Kucinich sues cafeteria over olive pit in sandwich

[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 pe ion.

DUring discovery, most defendants will submit a do ent 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 loss of enjoyment means in this context.

I think it means it hurts to suck . Who knows how much money he lost since he can't himself out.

[Yonivore]

I think it means it hurts to suck . Who knows how much money he lost since he can't 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 " 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 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.