost since he can't whore himself out.
Apparently, about a 150Gs; Kooky Kucinich is cheap.

[sickdsm]

Would it be better if he called it applying for a subsidy?


Would it matter if he said taking the subsidy away was fine by him?


Selective memory?

[sickdsm]

For considering a hypothetical lawsuit? If you say so, internetz tough guy.


Tough guy? Did you just randomly pick a name to call me? Or did you not think of its irrelevance?

Why does it matter if its hypothetical or real? If you're going to consider it, you're going to consider it.

[ChumpDumper]

Are you not tough?

[sickdsm]

Not any more than the next guy, least not since I was younger. You looking for a enforcer type for your flag football team or what?

[ChumpDumper]

Ok, we won't call you a tough guy anymore, then.

[sickdsm]

You sound like a 14 yr old girl. You know, the one that hangs around her cooler friend and tries to impress her but only ends up trying to be like her. You have nothing to say but somehow a random reply comes from you.


Did you check with the rest of the forum? Did they concur? Do you need to check with the forum members before you make other comments also?

[ChumpDumper]

You sound like a 14 yr old girl. You know, the one that hangs around her cooler friend and tries to impress her but only ends up trying to be like her. You have nothing to say but somehow a random reply comes from you.


Did you check with the rest of the forum? Did they concur? Do you need to check with the forum members before you make other comments also?I don't check with anyone else. Why would I?

You're coming across as angry and delusional.

Sorry I got you so riled up. You aren't tough at all.

[sickdsm]

Ok, we won't call you a tough guy anymore, then.

[ChumpDumper]

Others are free to call you "tough guy" all they like. There is no name calling committee or vote.

But perhaps "whiny bitch" is more appropriate.

[sickdsm]

Does it bother you that I don't feel the need to act tough on the internet?

[sickdsm]

Who's the "we" that you had to associate yourself with? Either you had to see if they wanted to call me tough guy or its just another post by you talking out of your ass again.

[ChumpDumper]

Does it bother you that I don't feel the need to act tough on the internet?1) You may not be coming across as you intend.

2) Whiny bitch is fine also.

[ChumpDumper]

Who's the "we" that you had to associate yourself with? Either you had to see if they wanted to call me tough guy or its just another post by you talking out of your ass again.I could be using the royal "we" for all you know.

Rest assured everyone is free to call you tough guy as much as they like, including myself.

[sickdsm]

Can't you call a spade a spade? You try to say something witty and can't even make a simple statement?

Be someone of meaning. If you say something stand by it.

[Winehole23]

Why does it matter if its hypothetical or real? If you're going to consider it, you're going to consider it.I'm 43. I never sued anyone yet. I've never really considered suing anyone.

But so soon as I mention that some given set of circumstances might foreseeably cause me to consider it, you call me pathetic.

It also did not escape my notice that you have addressed other posters in this thread with notable vehemence and intensity. Burr in your saddle?

[Winehole23]

To be fair, you went from "the prevalent assumption that Kucinich wasn't injured" to someone may have suggested it. A bit of goalpost moving.It's quite possible I did not express myself originally (or recall my manner of expression) with the utmost precision. FWIW, I intended neither to deceive nor misdirect..

That said, wasn't this...

It seems plain to me that calling someone a whiny bitch in public strongly implies virtuous outrage at feigned or exaggerated suffering....a perfectly good answer?

[Winehole23]

@sickdsm:

Your avatar seems a tad aggro to me. The tough guy thing is more than suggested by your manner of address as well. I didn't pick the description at random or pull it from thin air.

[ChumpDumper]

Can't you call a spade a spade? You try to say something witty and can't even make a simple statement?

Be someone of meaning. If you say something stand by it.This seems to be really important to you.

I can't speak for the others, but if it makes you feel better I can refer to you exclusively as "whiny bitch."

Would you like that?

[Winehole23]

At any rate, if the magnitude of the lawsuit is perfunctory at the time of the filing like elbamba suggested, the inference that the damages are excessive or somehow disproportionate to the tort, fails utterly.

[Winehole23]

You sound like a 14 yr old girl.Not acting tough, remember?

You know, the one that hangs around her cooler friend and tries to impress her but only ends up trying to be like her. You have nothing to say but somehow a random reply comes from you.Fixated on cooler girl, huh? What you been doin?

Did a random reply somehow come from you, like in the joke? :lol

[sickdsm]

This seems to be really important to you.

I can't speak for the others, but if it makes you feel better I can refer to you exclusively as "whiny bitch."

Would you like that?

Actually you did speak for the others.

[diego]

i hadn't noted the delay in the suit, that actually may help his case- perhaps the store refused to acknowledge their responsiblity or lowballed him, and once unable to reach a direct agreement he resorted to a lawsuit as a last option.
Also, while I myself made the distinction that its not the same to have an olive pit in an olive than to have a foreign object or contaminated ingredients, as a food business your reputation is very important and if you sell your sandwich with "pitted olives" on the menu/by the salesperson, you have a responsiblity to respond if it isnt. If someone chokes because they havent cut their meat small enough, its not the same as them injuring themselves because you misrepresented your product, by mistake (like this incident) or intentionally (a baker here once got into a big problem because he served a cake with sugar as a "diabetic" product and nearly killed several children- the cake was taken to the diabetes ward of a pediatric clinic. His defense was that he didnt know it would be taken there, that most of the people that buy those cakes are middle aged women who want to diet- he had to pay quite a bit, but IMO not nearly enough).
In that sense, Kucinich is absolutely right to seek compensation if they have refused to give it voluntarily, but if he is seeking 150.000 for loss of enjoyment he comes off as a prick looking to profit, not someone looking for compensation.

food providers have an obligation to meet standards and offer quality products, but at the same time we can't work in temperature controlled vacuums with no direct manipulation of the products, costs would soar and no one would eat. in the end its just common sense, there is a big difference between an accident (like the olive pitt in the olive) and cost cutting/irresponsible marketing/indifferent hygiene.

[RandomGuy]

This thread gets my vote for "classic political forum thread".

[DarrinS]

Five pages of this shite? I just thought it was a funny story.

[fyatuk]

Maybe he could have taken the high road and not sued. Or at least sued only for the dental bills, that way he is setting an example. BS CRAP

Maybe I'm jaded from previous high dollar awards, but $150k doesn't seem like a bad amount to me.

Depending on what was damaged and how, the dental bills could easily run into the $30-40k range (especially since he probably sees an overcharging, over-rated dentist). Getting 2x damages in pain and suffering is reasonable, especially to anyone who's ever had a cracked tooth.

And it doesn't take much, especially if the damage wasn't caught right away. I had a dentist work on an occlusion. Didn't catch that he messed up, and a few years later I started a multi-year program to repair the damage that so far has totaled over $20k (with my dentist giving me about 25% discount). Granted, it got that bad because I wasn't seeing a dentist regularly ;)

[Capt Bringdown]

Hey Winehole, kudos on the avatar - that's one of my fav movies of all time.

And good work refuting the reactionaries, scofflaws and other self-styled rugged individualists.

[Drachen]

Maybe I'm jaded from previous high dollar awards, but $150k doesn't seem like a bad amount to me.

Depending on what was damaged and how, the dental bills could easily run into the $30-40k range (especially since he probably sees an overcharging, over-rated dentist). Getting 2x damages in pain and suffering is reasonable, especially to anyone who's ever had a cracked tooth.

And it doesn't take much, especially if the damage wasn't caught right away. I had a dentist work on an occlusion. Didn't catch that he messed up, and a few years later I started a multi-year program to repair the damage that so far has totaled over $20k (with my dentist giving me about 25% discount). Granted, it got that bad because I wasn't seeing a dentist regularly ;)

Assuming that he was charged such an over inflated price and he is seeking 100k in "pain and suffering" that seems very prima donna-esque to put that high of a price on pain and suffering. When I was six my cousin and I were having an ice fight (throwing ice at each other) I ducked a piece of ice and there was a metal folding chair right below me. Hit my front tooth on it and it exploded, so yes I know how much it hurts. Why can't people just be made whole and be happy (in the case of an accident). There is no need to punish someone for an ACCIDENT. If it was gross negligence or intentional, sure punish the shit outta them, but damn people are just out to get theirs I guess and that is what is wrong.

[fyatuk]

Assuming that he was charged such an over inflated price and he is seeking 100k in "pain and suffering" that seems very prima donna-esque to put that high of a price on pain and suffering. When I was six my cousin and I were having an ice fight (throwing ice at each other) I ducked a piece of ice and there was a metal folding chair right below me. Hit my front tooth on it and it exploded, so yes I know how much it hurts. Why can't people just be made whole and be happy (in the case of an accident). There is no need to punish someone for an ACCIDENT. If it was gross negligence or intentional, sure punish the shit outta them, but damn people are just out to get theirs I guess and that is what is wrong.

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but that's basically just how the system feeds into people's psychies. My point was that given that there is going to be an additional to the actual damages, $150k total is extremely reasonable.

Personally, I think someone should have to prove gross negligence, or intent, before collecting "pain and suffering." This was obviously just a fluke, so dental bills + lost wages + court costs should be fine.

Unfortunately, I've never heard of anyone suing for medical bills without including a "pain and suffering" or punitive damages add-on.

[ChumpDumper]

Actually you did speak for the others.Well, we'll see if they start calling you whiny bitch then, whiny bitch.

[Winehole23]

Five pages of this shite? I just thought it was a funny story.Casting disdain on your own thread. Are you ashamed of it now? :lol

[LnGrrrR]

It's quite possible I did not express myself originally (or recall my manner of expression) with the utmost precision. FWIW, I intended neither to deceive nor misdirect..

That said, wasn't this...
...a perfectly good answer?

Fair enough, but I can only speak for myself :)

[LnGrrrR]

At any rate, if the magnitude of the lawsuit is perfunctory at the time of the filing like elbamba suggested, the inference that the damages are excessive or somehow disproportionate to the tort, fails utterly.

Agreed, as stated above.

[SnakeBoy]

Depending on what was damaged and how, the dental bills could easily run into the $30-40k range (especially since he probably sees an overcharging, over-rated dentist). Getting 2x damages in pain and suffering is reasonable, especially to anyone who's ever had a cracked tooth.

And it doesn't take much, especially if the damage wasn't caught right away. I had a dentist work on an occlusion. Didn't catch that he messed up, and a few years later I started a multi-year program to repair the damage that so far has totaled over $20k (with my dentist giving me about 25% discount). Granted, it got that bad because I wasn't seeing a dentist regularly ;)

That doesn't make sense. 7 years ago I had an accident that along with a broken jaw shattered two upper molars and cracked a bottom molar. Cost around $8k for two bridges and a crown.