Every year there are thousands of lawsuits.
Some are sensible and worthy and aimed to highlight injustices and bad behavior.
But some are so outlandish in today’s controversial society.
Some stand out more than others because of just how ridiculous they are.
Here are some examples of ridiculous lawsuits that wasted huge amounts of time and money.
An AD that was too scary
In 2014 a woman from New York sued CBS, Showtime Networks, Outdoor Americas, the City of New York, and two transit leaders for an injury she supposedly got from falling.
She claims a scary poster initiated the fall.
The woman was on a flight of stairs in Grand Central Terminal when she noticed an ad for the TV show “Dexter.”
The poster had a picture of Michael C. Hall, who plays the role of a serial killer on the show.
The woman said that the photo was a “shockvertisement” that was so alarming that it made her fall down the stairs.
She argued that the defendants were accountable for her right foot and ankle injuries.
The defendants contended that they had no duty to protect her from the advert and that her reaction to it was unforeseeable.
In the end, the judge agreed, and the case was dismissed based on the woman’s not showing a proper cause of action.
Lip balm wars
A woman from California sued Fresh Inc, which is a Sugar Lip Treatment lip balm manufacturer.
She claimed Fresh lied to consumers about the amount of balm in its lip treatment tubes.
Her suit argued that buyers could only use 75 percent of the lip balm per tube because they couldn’t reach the rest.
She argued the other 25 percent stayed at the bottom and couldn’t be used “in the intended manner.”
Her lawsuit accused the lip-bam firm of unfair enrichment and infringing three consumer protection laws.
However, the court quickly dismissed the case.
The appeals court concluded the product label accurately represented the amount of lip balm in each tube.
It was also stated that consumers could choose whether or not they wanted to dig out the leftover balm.
The $67 Million Pants
In 2005, a law judge in Washington, DC, took a pair of pants to a dry cleaner.
The judge went to collect his pants a couple of days later when he realized they weren’t there.
A couple named Chung (the business owners) had accidentally sent them to the wrong place.
After some searching, the pants were found; however, the judge claimed they weren’t and didn’t accept them.
The judge decided to sue the dry cleaners for $67 million.
In his claim, he said the Chungs didn’t stick to the “satisfaction guaranteed” sign depicted at the store.
He also argued that failing to honor the guarantee, the Chungs committed seven individual violations of Washington D.C.’s consumer protection law.
The court dismissed the case and ruled in favor of the Chungs.
The judge tried to appeal the case, but the appeal was denied.
His time as a judge expired in 2007, and he wasn’t re-appointed.