Court throws out 'toonie' lawsuit against Tim's

[Praxius]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/06/02/tims-lawsuit.html

The so-called "stolen toonie lawsuit" against Tim Hortons has come to an end.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has dismissed the multimillion-dollar lawsuit, launched by a former employee at the doughnut shop.

Charlene Walsh was fired in 1999 after being seen on a security video taking some change from the till.

Walsh has always maintained the toonie was a tip, which she put into her tip cup.

She was acquitted of a theft charge but brought a civil suit against Tim Hortons and the Toronto Police Service for wrongful dismissal and malicious prosecution.

A jury dismissed her $10-million lawsuit two years ago.

The Court of Appeal has upheld that decision.

Good.... even if she kept her job, she'd never make $10 million in her entire lifetime working at Tim's.... wtf was she smoking when she thought she could sue for that much based on the situation?

I could see sueing for the amount of money she would have earned in a given time working there that she lossed out on from being fired, but $10 million is just plain retarded.

 

[lone wolf]

Would have been cheaper and easier to scoop one up outside the drive-thru window....

Woof!

 

[I think not]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/06/02/tims-lawsuit.html



Good.... even if she kept her job, she'd never make $10 million in her entire lifetime working at Tim's.... wtf was she smoking when she thought she could sue for that much based on the situation?

I could see sueing for the amount of money she would have earned in a given time working there that she lossed out on from being fired, but $10 million is just plain retarded.

The vast majority of these cases are instigated by attorneys. When an attorney takes a case like this one, the attorney(s) have great odds (in their view) of winning. Attorneys usually get 33 1/3% inclusive of expenses in these cases.

They sue for large amounts in hope a settlement will be reached and they don't have to go to court. Once the ball starts rolling, they can't stop.

If your attorney told you; "I will go after the government and get as much as I can at no expense to you", it's a pretty enticing offer to pass up on.

 

[MikeyDB]

Ambulance chasers and manipulators of legal process one and all....

Kill all the lawyers.

 

[Praxius]

The vast majority of these cases are instigated by attorneys. When an attorney takes a case like this one, the attorney(s) have great odds (in their view) of winning. Attorneys usually get 33 1/3% inclusive of expenses in these cases.

They sue for large amounts in hope a settlement will be reached and they don't have to go to court. Once the ball starts rolling, they can't stop.

If your attorney told you; "I will go after the government and get as much as I can at no expense to you", it's a pretty enticing offer to pass up on.

If you don't have a brain perhaps.... (Not an insult to you, but in the general concept) I know when things goto courts, lawyers will usually attempt to seek everything under the sun in order to not short their client(s), heck this stressed the shat out of my father during the divorce and I had to continually remind him of this and what they are seeking will most likely never be granted, because in his case, although my mother was seeking everything he had to the point where technically if she won it all.... he'd be out on the streets, but in his case the courts will adjust to what is approprate for each individual and what is fair..... which they ended up doing and life went on.

But the problem is just letting the lawyer go after huge sums like that..... it's stupid and it does nothing but harm the case you are fighting for. I mean, come on, if I was fired over what occured with 2 dollars at my work and my lawyer said we should sue for $10 million, I would have bitch slapped the guy for being such an idiot..... there is nothing practical for going for 10 million in such a case and clearly expresses your greed and milking of the system.... which is kinda what I figure made the case get thrown out in the first place and the appeal shot down too.

Now what expenses is this person going to be facing now that they lost and used an idiot of a lawyer?

 

[MikeyDB]

Praxius

I agree with your appraisal but I believe that an important consideration is also what these ambulance chasers do to the structure and spirit of the law. You and I might say "When you go through the drive-thru window at MacDonald's and buy a coffee and then you spill it on yourself....you own that event. Then a lawyer convinces someone that they should sue MacDonald's because there wasn't a warning on the coffee cup informing the customer that their coffee was HOT and could potentially burn you....

Lawyers work harder than anyone else in any society to discourage persona responsibility from Conrad Black to the lady who sued MacDonald's in the coffee incident I just mentioned. We look for excuses to avoid accepting responsibility for our actions and lawyers make fortunes reinforcing the idea that we all as individuals are victims!

 

[I think not]

Now what expenses is this person going to be facing now that they lost and used an idiot of a lawyer?

None, these cases are taken by attorneys with the agreement that they do not get paid anything unless they receive a judgement in their favor and collect.

I agree with your overall assessment, but again, the attorneys took a shot and lost.

The amount of the lawsuit is really meaningless. They probably attempted to settle out of court for one third and Tim Horton's said no.

 

[Praxius]

Praxius

I agree with your appraisal but I believe that an important consideration is also what these ambulance chasers do to the structure and spirit of the law. You and I might say "When you go through the drive-thru window at MacDonald's and buy a coffee and then you spill it on yourself....you own that event. Then a lawyer convinces someone that they should sue MacDonald's because there wasn't a warning on the coffee cup informing the customer that their coffee was HOT and could potentially burn you....

I remember a similar case a few years back... can't remember if it was MacDonalds though.... But just that explination from the lawyer would also validate one good bitch slap accross the face too....

I mean seriously... how much of a retard can you be to not know that the coffee you are buying and about to drink will be hot and if you spill it on you, chances are it's going to burn or at the very least.... hurt.

If people can't figure out a simple thing like Coffee = Hot.... then perhaps they shouldn't have a drivers' licnece in the first place to drive to get the coffee which they don't realize is hot..... and if they can't drive with a cup of coffee without spilling and burning it all over themselves, then they shouldn't be driving to a drive-tru to get one.

People are idiots, and lawyers are enablers of these idiots to become even greater idiots.... it's a vicious cycle.

Lawyers work harder than anyone else in any society to discourage persona responsibility from Conrad Black to the lady who sued MacDonald's in the coffee incident I just mentioned. We look for excuses to avoid accepting responsibility for our actions and lawyers make fortunes reinforcing the idea that we all as individuals are victims!

And that is why I should be ruler of the world.... I'd set them all friggin straight to the point they wouldn't have anything logical to defend their actions and then I'd send their asses to jail for being idiots and wasting court time on stupid things which were their own responsibility.

Fk'n retarded politically correct world..... Yeah I know what I just said.