Jump to content

Attorney threatens lawsuit over his left behind coat

sevfiv

By sevfiv
in Off Topic

Recommended Posts

sevfiv

sevfiv

Posted
Posted

I just wanted to know if others think this guy is crazy or not..

This is a letter sent by Houston Attorney, Bill Ogletree, to the City of Houston, Westfield Concession Management, Inc. and Continental Airlines. While it is not unusual for an attorney to send a letter proclaiming the rights of a client have been violated, what caught my eye with this letter was that Ogletree was claiming his rights had been violated over a lost leather coat.

From his letter to COH Legal Department, Westfield Concession Management, and Continental Airlines:

0n December 30, 2009 I left an expensive black leather coat at a food court on the way to Gate C-19 at Houston Intercontinental Airport. The coat was made by Polo, size X-Large and had plaid lining. I have diligently attempted but failed to determine which of the above-addressed entities is responsible for the area and who should have collected the coat, kept it in a secure place and held it for a reasonable period of time for the owner to locate it.

[...]

You can avoid further legal action by paying $800.00 for the cost of the coat. This offer is only valid for 10 days from the date of this letter, after which this offer is permanently withdrawn. The amount will continue to increase according to the court costs, attorney's fees, investigation, expert witnesses and other damages available by law.

http://robertsrealitycheck.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/lost-and-found/

http://www.click2houston.com/robertsrealitycheck/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kylejack

kylejack

Posted
Posted

I love his sentence: "I have diligently attempted but failed to determine which of the above-addressed entities is responsible for the area and who should have collected the coat, kept it in a secure place and held it for a reasonable period of time for the owner to locate it."

Nobody, guy. Nobody. Its your responsibility to secure your $800 coat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SchwinnChopper68

SchwinnChopper68

Posted
Posted

About par for the course. Another idiot with a sheepskin that seeks to enrich himself by blaming others for his own blunders and stupidity.

I love the smell of lawsuits in the morning. It's wonderful to live in a land that has 5% of the worlds population yet has 80% of its bottom feeders...er..garbage scows..ahem..cough,cough..lawyers.

Blame and find fault with anyone and anything other than ones self. Harvard Motto.

Or maybe he could sue himself. Claim split personalities. Jack the loser had control of his senses at the time of loss, later while walking to the plane his real personality Bill came back and realized that Jack had tricked him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HoustonMidtown

HoustonMidtown

Posted
Posted

About par for the course. Another idiot with a sheepskin that seeks to enrich himself by blaming others for his own blunders and stupidity.

I love the smell of lawsuits in the morning. It's wonderful to live in a land that has 5% of the worlds population yet has 80% of its bottom feeders...er..garbage scows..ahem..cough,cough..lawyers.

Blame and find fault with anyone and anything other than ones self. Harvard Motto.

Or maybe he could sue himself. Claim split personalities. Jack the loser had control of his senses at the time of loss, later while walking to the plane his real personality Bill came back and realized that Jack had tricked him.

Is he the same lawyer representing Lindsay (I know he's not - just being sarcastic)

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/lohan_such_baby_jVdQWABj9z0MgXzCv1Nh1O

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Porchman

Porchman

Posted
Posted

Sounds like he went to the same law school as the judge who sued his dry cleaners for millions.

This same case came to my mind. There is a distinct difference. Ogletree does not show where he specifically charged any of the parties with responsibility for his coat and they accepted. So beyond his own culpability for the loss, he fails to support his legal claim.

rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SchwinnChopper68

SchwinnChopper68

Posted
Posted

I know of no restaurant or any public establishment anywhere in the world that accepts responsibility for items lost and, in many cases, even damaged, on the premises.

Perhaps he is seeking a precedent. In 1984 fashion all places of business will be 100% responsible for any and all lost items. Feel free to lose your 10K ring and claim maximum damages along with emotional distress due to the fact that the business did not have 30 employees monitoring every nook, cranny and aisle for potential lost items. Another scoundrel snaked that ring, tuff!, you the business are responsible. Yea right!! Give it a few years. I barely recognize the Houston I grew up in...

Reminds me of the McDonalds case where the woman was awarded something like 10 million because she was not warned the coffee was hot then spilled it in her lap while probably applying makeup in the mirror.

His steel trap memory faithfully remembers the shoddy treatment by his waitress (for sure it was not his attitude that affected her) yet somehow that steel trap memory failed him on his expensive polo jacket with the upgraded plaid lining. I feel sorry for whoever works, lives with or has to deal with that a-hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AtticaFlinch

AtticaFlinch

Posted
Posted

And attorneys wonder why they are so despised by the general public.

That's unfortunate too. There are literally tens of thousands of attorneys (if not more), and this is just one guy doing something retarded. Like with every profession, there are some unethical boneheads trying to screw everybody over, and it seems they're the only ones who ever get any press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SchwinnChopper68

SchwinnChopper68

Posted
Posted

What's up with all these crazy lawyers??

DALLAS (March 10, 2010)—A Dallas city attorney who shot a father and son Monday inside their financial business in a North Dallas office building died early Wednesday afternoon from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, Sr. Cpl. Kevin Janse said.

Robert Mustard, 60, shot himself Monday after shooting Richard Smith, 66, and Christopher Smith, 39.

Had he lived, Mustard would have faced aggravated assault charges, but Janse says those charges won't be filed now.

Richard Smith was shot four times in the legs.

His son was shot in the head and neck.

Both were in stable condition Wednesday.

Authorities believe Mustard was upset about financial dealings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mkultra25

mkultra25

Posted
Posted

DALLAS (March 10, 2010)—A Dallas city attorney who shot a father and son Monday inside their financial business in a North Dallas office building died early Wednesday afternoon from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, Sr. Cpl. Kevin Janse said.

Robert Mustard, 60, shot himself Monday after shooting Richard Smith, 66, and Christopher Smith, 39.

So it was Col. Mustard, in the office, with a pistol?

I'd have guessed lead pipe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hanuman

Hanuman

Posted
Posted

Here's a real case for the J.D. training manual on bad lawyering. Such letters of demand ( Don't you love that word? ) should always be prefaced with the line, " Bill, how's your golf game..."...it's the winning strategy... I'm not sure whay they failed to see this error???

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VicMan

VicMan

Posted
Posted

Reminds me of the McDonalds case where the woman was awarded something like 10 million because she was not warned the coffee was hot then spilled it in her lap while probably applying makeup in the mirror.

SchwinnChopper, the McDonald's coffee spill lawsuit was a justifiable, legitimate lawsuit. The problem was that the coffee was prepared at too high a heat, and the particular spill gave the woman severe burns.

This Snopes page notes: http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

For example, the "woman scalded by hot coffee" suit, which at first blush looked like the height of frivolity proved to be a perfectly legitimate action taken against a corporation that knew, thanks to a string of similar scaldings it had quietly been paying off, that its coffee was not just hot, but <I>dangerously</I> hot.

A webpage by the Consumer Attorneys of California has information on this particular case: http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showpage&pg=facts

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fringe

Fringe

Posted
Posted

SchwinnChopper, the McDonald's coffee spill lawsuit was a justifiable, legitimate lawsuit. The problem was that the coffee was prepared at too high a heat, and the particular spill gave the woman severe burns.

I happen to like my coffee hot and it still came down to the fact that the woman was clumsy. Just like this lawyer was stupid enough to abandon his coat. What ever happened to taking personal responsibility for your own screw-ups?  Lawyers and lawsuits. That's what. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VicMan

VicMan

Posted
Posted

I happen to like my coffee hot and it still came down to the fact that the woman was clumsy.

The whole point of the lawsuit was that the company was preparing the coffee at a very unsafe temperature and was paying off other victims. Yes, people sometimes are clumsy and do spill coffee on themselves, and that alone doesn't merit a lawsuit. But spilled coffee is not supposed to give third degree burns that require skin grafts. http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1994/b338860.arc.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SchwinnChopper68

SchwinnChopper68

Posted
Posted

Well, I learned something new. I'm gonna buy me a portable digital thermometer and scout around for coffee hotter than 135. Once I hit that magic, mother lode 150, 170 or even 180 I'm gonna put on my thick sweat pants, put the coffee between my knees and clumsily remove the lid with my old shaking, creaking hands and score me a cool 2 or 3 mil. Beats working for a living and I get a 5 or 7 day stay in the hospital with them young boooootiful 18 year old candystripers to give me a rubdown before falling off to sleep to dream of my new 47' sailboat with all the toys based in Aruba. I'll post pics of myself onboard raising a toast to HAIF and say thanks to this very thread for making my lifelong dream come true. Hopefully that same lawyer that handled the McDonalds case will be available for mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...