Wife Sues for Loss of Sex Drive

I must admit.... this made me laugh.

http://www.dailypaul.com/289359/woman-sues-lack-of-sex-drive

Really, 4L??

Would've thought this kind of 'news story' would be beneath you......

Eh? Its just a collection of funny Poopie on a not serious website?

Woman Sues, Lack Of Sex Drive

A recent article in the Kentucky Post reported that a woman, Anne Maynard, has sued St Luke’s hospital, saying that after her husband was treated there recently, he had lost all interest in sex.

A hospital spokesman replied, "Mr. Maynard was actually admitted in Ophthalmology - all we did was correct his eyesight."

just in case

TopHat24/7 wrote:Really, 4L??

Would've thought this kind of 'news story' would be beneath you......

Sorry to disappoint, old chap.

Unfortunately, you seem to misunderstand me and I assume it is because you think there is some sort of sexist mentality involved.  Please allow me to disabuse you.

The USA, fairly or otherwise, has acquired a certain reputation for frivolous litigation.   You know the sort of thing..... people with peanut allergies eating peanuts and having a reaction, then suing the peanut company for not printing  "contains nuts" on packaging that otherwise clearly indicates what is in the packet.

With that sort of thing in mind, I could not help but chuckle when I saw that, with one quick riposte, the doctor in this case made it almost impossible for this woman to proceed with her case without looking a complete fool.  

It would surely take a neck of brass to proceed, would you not agree...?

The real litigious kick-off has been largely attributed to the woman that sued because her coffee was hot from Maccy D's when she spilt it on herself. Reinforced by another litigant who sued even after 'Caution, Hot' was put on the cups and she did the same as she (successfully ) claimed that that insufficiently represented HOW hot it would be. Hence the cups now say 'Caution, VERY Hot'.

My personal fave, again Maccy D's, were the fatties in New York suing Maccy's for their advertising being 'too good' and essentially being conned by it into eating loads and getting really fat.

Other good'uns include Kraft being sued for it's Guac containing no avo and the guy that lost a claim against his local council when a street pavement collapsed under him, council successfully defended by claiming it was an 'act of God', so the claimant promptly went off and sued his local church.

Once saw a lady sue a nursery for allowing her child to run into the TV to eat Spongebob, which resulted in a cracked tooth... it's a wonder the nursery didn't counter claim malicious damage to property.

American woman sued a motorhome company because she'd confused cruise control with auto pilot - turned it on and went in the back for a sandwich .

A little closer to home, a lass I worked with tripped at work, didn't fall over and managed to break her fall on a desk.

6 months off on full sick pay and 4k in damages later she returned to work. Nothing but a workshy bitch.

Saw the reverse of that mate - guy bumped his foot on the corner of the desk - mild bruising, upturned his dustbin rested his foot on it till the pain faded and got on with it. 3 days later he wakes up with a sharp pain in the middle toe and hasn't been back to work since - he'd fractured it and got an infection - took his kids and visited him 8 times in hospital. He said the worst part was that he and his wife were on the verge of an amicable divorce but now she apparently wants to stay with him forever His young son opened his can and took a sip of his drink -when he offered it back to his dad - he said "no thanks sweetheart, with my luck i'd probably end up with HIV.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:A little closer to home, a lass I worked with tripped at work, didn't fall over and managed to break her fall on a desk.

6 months off on full sick pay and 4k in damages later she returned to work. Nothing but a workshy bitch.

Public sector?

Screams it.

Quite a few LA's have been stung with FOI requests in recent years which showed the hundreds of thousands of pounds of tax-payers money being spent on crappy workshy public sector bums who injure themselves and then claim massive compo deals from councils that lack the balls to take them on. Bit like those two cases recently of cack-handed policewomen who fell on their arses and tried to sue the land/property owners.

Private - a very large bank I used to work for. Was quite surprised actually.

I'm actually starting to feel sorry for public sector workers. Both my parents work for the council and they have been subjected to wave after wave of redundancy for years now. I'll give them a pass for now.

Another case I particularly enjoyed occurred in the US where a man bought a box of 25 very expensive Cuban cigars and insured them against damage from, amongst other things, fire.

Over a period of time he smoked the cigars and after the last one was finished, he put in an insurance claim, stating that all 25 of the cigars had been destroyed in a series of "small fires".

The insurance company rejected his claim on the grounds that by smoking them he had, in fact, used the cigars for their intended purpose. At this point, the owner sued the insurance company for refusing to pay out on a legitimate claim.

When the case got to court, the judge found in favour of the owner and the insurance company was ordered to pay up.

However, the insurance company had the last word. As the successful litigant left court, flushed with victory he was arrested (and subsequently tried and convicted) on 25 counts of arson.

You couldn't make it up.

The Fourth Lion wrote:Another case I particularly enjoyed occurred in the US where a man bought a box of 25 very expensive Cuban cigars and insured them against damage from, amongst other things, fire.

Over a period of time he smoked the cigars and after the last one was finished, he put in an insurance claim, stating that all 25 of the cigars had been destroyed in a series of "small fires".

The insurance company rejected his claim on the grounds that by smoking them he had, in fact, used the cigars for their intended purpose.  At this point, the owner sued the insurance company for refusing to pay out on a legitimate claim.

When the case got to court, the judge found in favour of the owner and the insurance company was ordered to pay up.

However, the insurance company had the last word.  As the successful litigant left court, flushed with victory he was arrested (and subsequently tried and convicted) on 25 counts of arson.

You couldn't make it up.  

THAT IS AMAZING.

"Mr. Maynard was actually admitted in Ophthalmology - all we did was correct his eyesight."

I can see why she sued them, he got his eyesight back and didn't like the new view !

Unless there is a collective joke going on that I'm missing, you do all realise that the examples are either fake or jokes? The OP being a common joke and the cigar one being made up.

Whilst there was a successful McDonald's law suit the precedent has since been set for similar cases to be dismissed, essentially calling the original verdict a mistake.

Would you like to point out which of the below are fake?

TopHat24/7 wrote:The real litigious kick-off has been largely attributed to the woman that sued because her coffee was hot from Maccy D's when she spilt it on herself. Reinforced by another litigant who sued even after 'Caution, Hot' was put on the cups and she did the same as she (successfully ) claimed that that insufficiently represented HOW hot it would be. Hence the cups now say 'Caution, VERY Hot'.

My personal fave, again Maccy D's, were the fatties in New York suing Maccy's for their advertising being 'too good' and essentially being conned by it into eating loads and getting really fat.

Other good'uns include Kraft being sued for it's Guac containing no avo and the guy that lost a claim against his local council when a street pavement collapsed under him, council successfully defended by claiming it was an 'act of God', so the claimant promptly went off and sued his local church.

I meant to say most, it was a genuine question as I thought I ws missing something as the OP was clearly a joke and the responses seemed serious!

I didn't think there was a second successful case against McDonalds though.

Here's one...my ex used to work at the National Media Museum in Bradford and a woman attempted to sue them when she was injured by a door on the premises. However, it proved unsuccessful when she had to submit in writing that she'd opened the door into her own face.

That's really interesting..

One door opens, another one stops in ya face.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:That's really interesting..

I prefer "hilarious" but whatever floats your boat