Kucinich sues cafeteria over olive pit in sandwich

WTF?

:cry

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index....ues_cafet.html

Quote:

---

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.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

loss of enjoyment

---

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

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

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

:lol

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

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

---

:rollin

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

http://snl.jt.org/caps/impressions/S...20Kucinich.jpg

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

You're pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

that's a good post.

:tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

You're pathetic.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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>.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

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.)

PFA = "pulled from air"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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.

Did they pay you anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Did they pay you anything?

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Just seems like a different phrasing for pain and suffering.

---

That was listed in addition to pain and suffering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

You're pathetic.

---

Thanks for keeping your post short. That was a kindness to us all.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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

---

I try to admit my bias occasionally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

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_la...els/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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

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

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

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

Hadn't you noticed? :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

You're pathetic.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

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

---

It obviously wouldn't get many replies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

It obviously wouldn't get many replies.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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

'member the iPod thread?

....searching.....

Bowing recently came up again. Again!

search fail.:depressed

Carrie Prejean.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...highlight=iPod

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

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

---

Please don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

El Bamba just addressed this.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Was emotional scarring mentioned?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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)

---

Has anyone said that Kucinich wasn't injured?

Seemed so to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Seemed so to me.

---

Could you find a post stating that?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

Are you not tough?

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?

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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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

---

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.