A man in Texas has sued 1-800-Flowers for $1 million for telling his wife he was cheating on her.
Leroy Greer’s Complaint states that he purchased flowers for his girlfriend through 1-800-Flowers. He claims to have specifically asked 1-800-Flowers to keep his purchase private. Mr. Greer claims they assured him that the company’s privacy policy would protect him. Apparently, 1-800-Flowers pledges not to share personal information with “third parties.” 1-800-Flowers sent a thank-you note to his home, and naturally, his wife saw it and called the company which faxed her a copy of the invoice for the flowers.
Mr. Greer, an insufferable romantic, sent a note to his mistress that said, “Just wanted to say that I love you and you mean the world to me!” How sweet! After learning of the affair, Mr. Greer’s wife demanded a $300,000 divorce settlement besides child support, according to Mr. Greer’s lawyer. Greer’s Complaint seeks $1 million for breach of contract and deceptive trade practices.
Under Maryland law of contributory negligence, if a Plaintiff is 1% responsible for his injuries in a negligence action, he cannot recover for any of his injuries. Maryland is one of only 5 jurisdictions (Virginia, the District of Columbia, Alabama, and North Carolina) that have this unjust law. There is another canon in law, the doctrine of “unclean hands” which requires plaintiffs seeking fair relief must come with “clean hands.” They have done nothing unethical or unjust to receive relief. Yet another doctrine of Maryland law is assumption of the risk which states that you cannot recover in a negligence action if you assumed the risk by your own conduct.
These three doctrines do not apply to this case. But it is a shame because both would come in handy. This guy was cheating on his wife. Now he wants to sue the company that let the cat out of the bag. It is just plain frivolous.
Yesterday, I heard that one of the Rutgers women’s basketball players sued Don Imus for his “nappy-headed ho” comment he made last spring. The Plaintiff, only one of the players, claims that Imus’ characterization has tarnished her reputation.
I cannot decide which lawsuit is more frivolous. After Imus made his stupid comments, everyone and their mother have stood up and talked about how much character these women have shown throughout the controversy. Does anyone think for even a half of a second that this woman’s reputation has been tarnished? Actually, she is right, her reputation has been tarnished. But it is because she sued. As a potential future employer, how would you look upon this young woman?
I do not mean to attack this young girl because my in the blind guess is she is surrounded by people that led her in the wrong direction to a lawyer that just wanted to sue Don Imus and get a little attention. But both lawsuits are silly. This hurts personal injury lawyers and their clients because it increases the skepticism juries have every time a lawyer stands in front of a jury who has been legitimately hurt.