CLEVELAND - A viewer is suing NBC for $2.5 million, contending that he threw up because of a "Fear Factor" episode in which contestants ate rats mixed in a blender.
Austin Aitken told The Associated Press he watches "Fear Factor" often and had no problem with past installments where the reality show's participants ate worms and insects in pursuit of a $50,000 prize — but eating rats went "too far."
"It's barbaric, some of the things they ask these individuals to do," Aitken said Thursday.
Aitken's handwritten lawsuit contends the rat-eating made his blood pressure rise, resulting in being dizzy and lightheaded — and vomiting. Because he was disoriented he ran into a doorway, "causing suffering, injury and great pain."
Asked why he didn't shut off his television before the rat-eating segment, Aitken said he couldn't do it quick enough.
NBC responded with a brief statement: "We believe that the claim is completely without merit."
Aitken, a 49-year-old part-time paralegal, said he wants to send a message to NBC and other networks with the lawsuit. He said he isn't concerned with winning a cash judgment in court.
"I just put any figure. You really think I expect to get $2.5 million?" he said.
A "Looser Pays" system is what America needs to stop these idiots.
Of course the "mouthpieces" that are among us would argue that it will prevent the poor from having access to the legal system.
Do-gooders who were concerned about this could form a non-profit (or hell, even a for-profit) company that would in effect provide insurance for this. I.e., in return for taking some percentage of the winnings (if there are any), they would insure Mr Poor But Legitimate Plaintiff against the costs in case of loss. If the Do-gooders screen their lawsuits well (i.e., don't pursue things like "Let's sue NBC over rats in a Bass-o-matic"), they will thrive.
As an aside, it's entirely possible that this form of insurance company would recreate the problem again even under loser-pays... i.e., they might still pursue bogus lawsuits in the hopes of settling, but the economics don't work as well as they do under the current no-penalty-lottery system. I think ultimately Loser Pays would reduce the bogus case count significantly.
The answer to the other question (what if the loser has no money) is tougher; but there's always garnishing of future wages. The system doesn't have to be perfect ... you'll never eliminate all bogus lawsuits, but you sure can eliminate stupid shit like a para-legal (who clearly has money) deciding basically to sue NBC for fun (or even just as a practice case! ugh)
The other reform we need is for punitive damages -- there's nothing wrong with punitive damages as a concept. What's wrong is that the punitive damages go to the plaintiffs. The argument is that punitive damages are necessary to deter corporations from wrongdoing. That's good, but then there's no reason the plaintiffs should get to "win the lottery" by receiving the punitive damages. You win, you get your actual damages compensated. If there are additional, punitive, damages assessed, those are basically just a fine levied by the civil courts. They should go into some kitty... either as general tax revenue or, dovetailing nicely with loser-pays, they can go into a fund that helps insure poor people who want to bring legitimate lawsuits.
Fixing punitive damages will eliminate cases where someone experiences a $5 loss and sues a corporation for the $5 plus $10M in punitive damages. You can find many examples of that sort of b.s. (like the lawsuit in texas that was brought over the way insurance companies round policy bills to the nearest dollar).
When I am appointed Supreme Ruler of the Universe, I will fix a lot of things.
