'Naked Cowboy' Sues for $6 Million - AOL News

Another nutty lawsuit forthcoming. Sheesh!!!!

What about the $67 million dollar lawsuit for John Ritter's death? They have already gotten $14 million. And we wonder why medical care is so expensive.

Money doesn't solve problems, I guess.

I wouldn't go that far...As a boy who grew up without that much money, middle class sure beats po'. But I don't understand suing a whole slew of medical professionals individually for as much money as possible for what adds up to at worse, an honest mistake. I guess it's not my place to judge, but jacking it up for everybody to soothe your own sorrow seems a bit selfish.

Something I read in an Ann Landers column years ago:

On a flight, a passenger becomes ill, and another passenger is sitting next to a medical doctor.

When the first passenger became ill, the second passenger sees that the doctor is not moving an inch, nor getting up from his seat to help.

When asked why, the doctor replied, "lady, a doctor friend of mine assisted a passenger on another flight, and he was taken to the cleaners by the passenger. So I don't want to get involved."

The passenger got up from her seat to see if she could help the stricken passenger.

Ann Landers reply to the second passenger was: "Many doctors are scared green out of getting sued for malpractice."

So it would seem that a sick passenger could sue a doctor just because the passenger became ill? There are laws protecting good samaritans, are there?

I agree with you here, FX; but I suppose it all depends on everybody else's view on money that dictates how they would reactin a legal situation.
I was not wealthy growing up, but I was always taught that money is just a means from which we purchase goods and services- that's it.
As far as this deals with lawsuits; I definitely see the point some people make. Monetary awards in lawsuits should be based on recovery of lost money (costs) for the winning plaintiff. This would also cover legal and medical costs; if any.
Tort awards for death should be based on a reasonable expectancy and quality of life formula. But granted, there will be no steadfast amount or rule that can apply to everyone. But tort reform is needed in this country.

We need reform against weird freaks thinking they can do anything they want in the name of their "rights and freedoms." It's best to live in a smaller city or town where such people would be dealt with the old-fashioned way.

I'm offended by that remark...I think...I really not sure.

It's really simple. Some guy in his skivvies shows up on your town's main street with a guitar and tries to attract attention and money. Most of the townsfolk decide they do not want him to do that in their town. He gets the shit beat out of him and leaves the town never to return.

I am reminded of the scene in the movie Mulholland Falls, where the four members of the "Hat Squad" of the 1940's L.A. detectives took a gangster from Chicago for a ride. He asked them where they were going, and they told him: "Mulholland Falls". He said there was no falls in L.A. They drove to the top of a bluff overlooking L.A. and threw him off the hill. Then they drove around to the bottom of the bluff and found him lying there in pretty bad shape. They told him that this will always be his way back to Chicago.