Woman sues over Janet Jackson's breast

Taken Off Yahoo! News.. Article Can be Found Here

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A Tennessee woman has sued Janet Jackson and others involved in her breast-baring Super Bowl halftime show, saying millions of people are owed monetary damages for exposure to lewd conduct, court records show


The suit, filed earlier this week in federal court in Knoxville, Tennessee, also names pop star Justin Timberlake, who performed with Jackson, CBS Broadcasting, show producer MTV, and the parent of those two companies, Viacom.


CBS and Viacom said they had no comment on the filing.


The action seeks a court order to prevent anything like last Sunday's stunt from being repeated on U.S. network television prior to 10 p.m. local time when children might be watching.


It also asks the court to declare the matter a class action for purposes of damages. No dollar figure is mentioned in the suit, but it estimates that over 80 million U.S. viewers might be due compensation. CBS has said the game drew an average viewership of just under 89.6 million people. Advertising during the game sold for more than $2 million (1.1 million pounds) a spot.


The suit states that the ultimate compensatory damage figure, should a jury decide to grant damages, should be no higher than what the parties being sued made out of participating in and airing the Super Bowl and its halftime show.


If additional punitive damages are granted, it adds, they should be no higher than the "gross annual revenues of each defendant for the last three years..."


Those figures would probably run into the billions of dollars, according to the Smoking Gun, a Web site that first published the court papers.


During the halftime show Timberlake tore off half of Jackson's black leather bustier, exposing her right breast, while the two were singing a duet.


Jackson took the blame but said "it was not my intention that it go as far as it did."

CBS has already said it would use an "enhanced delay" on its February 8 broadcast of music's Grammy Awards so it can censor both audio and video as needed, and ABC also said it will use a delay on its February 29 broadcast of the Academy Awards (news - web sites).


The suit says the defendants knew the broadcast would be watched by millions of families with children but they "included in the halftime show sexually explicit acts solely designed to garner publicity and ultimately to increase profits for themselves. The suit mentions the breast exposure but also says the show in general contained "other lewd and sexually explicit conduct."


The law firm handling the suit issued a statement on Friday saying that neither the woman who filed it, Terri Carlin, nor her attorney, Wayne Ritchie, would comment. "The issue here is accountability and not more publicity," it said.



OMG HAHA ppl will really do anything for money , everyone who watched teh superbowl can profit from this haha and even if u didnt.. just say u did

[paper_doll]

lmao!

[shinji1698]

that is retarded... i hope the judge throws the case out

[Coelacanth]

oh please stop...

This really makes me angry... It wasn't Janet's fault...

Man... the Jackson's are having bad luck these days.

[Unimatrix Prime™]

hahahahahaha !

People claim for some of the craziest things! Like that person who sued McDonalds for $1 million+ because the coffee spilled! And now with millions of people who watched the SuperBowl, is CBS gonna pay all those people for "damages"? hahahaha

[boogieordie]

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!

Dear god, I hope this woman never goes to a beach in Europe. She'd get sue happy.

This is the stupidest thing ever and just shows how uptight Americans are these days. It's gotten to the point where it's just ridiculous.

Woman... YOU HAVE BREASTS TOO.. GET OVER IT!

Like that person who sued McDonalds for $1 million+ because the coffee spilled!

That woman had every right to sue. Coffee should not give you 3rd degree burns. McDonald's knew they prepared their coffee too hot and yet continued to do so. How'd they know? Because they had settled out of court with hundreds of other people suffering from 3rd degree burns after their coffee spilled on them. We just never heard about it because the people had to sign confidentiality agreements with McDonald's. The bulk of the settlement was punitive damages which was set at the amount of money that McDonald's makes from coffee sales in one day.

Ashley

[jerms]

..if i ever meet u ashley, flick me off so i can sue you for offending me. easy money i tell ya.

[tl1029530921]

im surprised it took so long for janet to get sued...

[Larisa-chan]

It's funny how Janet's exposure is targetted as being the only lewd thing that occured during the halftime show.

Didn't they watch the rest of it?? All those girls in seductive clothing shaking their butts and that rapper guy grabbing himself.. ugh..

[fantaisie.sign]

Originally posted by Larisa-chan
It's funny how Janet's exposure is targetted as being the only lewd thing that occured during the halftime show.

Didn't they watch the rest of it?? All those girls in seductive clothing shaking their butts and that rapper guy grabbing himself.. ugh..

But worst of all was Kid Rock "wearing" the U.S. flag as a poncho. I know there are plenty of flag shirts out there, but taking the flag and ripping a hole in it just to wear it? That's defacing the flag. Why is that less of an offense than the "Wardrobe Malfunction?" If Britney and Madonna can get away with kissing each other, if Lil' Kim can get away with showing her breast for an entire awards show, hell, if Richard Hatch can get away with being NAKED for who knows how long on Survivor all by THEIR OWN WILL, why is a 2 second exposure of a breast that you could barely see on TV so *gasp* wrong?

Answer: The media is filled with hypocrites.

Other lewd things during the Super Bowl? The Cialis commercials about erectile disfunction and the beer commercial with the dog biting the guy's crotch area and a beer suddenly pops out. WTF?

As for the person suing for Janet's exposure, she's probably just looking for easy money. Surely a judge won't accept this case, or if one does then this really does show how backwards society has become.

[AfanforXX]

Originally posted by AyuRocks

That woman had every right to sue. Coffee should not give you 3rd degree burns. McDonald's knew they prepared their coffee too hot and yet continued to do so. How'd they know? Because they had settled out of court with hundreds of other people suffering from 3rd degree burns after their coffee spilled on them. We just never heard about it because the people had to sign confidentiality agreements with McDonald's. The bulk of the settlement was punitive damages which was set at the amount of money that McDonald's makes from coffee sales in one day.

Ashley

While she had every right to sue, it certainly doesn't mean it's a good case. It's a ridiculous claim. McDonald's can't control how hot it's coffee is, and their coffee cups all say "careful, hot".

[Aldonia]

Exposure to lewd conduct? What the hell.. There's lewd conduct everywhere these days. Go watch a movie or a music video channel. What, are people going to start suing actresses and singers over their videos and movies now? -.-

[Aldonia]

Originally posted by AfanforXX
While she had every right to sue, it certainly doesn't mean it's a good case. It's a ridiculous claim. McDonald's can't control how hot it's coffee is, and their coffee cups all say "careful, hot".

Actually they put the "Careful, hot" on the cups afterwards, if I'm not mistaken.

[fantaisie.sign]

But isn't it also common sense that coffee is going to be hot?

Guess not.

edited for poor grammar

[AfanforXX]

lol, that's also true

[Coelacanth]

Originally posted by Chibinina4
But isn't also common sense that coffee is going to be hot?

yes I agree...

They are definitely looking for someone to blame...

[boogieordie]

What??? Of course McDonald's can control how hot their coffee is. They prepared it at 180-190 degrees ON PURPOSE because thier customers "like it hot"... every other fast food restuarant prepared their coffee at 120-140 degrees.

Thermometers....

Coffee is supposed to be hot.. but not hot enough to give you third degree burns!!! Come on people..

And if that wasn't a good case I don't know what was -

Legal definition of negligence -

NEGLIGENCE - The failure to use reasonable care. The doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances. A departure from what an ordinary reasonable member of the community would do in the same community.

Negligence is a 'legal cause' of damage if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such damage, so it can reasonably be said that if not for the negligence, the loss, injury or damage would not have occurred

If McDonald's hadn't prepared their coffee at 160 degrees, a tempature which they were well aware caused third degree burns (since they settled with others who were badly injured) then the woman wouldn't have had third degree burns. They didn't prepare their coffee cooler after they knew it was a danger because they didn't want to jeopardize sales. This is an open and shut case. McDonald's didn't have to dump the coffee on the woman for it to be their fault for her injuries. Any company who knew their product was a danger to their customers (who didn't want to get sued) would change their product, they didn't.. they didn't use reasonable care - they were legally negligent.

going on...

In cases involving allegedly defective, unreasonably dangerous products, the manufacturer may be liable even though it exercised all reasonable care in the design, manufacture and sale of the product in question.

On the other hand, any failure of a manufacturer of a product to adopt the most modern, or even a better safeguard, does not necessarily make the manufacturer legally liable to a person injured by that product. The manufacturer is not a guarantor that nobody will get hurt in using its product, and a product is not defective or unreasonably dangerous merely because it is possible to be injured while using it. There is no duty upon the manufacturer to produce a product that is 'accident-proof.' What the manufacturer is required to do is to make a product which is free from defective and unreasonably dangerous conditions.

UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS. Spill coffee on yourself, and you get third degree burns?? That's unreasonably dangerous, because accidents happen and when they do you shouldn't have to be rushed the the hospital and given emergency care and go through hours of surgery. That's unreasonable.



Yeah.. it's reasonable for coffee to be hot enough for tissue damage to occur if it comes in contact with your skin. Give me a break.

THE "MCDONALD'S COFFEE CASE"
AND OTHER FICTIONS
Anecdotal descriptions of a few atypical lawsuits intended to shock or amuse the public have been the cornerstone of the business community’s anti-jury advertising and public relations campaign since the 1980s. Focusing on a few rare, anecdotal cases, instead of the majority of cases that pass through the courts each year, feeds into a false and dangerous perception that the system is overflowing with frivolous lawsuits. Often such verdicts have either been thrown out or substantially reduced by trial judges or appellate courts, which is exactly how the system is supposed to work. Yet the public is given the false impression that a plaintiff received a windfall, a defendant was financially ruined, or the system failed. This is particularly irresponsible when, as is typical, cases are not cited by name or even by date so they can be checked for accuracy. When journalists or researchers do track them down, they find in virtually every situation that such cases have been misreported and misused.

The “McDonald’s coffee” case. We have all heard it: a woman spills McDonald's coffee, sues and gets $3 million. Here are the facts of this widely misreported and misunderstood case:

Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement. According to Stella Liebeck’s attorney, S. Reed Morgan, the jury heard the following evidence in the case:

By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;


Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;


Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;


The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;


McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;


From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;


Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;


At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;


Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature;


McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;


McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;”


McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;


Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.
Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald's behavior “callous.” Moreover, “the day after the verdict, the news media documented that coffee at the McDonald's in Albuquerque [where Liebeck was burned] is now sold at 158 degrees. This will cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds [so that], the margin of safety has been increased as a direct consequence of this verdict.” Id.

Irresponsible use of anecdotal cases by “tort reform” proponents is nothing new. The case of Charles Bigbee was the “McDonald’s coffee case” of the 1980s. Ronald Reagan described Bigbee’s case in a 1986 speech as follows: “In California, a man was using a public telephone booth to place a call. An alleged drunk driver careened down the street, lost control of his car, and crashed into a phone booth. Now, it’s no surprise that the injured man sued. But you might be startled to hear whom he sued: the telephone company and associated firms!” In fact, Bigbee’s leg was severed after a car hit the phone booth in which he had been trapped. The door jammed after he saw the car coming ‚ he tried to flee but could not. The accident left him unable to walk, severely depressed and unable to work. Because the phone company had placed the booth near a known hazardous intersection, and because the door was defective, keeping him trapped inside, he sued the phone company for compensation. Bigbee was brought to Congress to testify. He said, “I believe it would be very helpful if I could talk briefly about my case and show how it has been distorted not only by the President, but by the media as well. That is probably the best way to show that people who are injured due to the fault of others should be justly compensated for the damages they have to live with the rest of their lives.” House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, July 23, 1986. Charles Bigbee died in 1994 at age 52. Nader, Smith, No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America (1996).

Ashley

[ayumi_pukka89]

its a damn boob.......geeze....=__=

lol


damn ashley...looks liek somones been doing a lil bit *sarcasm* of research


i liek my coffee hot but not to the point where it could be used as a weapon

[Coelacanth]

We are getting completely off-topic...

Remember Janet's BOOB...?