Perpertrator Plaintiffs.

While the hot coffee case was a legitmate lawsuit contrary to public opinion there have been many frivilious lawsuits. In the 1970s Briney owned a house in rural Iowa which was subject to many burglaries. So Briney set up a booby trap, the gun was pointed towards the door, and a string attached it to the trigger so if someone opened the door they would be shot. Katko broke in and was shot in the leg, serious injury totally life threatening. Despite the fact that he knew he had no right to break in to steal antiques he sued Briney claiming damages for being shot. For some reason Katko won like $20,000 in damages. I say that this lawsuit is frivilious because Katko had no right to be in that place and he was not there for anything besides to steal. I think that Katko was the perpetrator and should have been the only one held accountable for his actions. Definetely one example that I can think of that is a frivilious lawsuit in my opinion. Also, I think that the case of Norman vs Honda had absolutely no legal basis for the lawsuit. Karen Norman who's blood alcohol level was more than two times the legal limit for driving, reversed into a boat ramp before the car plunged into Galveston Bay in southern Texas. Karen was wearing a seatbelt at this time but her passenger Kasel Woods was not wearing a seatbelt at this time. Kasel easily climbed out of the car and swam to safety without much injuries. Karen though died, because she was unable to remove the seatbelt she was wearing fast enough. Karen's family sued Honda claiming that the seatbelt was not "removeable underwater", the first jury found Honda 75% liable but then the appelate court threw out the lawsuit on appeal. I think both of these cases involve two people committing felonies (DUI and Burglary) suing people for not keeping them safe during their crimes. Like if you are being mugged on the street and you decide to throw a left hook at the mugger, you should not be liable for his injuries in a civil court because of the fact that he was breaking the law in a bad way in both cases. While both of these lawsuits do not connect much with Stella Liebeck I think they outline where civil justice can go to far. As for Stella she was not at fault for spilling her coffee, the problem was that coffee was too hot in the fast food world. The problem had to be fixed and it was at the hands of McDonalds.