By jameen - 07/05/2016 11:48 - United Kingdom - Newbury

Today, a woman rear-ended my car. She's trying to sue me for 'emotional damage'. FML
I agree, your life sucks 14 737
You deserved it 1 030

Same thing different taste

Top comments

Tbh some people are just stupid af they sue for the dumbest shit ever. I remember a while ago a burglar broke in a house, got attacked by the owners dog, sued because the owner didn't have a beware of dog sign, and won the case like wtf is up with all this bullshit.


Mungolikecandy 19

A litigious society is one of those exports which the U.S. has passed on to the rest of the world.

Steve97 32

Might be an American tourist :p

Maybe you should counter sue her whiplash.

MikaykayUnicorn 36

Can you sue someone for being an idiot? Because if you can, OP should.

Tbh some people are just stupid af they sue for the dumbest shit ever. I remember a while ago a burglar broke in a house, got attacked by the owners dog, sued because the owner didn't have a beware of dog sign, and won the case like wtf is up with all this bullshit.

Hang on, the jackass-piece-of-shit that was trying to cause emotional harm won a case involving a dog bite? I think I just made my head permanently spin while reading that.

Comment moderated for rule-breaking.

Show it anyway

I heard another one similar where a guy fell onto a knife while breaking into a woman's house. He sued and won.

#9 That isn't the owner's fault, the Dog may of been trying to protect the owner's stuff.

kingdomgirl94 29

Pretty sure it's not required by law to have a beware of dog sign. Where I live, having a beware of dog sign is actually a liability because it's considered proof that you're aware that your dog is aggressive.

Exactly why I'm going to be getting a sign to put on my door. My dog can get a little protective around strangers, and whenever he nips at them they tend to be a little bitch about it even though he never draws blood.

Sxylilhalfpint 20

Technically it's not a law to have a beware of dog sign, so the person with the dog was not in the wrong. sorry realized I put this under the wrong comment. lol

There was a story once where a woman didn't pay attention while driving and hit a kid on a bike, killing him, and she was seriously considering suing the kid's family for the same reason this dumb bitch is suing the op of this story.

It would be fully legal to commit a "crime" against someone who just broke into your house. You can legally kill them plus it is legal if the dog was protecting from the owner.

There was another case of a robber breaking into a home while the family was on vacation, getting trapped in the garage for a week with nothing but pet food and soda to eat. Ended up suing the family basically because their home wasn't burgler safe and won.

Yeah I remember a case like that but the woman actually did try to sue for, don't quote me on this, 1.3 million. Good thing the Judge wasn't dumb because she lost the case.

There was a case where this guy raped a women who had HIV and afterwards he tried suing her for not telling him about it.. like seriously?! You raped her! I don't know if he won the case or not, but dear lord.. you cant rape someone and then get mad because you got an STD from it..

That sounds like one of those "crazy lawsuit" urban legends that everybody knows about thirdhand from somebody else they know but can't supply a source for - or, if they can, it's been dramatically warped from its original source (like the infamous "McDonald's coffee scalding" case, which stops sounding quite so stupid when provided with full context). I could be wrong, granted, but at least some cursory web searching turned up absolutely nothing to this effect. On top of that, while it DOES vary in how the statutes are worded, home/pet owners are generally explicitly protected from injury liability in cases of trespassing. It's not that stupid lawsuits don't happen, but people are so hungry for bite-sized, easily-shared stories that reaffirm that the rest of the world is dumber than them, that they tend to pass around such stories rather uncritically.

The cases on Judge Judy are perfect examples of this

#10 I remember that from Ace Ventura XD

and it never happened. A lot of people remember a law suit like this and they all stem back to a hypotheical that was presented as an example of ludicrous lawsuits but there is no documented case of this ever happening. Even if it had the judge would throw it out and the victim would lose. Then the victim would go to jail for attempted robbery given to sue they would have had to confess to the crime in the first place.

No matter where you live in this world, everyone is sue happy and just wants a free paycheck. It is rather sickening.

This is why the world is going to shit. No one wants to man up and take responsibility for their actions. They want to blame everyone else and get a free paycheck.

She's an emotional wreck because she can't drive !!!

It's a good thing it was a minor crash. It's better for her to be wrecked emotionally than physically.

megs925 16

Riiigghht..Because that's more logical than the fact that she shouldn't have been close enough to rear end you.

Dodge4x4Ram 46

that's just as idiotic as the hot coffee one.

It's actually way, way stupider. At least the hot coffee one had one small part of it that was the restaurants doing- coffee was being served at temperatures high enough to actually cause BURNS, not just "ow that's hot!" Which was why the case won, that was kinda stupid on their part. The woman shouldn't have spilled her own dang coffee, but their was some small dumbness on the restaurants part as well. OP was just being in a car when a woman caused an accident. In every sense, with the law or insurance, the woman is entirely at fault. So her suing has managed to be even dumber.

It was proven that it was also a lot hotter than what they should be served at. I believe the woman actually had third degree burns.

usnwife 18

I had to do research into the coffee case, the facts actually make it out to be a fair case and not as stupid as it sounds. Its been a while so some of the numbers have left me, but the coffee was WAY hotter than it should have been, she was an older lady riding in an older truck with no cupholders. She was also wearing sweatpants, so when the coffee spilled it was soaked into her pants and held against her skin. It did cause third degree burns, which it would not have had it been served at the correct temperature. There are set standards for temperature for this reason, and McDonalds ignored those guidelines and caused a major injury as a direct result.

To add a few more facts to this thread: this was a 79 year old woman who was trying to add cream and sugar to her coffee; she was in the passenger seat but the car was parked, so she wasn't being stupid, the coffee just accidentally spilled onto her. She was willing to only get 20k from McDonalds to cover the medical bills for her third degree burns - she needed skin grafts on her inner thighs and other places - but McDonalds refused to give more than $800... which is why the case blew up and she ended up getting 3 million. McDonalds was knowingly keeping the temperature of their coffee so hot that if some of it got on you, you could suffer third degree burns within 3-7 seconds. The media really twisted this case to seem more ridiculous than it actually was.

She was also after hundreds of complaints about coffee being too hot, even though McDonalds research shows that people usually immediately try to drink it. She was in the passenger seat and wearing sweatpants. The coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns on 80 percent or so of her genitals, buttocks, and inner thigh. It was a reasonable lawsuit.

redlizzybeth 25

While I understand that most of the time it would seem like that was a stupid one - it wasn't. The employee heated the cup to the point that the coffee was actually boiling and the outside of the cup was hot. They did not change the cup so it was almost unbearable to touch and caused third degree burns on the woman's thighs. She did not sue for the amount that she was awarded, she sued for medical costs and the jury was so appalled by mcdonalds behaviour that they awarded that amount. The medical team agreed that the coffee must have literally been boiling in the cup to have caused that much damage. She did not ask the employee to warm it up either, the employee in question did not wish to make a fresh pot and that is why it was placed in the microwave. Overall the initial suit was for about 10000 for medical bills in relation to treating the burns on her thighs that required some serious time in the hospital.

Amusingly it went both ways. The Media blew it up both directions. First McDonald were monsters then when one cared anymore they continued milking the lawsuit for "ridiculous" lawsuits turning around and bashing on the same woman they had been championing.

When I took my drivers test I got tboned and the instructor got "hurt" there wasn't any serious damage to the car but she decided it was my fault and sued and proceeded to not go to work for the next full year then tried to sue again so she could just sit at home smh

countryb_cth 38

I so hoe she didn't win either of the cases