Judge Rules in Dry Cleaner’s Favor

capt9657efc59bdb4307a3c44bbbd46fee6967_million_dollar_pants_ny110.jpg 

He has to be the biggest idiot of the year!  Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson sued his dry cleaners for 67 million dollars for loosing his pants.  Well a superior court judge ruled in favor of the dry cleaners and ordered Judge Roy Pearson to pay for the dry cleaner’s legal expenses.

Advertisements

4 Responses

  1. Good..I still can’t believe the audacity of this idiot.

  2. Well everyone is so happy for the Chungs because this loony lost but the tragedy continues in the cost and stress they have had to cope with the last two years to defend themselves. Many are victims of lawsuits that costs are potentially so high, even though a person or company may not be at fault, they are forced to settle for the potential legal costs. THat is it is cheaper just to make the problem go away.

    The American judicial system is broken because it is just as possible that Mr. Pearson would come up with a judge that saw things his way.

    Just is not blind in this country, it is random.

    The Chungs are victims of a judicial system out of control and have paid a high price to win.

    The real idiots? Not Roy Pearson but a public that tolerates this nonsense of excessive, unncessary lawsuits. If you bring a lawsuit up and lose, you should have to pay ALL the legal costs and something for pain and suffering. Unnecessary lawsuits clog the legal system and judges seem less than impartial. Just my opinion.

  3. I’m no fan of the dry cleaning industry, that guy Pearson is just a douchebag. Someone should sue his ass for $67 million for something retarded.

  4. Those must have been SOME pants.

    Seriously, how do cases like this even make it to court? This is a matter that could’ve been solved one-on-one. If the cleaner loses your pants, seek reimbursement for the purchase of a new pair of pants, with a little extra thrown in for the aggravation, simple as that. If the dry cleaner had lost something of sentimental value, such as a wedding dress, then it’s a matter for the small-claims court.

    Where is the logic?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: