Wile E Coyote vs Acme
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:59 pm
In The United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Case No. B19293
Wile E. Coyote, Plaintiff
vs.
Acme Company, Defendant )
and ) Jointly and Severally
Marvin Acme, Defendant )
NOW COMES, I.M.A. Shyster, Esquire, attorney for Mr. Coyote, to wit,
My client, Mr. Wile E. Coyote (hereinafter, "Plaintiff"), a resident of Arizona and contiguous states, does hereby bring suit for damages against the Acme Company, manufacturer and retail distributor of various and assorted merchandise, a Delaware Corporation, and doing business in every state, district, and territory within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, and Marvin Acme, Chief Executive Officer and sole stockholder thereof.
Plaintiff seeks compensation for personal injuries, loss of business income, and mental suffering caused as a direct result of the actions and/or gross negligence of said company, under Title 15 USC 47, section 2072, subsection (a), relating to product liability.
Plaintiff states that on eighty-five separate occasions he has purchased of the Acme Company (hereinafter, "Defendant"), through Defendant's mail-order department, certain products which did cause him grievous bodily injury due to defects in manufacture or improper cautionary labelling. Sales slips made out to Plaintiff as proof of purchase are at present in the possession of the Honorable Court, marked Exhibit A.
Such injuries sustained by Plaintiff have temporarily restricted his ability to make a living in his profession of predator. Plaintiff is self employed and thus not eligible for Workmen's Compensation.
Plaintiff states that on December 13th he received of Defendant via parcel post of the United States Postal Service, one each Acme Rocket Sled. The intention of Plaintiff was to use the Rocket sled to aid him in pursuit of his prey. Whereupon Plaintiff removed it from its wooden shipping crate and sighting his prey in the distance, activated the ignition. As Plaintiff gripped the handlebars, the Rocket Sled accelerated with such sudden and precipitate force as to stretch Plaintiff's fore limbs to a length of fifty feet. Subsequently, the rest of Plaintiff's body shot forward with a violent jolt, causing severe strain to his back and neck and placing Plaintiff most unexpectedly astride the Rocket Sled. Disappearing over the horizon at such speed as to leave a diminishing jet trail along its path, the Rocket Sled soon brought Plaintiff abreast of his prey. At that moment the animal under pursuit, a nonendangered species pursuant to all applicable Department of the Interior regulations, then in effect, and veered sharply to the right. Plaintiff vigorously attempted to follow this maneuver but was unable to, due to poorly designed steering on the Rocket Sled and a faulty or nonexistent braking system. Shortly thereafter, the unchecked progress of the Rocket Sled brought it and Plaintiff into collision with the side of a geologic formation known as a Mesa.
Paragraph One of the Report of Attending Physician (Exhibit B), prepared by Dr. B. A. Phoule, M.D., a licensed medical practitioner and board certified in the practice of cartographic medicine, details the multiple fractures, contusions, and tissue damage suffered by Plaintiff as a result of this collision. Repair of the injuries required a full bandage around the head (excluding the ears), a neck brace, full or partial casts on all four legs, and second degree singeing of 100% bodily fur.
Hampered by these injuries, Plaintiff was nevertheless obliged to support himself and family. With this in mind, he purchased of Defendant, as an aid to mobility one pair of Acme Rocket Skates. When attempting to use said product, however, he became involved in an accident remarkably similar to that which occurred with the Rocket Sled. Again, Defendant sold over the counter, without caveat, a product employing powerful jet engines (in this case, two) to inadequate vehicles, with little or no provision whatsoever for passenger safety. Encumbered by his heavy casts, Plaintiff lost control of the Rocket Skates soon after strapping them on, and collided with a roadside billboard so violently as to leave a hole in the shape of his full silhouette.
Plaintiff states that on occasions too numerous to list in this document he has suffered mishaps with explosives purchased of Defendant: the Acme "Little Giant" fire cracker, the Acme Self-Guided Aerial Bomb, etcetera. (For a full listing, see the Acme Mail Order Explosives Catalogue and attached deposition, entered in evidence as Exhibit C.) Indeed, it is safe to say that not once has an explosive purchased of Defendant by Plaintiff performed in an expected manner. To cite just one example: At the expense of much time and personal effort, Plaintiff constructed around the outer rim of a Mesa a wooden trough beginning at the top of the butte and spiraling downward around it to some few feet above a black "X" painted on the desert floor. The trough was designed in such a way that a spherical explosive of the type sold by Defendant would roll easily and swiftly down to the point of detonation indicated by the "X". Plaintiff placed a generous pile of birdseed, compliant to all applicable USDA regulations, directly on the "X", and then, carrying the spherical Acme Bomb (Catalogue #78-832), climbed to the top of the butte. Plaintiff's prey, a Roadrunneris Americanis, seeing the birdseed, approached, and Plaintiff proceeded to light the fuse. In an instant, the fuse burned down to the stem, causing the bomb to detonate. In addition to reducing all Plaintiff's careful preparations to naught, the premature detonation of Defendant's product resulted in the following disfigurements to Plaintiff:
1. Severe singeing of the hair on the head, neck, and muzzle.
2. Sooty discoloration.
3. Fracture of the left ear at the stem, causing the ear to dangle in the after shock with a creaking noise.
4 Full or partial combustion of whiskers, producing kinking, frazzling, and ashy disintegration.
5. Radical widening of the eyes, due to brow and lid charring.
We come now to the Acme Spring-Powered Shoes, purchased by Plaintiff on June 23rd which are Plaintiff's Exhibit D. The selected fragments were provided the metallurgical laboratories of the University of California at Santa Barbara for analysis, but to date, no explanation has been found for this product's sudden and extreme malfunction. As advertised by Defendant, this product is simplicity itself: two wood-and-metal sandals, each attached to steel springs of high tensile strength and compressed in a tightly coiled position by a cocking device with a lanyard release. Plaintiff believing said product would enable him to pounce upon his prey in the initial moments of the chase, when swift reflexes are at a premium.
To increase the shoes' thrusting power still further, Plaintiff affixed them by their bottoms to the side of a large boulder. Adjacent to the boulder was a path which Plaintiff's prey was known to frequent. Plaintiff put his hind feet in the wood-and-metal sandals and crouched in readiness, his right fore paw holding firmly to the lanyard release. Within a short time Plaintiff's prey did indeed appear on the path coming toward him. Unsuspecting, the prey stopped near Plaintiff, well within range of the springs at full extension. Plaintiff gauged the distance with care and proceeded to pull the lanyard release.
At this point, Defendant's product should have thrust Plaintiff forward and away from the boulder. Instead, for reasons yet unknown, the Acme Spring-Powered Shoes thrust the boulder away from Plaintiff. As the intended prey looked on unharmed, Plaintiff hung suspended in air. Then the twin springs recoiled, bringing Plaintiff to a violent feet-first collision with the boulder, the full weight of his head and forequarters falling upon his lower extremities.
The force of this impact then caused the springs to rebound, whereupon Plaintiff was thrust skyward. A second recoil and collision followed. The boulder, meanwhile, which was roughly ovoid in shape, estimated to weigh 185 tons, had begun to bounce down a hillside, the coiling and recoiling of the springs adding to its velocity. At each bounce, Plaintiff came into contact with the boulder, or the boulder came into contact with Plaintiff, or both came into contact with the ground. As the grade was a long one, this process continued for some time.
The sequence of collisions resulted in systemic physical damage to Plaintiff, to wit, flattening of the cranium, sideways displacement of the tongue and reduction of length of legs and upper body, and compression of vertebrae from base of tail to head. Repetition of blows along a vertical axis produced a series of regular horizontal folds in Plaintiff's body tissues, a rare and painful condition which caused Plaintiff to expand upward and contract downward alternately as he walked, and to emit an off-key, accordion like wheezing with every step. The distracting and embarrassing nature of this symptom has been a major impediment to Plaintiff's pursuit of a normal social life.
As the Honorable Court is no doubt aware, Defendant has a virtual monopoly of manufacture and sale of goods required in conjunction with Plaintiff's work and livelihood. It is Plaintiff's contention that Defendant has used its market advantage to the detriment of the consumer of such specialized products as itching powder, giant kites, Burmese tiger traps, anvils, and two-hundred-foot-long rubber bands. Though much as he has come to mistrust Defendant's products, Plaintiff has no other domestic source of supply to which to turn. One can only wonder what our trading partners in Western Europe and Japan would make of such a situation, where a giant company is allowed to victimize the consumer in the most reckless and wrongful manner over and over again.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court regard these larger economic implications and assess punitive damages in the amount of seventeen million dollars. In addition, Plaintiff seeks actual damages (missed meals, medical expenses, days lost from professional occupation) of one million dollars; general damages (mental suffering and permanent injury to reputation) of twenty million dollars; and attorney's fees of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. By awarding Plaintiff the full amount, this Court will censure Defendant, its directors, officers, shareholders, successors, and assigns, in the only language they understand, and reaffirm the right of the individual predator to equal protection under the law. And for such other and further awards, reliefs and things as may be just.
WITNESSETH:
Case No. B19293
Wile E. Coyote, Plaintiff
vs.
Acme Company, Defendant )
and ) Jointly and Severally
Marvin Acme, Defendant )
NOW COMES, I.M.A. Shyster, Esquire, attorney for Mr. Coyote, to wit,
My client, Mr. Wile E. Coyote (hereinafter, "Plaintiff"), a resident of Arizona and contiguous states, does hereby bring suit for damages against the Acme Company, manufacturer and retail distributor of various and assorted merchandise, a Delaware Corporation, and doing business in every state, district, and territory within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, and Marvin Acme, Chief Executive Officer and sole stockholder thereof.
Plaintiff seeks compensation for personal injuries, loss of business income, and mental suffering caused as a direct result of the actions and/or gross negligence of said company, under Title 15 USC 47, section 2072, subsection (a), relating to product liability.
Plaintiff states that on eighty-five separate occasions he has purchased of the Acme Company (hereinafter, "Defendant"), through Defendant's mail-order department, certain products which did cause him grievous bodily injury due to defects in manufacture or improper cautionary labelling. Sales slips made out to Plaintiff as proof of purchase are at present in the possession of the Honorable Court, marked Exhibit A.
Such injuries sustained by Plaintiff have temporarily restricted his ability to make a living in his profession of predator. Plaintiff is self employed and thus not eligible for Workmen's Compensation.
Plaintiff states that on December 13th he received of Defendant via parcel post of the United States Postal Service, one each Acme Rocket Sled. The intention of Plaintiff was to use the Rocket sled to aid him in pursuit of his prey. Whereupon Plaintiff removed it from its wooden shipping crate and sighting his prey in the distance, activated the ignition. As Plaintiff gripped the handlebars, the Rocket Sled accelerated with such sudden and precipitate force as to stretch Plaintiff's fore limbs to a length of fifty feet. Subsequently, the rest of Plaintiff's body shot forward with a violent jolt, causing severe strain to his back and neck and placing Plaintiff most unexpectedly astride the Rocket Sled. Disappearing over the horizon at such speed as to leave a diminishing jet trail along its path, the Rocket Sled soon brought Plaintiff abreast of his prey. At that moment the animal under pursuit, a nonendangered species pursuant to all applicable Department of the Interior regulations, then in effect, and veered sharply to the right. Plaintiff vigorously attempted to follow this maneuver but was unable to, due to poorly designed steering on the Rocket Sled and a faulty or nonexistent braking system. Shortly thereafter, the unchecked progress of the Rocket Sled brought it and Plaintiff into collision with the side of a geologic formation known as a Mesa.
Paragraph One of the Report of Attending Physician (Exhibit B), prepared by Dr. B. A. Phoule, M.D., a licensed medical practitioner and board certified in the practice of cartographic medicine, details the multiple fractures, contusions, and tissue damage suffered by Plaintiff as a result of this collision. Repair of the injuries required a full bandage around the head (excluding the ears), a neck brace, full or partial casts on all four legs, and second degree singeing of 100% bodily fur.
Hampered by these injuries, Plaintiff was nevertheless obliged to support himself and family. With this in mind, he purchased of Defendant, as an aid to mobility one pair of Acme Rocket Skates. When attempting to use said product, however, he became involved in an accident remarkably similar to that which occurred with the Rocket Sled. Again, Defendant sold over the counter, without caveat, a product employing powerful jet engines (in this case, two) to inadequate vehicles, with little or no provision whatsoever for passenger safety. Encumbered by his heavy casts, Plaintiff lost control of the Rocket Skates soon after strapping them on, and collided with a roadside billboard so violently as to leave a hole in the shape of his full silhouette.
Plaintiff states that on occasions too numerous to list in this document he has suffered mishaps with explosives purchased of Defendant: the Acme "Little Giant" fire cracker, the Acme Self-Guided Aerial Bomb, etcetera. (For a full listing, see the Acme Mail Order Explosives Catalogue and attached deposition, entered in evidence as Exhibit C.) Indeed, it is safe to say that not once has an explosive purchased of Defendant by Plaintiff performed in an expected manner. To cite just one example: At the expense of much time and personal effort, Plaintiff constructed around the outer rim of a Mesa a wooden trough beginning at the top of the butte and spiraling downward around it to some few feet above a black "X" painted on the desert floor. The trough was designed in such a way that a spherical explosive of the type sold by Defendant would roll easily and swiftly down to the point of detonation indicated by the "X". Plaintiff placed a generous pile of birdseed, compliant to all applicable USDA regulations, directly on the "X", and then, carrying the spherical Acme Bomb (Catalogue #78-832), climbed to the top of the butte. Plaintiff's prey, a Roadrunneris Americanis, seeing the birdseed, approached, and Plaintiff proceeded to light the fuse. In an instant, the fuse burned down to the stem, causing the bomb to detonate. In addition to reducing all Plaintiff's careful preparations to naught, the premature detonation of Defendant's product resulted in the following disfigurements to Plaintiff:
1. Severe singeing of the hair on the head, neck, and muzzle.
2. Sooty discoloration.
3. Fracture of the left ear at the stem, causing the ear to dangle in the after shock with a creaking noise.
4 Full or partial combustion of whiskers, producing kinking, frazzling, and ashy disintegration.
5. Radical widening of the eyes, due to brow and lid charring.
We come now to the Acme Spring-Powered Shoes, purchased by Plaintiff on June 23rd which are Plaintiff's Exhibit D. The selected fragments were provided the metallurgical laboratories of the University of California at Santa Barbara for analysis, but to date, no explanation has been found for this product's sudden and extreme malfunction. As advertised by Defendant, this product is simplicity itself: two wood-and-metal sandals, each attached to steel springs of high tensile strength and compressed in a tightly coiled position by a cocking device with a lanyard release. Plaintiff believing said product would enable him to pounce upon his prey in the initial moments of the chase, when swift reflexes are at a premium.
To increase the shoes' thrusting power still further, Plaintiff affixed them by their bottoms to the side of a large boulder. Adjacent to the boulder was a path which Plaintiff's prey was known to frequent. Plaintiff put his hind feet in the wood-and-metal sandals and crouched in readiness, his right fore paw holding firmly to the lanyard release. Within a short time Plaintiff's prey did indeed appear on the path coming toward him. Unsuspecting, the prey stopped near Plaintiff, well within range of the springs at full extension. Plaintiff gauged the distance with care and proceeded to pull the lanyard release.
At this point, Defendant's product should have thrust Plaintiff forward and away from the boulder. Instead, for reasons yet unknown, the Acme Spring-Powered Shoes thrust the boulder away from Plaintiff. As the intended prey looked on unharmed, Plaintiff hung suspended in air. Then the twin springs recoiled, bringing Plaintiff to a violent feet-first collision with the boulder, the full weight of his head and forequarters falling upon his lower extremities.
The force of this impact then caused the springs to rebound, whereupon Plaintiff was thrust skyward. A second recoil and collision followed. The boulder, meanwhile, which was roughly ovoid in shape, estimated to weigh 185 tons, had begun to bounce down a hillside, the coiling and recoiling of the springs adding to its velocity. At each bounce, Plaintiff came into contact with the boulder, or the boulder came into contact with Plaintiff, or both came into contact with the ground. As the grade was a long one, this process continued for some time.
The sequence of collisions resulted in systemic physical damage to Plaintiff, to wit, flattening of the cranium, sideways displacement of the tongue and reduction of length of legs and upper body, and compression of vertebrae from base of tail to head. Repetition of blows along a vertical axis produced a series of regular horizontal folds in Plaintiff's body tissues, a rare and painful condition which caused Plaintiff to expand upward and contract downward alternately as he walked, and to emit an off-key, accordion like wheezing with every step. The distracting and embarrassing nature of this symptom has been a major impediment to Plaintiff's pursuit of a normal social life.
As the Honorable Court is no doubt aware, Defendant has a virtual monopoly of manufacture and sale of goods required in conjunction with Plaintiff's work and livelihood. It is Plaintiff's contention that Defendant has used its market advantage to the detriment of the consumer of such specialized products as itching powder, giant kites, Burmese tiger traps, anvils, and two-hundred-foot-long rubber bands. Though much as he has come to mistrust Defendant's products, Plaintiff has no other domestic source of supply to which to turn. One can only wonder what our trading partners in Western Europe and Japan would make of such a situation, where a giant company is allowed to victimize the consumer in the most reckless and wrongful manner over and over again.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court regard these larger economic implications and assess punitive damages in the amount of seventeen million dollars. In addition, Plaintiff seeks actual damages (missed meals, medical expenses, days lost from professional occupation) of one million dollars; general damages (mental suffering and permanent injury to reputation) of twenty million dollars; and attorney's fees of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. By awarding Plaintiff the full amount, this Court will censure Defendant, its directors, officers, shareholders, successors, and assigns, in the only language they understand, and reaffirm the right of the individual predator to equal protection under the law. And for such other and further awards, reliefs and things as may be just.
WITNESSETH:
