We live in a litigious society, a situation exacerbated by the frustration dummies feel by not knowing what "litigious" means. So they get angry and sue. They see their neighbors receiving million-dollar settlements for getting their heads stuck in the toilet at Chili's and they think they want a piece of that sexy lawsuit money pie, so they go out and slip in a puddle of semen at the sperm bank and try to cash in. It's sad, really. But clearly we can't solve that problem with a simple comedy article on a simple website run by simple Amish comedians. Verily, thou canst only read this list of shitteth defenses used in real lawsuits and mayhaps belch forth a guffaw or two. I know shit about the Amish, what an awful metaphor to use in my intro here. Good thing it's over.
One of the most popular scam lawsuits of the last few decades is the ol' "look what disgusting biomatter I found in my food/drink/Arby's." We've all heard of someone finding a cyst in their McChicken, a worm in their salad, Snooki resin on their fries, whatever. Rarely, however, do you hear how these cases play out beyond the few that are exposed as fraud right off the bat, like that lady with the finger in her chili. 'Member her? Who keeps a finger handy to slip into chili? Crazy broad.
Arguably a good defense to any of these kinds of cases would be to say that the accuser is a liar, possibly with pants all aflame. Pepsi decided that argument wasn't succinct enough when a man sued them, claiming he'd found a mouse carcass adrift in his can of Mountain Dew. Their defense was that, from the time the can was sealed to when the man opened it, 15 months had past. And a mouse carcass would have dissolved all to a sludgy, gelatinous goo-like mucous plug at the bottom of the can in that amount of time.
Experts who have studied the effect of citric acid on bones and teeth agree that, yes indeed, a whole mouse submerged for that long probably would have mostly dissolved, but the collagen would have definitely stayed around to ensure that you'd get a big, thick mouthful of terror. It just wouldn't look like a mouse.
A veterinarian testified that the mouse wasn't even born at the time the can was filled and had clearly died, in the air, before someone put it in the can, meaning the lawsuit was a fraud and the jelly-mouse defense wasn't entirely necessary. Interestingly, some experts also claim that a single can of Mountain Dew probably could not jelly a mouse because the amount of acid in a small can isn't enough -- it would need to be in a vat of the stuff for that to happen -- meaning Pepsi made up a worse lie to cover its own ass than the truth of what happened, because derp.
Hemera Technologies/PhotoObjects.net/Getty Images
Let's roleplay for this one. I'm already wearing my unitard. You play the role of a cop in Portland, Oregon. You're patrolling the mean streets of Portland, picking up litter and quelling hipsters when they start giddily shouting about their Instagrams and Pinterests and squared fours. Then, from the murk of a dismal Portland night, you catch the scent of the worst kind of Portlandian nogoodnik -- a graffito tagger. Shhh! It's OK, we're just roleplaying, don't panic.
As an officer of the law, you have to act. So you chase down the graffiti baron and tackle him, tase him five times in the back, and maybe bash his face into the pavement once or twice. Good job, Johnny Law. You've protected another building from the scourge of spray paint.
In real life, something very similar to this happened, except for how the guy who was chased, tased, and beaten wasn't really a criminal at all and had just been mistaken for a graffiti artist. Oops! At the trial, after the arresting officer lied about seeing his victim running with some other hooligans, lawyers for the police department busted out the big guns -- if this "innocent" man who hadn't actually committed a crime was so innocent, then how come he owns kung fu movies? Hmmm?
In retrospect, we can assume that the judge and jury and stenographer and probably everyone within a 100-yard radius had an automatic panic shit upon being confronted with this question. But after the liberal application of some wet wipes and new shorts, it was determined that trying to establish a person's guilt based on their penchant for watching Jackie Chan films would thenceforth be known as the Dumb Shit Maneuver and would generally be banned from American courtrooms.
Christopher Robbins/Digital Vision/Getty Images
Sexual harassment is an often overlooked crime, one that is even tolerated in some environments and that sucks big, saggy tits. Right in the ass. Luckily, more and more victims are standing up for their rights and confronting their harassers, as well as seeking legal help when it gets out of hand. Such was the case with Priscilla Agosto, a 23-year-old former secretary from a New York realty firm whom the story I'm linking needlessly identifies as a lesbian, just in case you were curious. The media love lesbians. I conduct all my foreign press interviews in my lesbian persona, who was raised in Madrid and discovered the pleasures of other women at an all busty girl's school. Good stuff.
Agosto filed a suit against her employers after a long, drawn-out process of harassment that ranged from requests for oral sex to men exposing themselves to her to a cash offer to watch her with another woman. She tolerated all of this until a co-worker actually slapped her in the face. The boss dealt with this by telling the slapper to buy Agosto lunch and apologize. That method of employee conflict resolution is found in the manual between free Post-it notes when someone shits on your desk and a new MP3 player when someone kills and eats your dog.
After the suit was filed, it became clear that a defense was going to be needed to handle the mountain of accusations leveled against the company and its employees. The owner of the firm stepped up to the plate and took a big, shitty swing for the bleachers that missed terribly with this pearl: "Who would touch her? She's an ugly girl anyway."
Cracked's legal department went over this defense, and in their professional opinion, they determined that this argument is best described as "fucktarded." But only insofar as it completely misses the mark in every way and oddly reinforces the case against you, rather than supports any of your own claims. It's like if O.J. had claimed that he was innocent because his wife was way too stabbable to bother stabbing.