Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

1. 

   Tim King, 7 Dec 2002 @ 7:56pm

   
   

   He sustained an "injury" of a "traumatic nature" w

   I hate pop-up ads, too. But has anyone noticed the guy (Philip J. Carstens) who is suing Bonzi Software also sued his "former employer" after he sustained an "injury" of a "traumatic nature" when he bit into a piece of "Halloween Candy" taken from a dish located on the reception desk of his employer and "broke loose a dental crown."
   
   It's kind of like the story about the burglar who sued for being trapped for 8 days in a garage of a house that he burgled -- with "nothing" to survive on, except a case of soft drinks and a bag of dry dog food.
   
   You should read Philip J. Carstens' legal argument: "The candy was either furnished by Mr. Carstens' employer, or by the receptionist employed by Mr. Carstens' employer, with full knowledge of the company's management and because the injury occurred in the course of his employment, Mr. Carstens had clearly sustained an injury compensable under the Industrial Insurance Act."
   
   Compensable? What does that word mean? Do they mean like... as in... compensation? Do they mean like... M-O-N-E-Y?
   
   But the really shocking thing is: HE WON THE CANDY LAWSUIT AND ACTUALLY GOT MONEY FOR HIS "TRAUMATIC INJURIES"! You can read all the "traumatic" details of that fateful day at: http://www.wa.gov/biia/890723.htm
   
   However, there's one more interesting twist to this story. It turns out the "employer" that Mr. Carstens sued was the law firm of "Lukins & Annis" -- that's right, the same law firm who is now suing Bonzi Software on Mr. Carstens' behalf.
   
   SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. YOU HAVE A LAWYER -- WHO SUED HIS OWN LAW FIRM FOR BEING "TRAUMATICLY INJURED" BY A PIECE OF HALOWEEN CANDY -- AND NOW THE SAME GUY HAS BEEN "INJURED" BY INTERNET POP-UP ADS TOO?
   
   The poor guy. I guess some people just have all the bad luck.
   
   Tim King
   

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

2. 

   Outragebot, 28 May 2003 @ 2:27pm

   
   

   Re: He sustained an

   Look closer at the earlier lawsuit. He didn't sue his employer, he was suing the Dept. of Labor and Industries because he was injured while he was on the job. He was not seeking awards from his employer, rather, he was seeking an award from the State, and he received it. Ultimately, it was decided that he was on the job when the candy he ate caused his crown to fall out. He felt that the claim should be handled by L&I, and eventually so did the State.
   
   If you do a Google search on "Carstens lawsuit candy" you'll notice that this response about the Carstens lawsuit has been posted everywhere that the original Bonzi article was posted, all by the same individual.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]