A cemetery groundsman was seriously injured when he tripped over a tombstone and fell into a freshly dug cemetery plot.
The worker, 62, was replacing a tombstone that was displaced in order to dig a new burial plot around 10:15 a.m., at the Cemetery, when he tumbled into the empty, 8-foot-deep hole. He was trying to move a gravestone around the hole. That hole was ready to go for a casket. When EMT’s got to the scene the injured worker lying in the hole on his side.
The worker’s condition changed from critical to stable condition as he was transported to the Hospital. He suffered a broken shoulder, arm and leg. And what do you think maybe a psyche claim????
Submitted By: laird on September 9, 2014
New technology for automaking means cars with systems that recognize cyclists with radar, a video camera and a complex decision-making algorithm to differentiate between a biker you’re about to run off the road and shadows. When the cyclist that you’re about ready to run off the road is detected by the system, the brakes will automatically be applied. Once technology is in place to eliminate or minimize most accidents, how will attorneys make money? Will claims adjusters be out of work? What would we do without our crazy claims?
Submitted By: Rio2016 on September 8, 2014
This funny article was in the Indianapolis, Indiana Star Newspaper:
A Marion Indiana attorney hates socks and has a habit of appearing in court with bare toes tucked into his shoes.
But if he shows up again without socks on his feet in Blackford Circuit Court in Hartford City, the judge has threatened sanctions.
The directive is laid out in a court order issued Aug. 26 by Blackford Circuit Judge. The order directly addresses the attorney’s courtroom fashion faux pas and explains the court decorum policy and the judge’s authority to set rules, including a dress code.
“It strikes me that the judge is entirely within his authority to require that the attorney wear socks in the courtroom,” said, a professor at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago, who teaches a class in lawyering skills.
She said socks are well within the definition of “proper business attire” proscribed by the local rules. She added the attorney seems more interested in his own comfort than how he presents himself on behalf of his client.
“While he may fancy himself the Matthew McConaughey of the Indiana Bar, this attorney should recognize that socks are part of the uniform worn by attorneys to demonstrate a respect for the formality of the courtroom and for the people whose lives are impacted by the decisions made in it,” She said.
“In my opinion, the attorney should grow up and put on a pair of socks.”
Left unanswered in the debate is the fate of female attorneys who may appear in Young’s court not wearing hose.
In the three-page decorum directive, which is posted on The Indiana Law Blog, the judge wrote that when the attorney appeared in his court on Aug. 22 he observed that the attorney “was not wearing socks upon his feet” but was otherwise appropriately dressed.
During a break in the hearing, the order says, Young privately advised the attorney “that he was not appropriately dressed as required by Local Rule, and that the court would insist upon him wearing socks should he choose to present cases in the Blackford Circuit Court in the future.”
“Attorney advised the court,” the judge wrote in his order, “that ‘I hate socks’ and that he’s had ‘this conversation with other judges in other courts.’”
Unless the judge could show him applicable “orders or other legal authority,” the judge noted, the attorney said “he would continue his habit of appearing sockless in court.”
The exchange prompted Young’s order, which says the court has “inherent powers to maintain appropriate decorum in matters that come before this court.” The judge said that standard is important “when members of the public are engaged in litigation, or as spectators in proceedings before the court.”
The judge said local court rules state “attorneys shall be punctual and dressed in appropriate business attire when appearing in court.”
“The Blackford Circuit Court considers socks to constitute a part of ‘appropriate business attire’ for male members of the bar presenting cases before the court,” the order says.
That rule, the judge explained in the order, is applied to all other attorneys who appear in Young’s court and was approved by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2010.
But a spokeswoman for the state’s high court, Kathryn Dolan, said, “The Supreme Court has not and does not approve local court rules regarding attorney attire.” She added there is no statewide dress code for attorneys who appear in Indiana courts.
In his order, Young directed the attorney “to never again appear for a legal proceeding in the Blackford Circuit Court unless he is entirely clad in ‘appropriate business attire’ which includes socks upon his feet. The court also observes that on occasions the attorney has appeared in past proceedings without wearing a tie and while wearing an open-collared shirt.”
If the attorney violates the order, Young wrote, the attorney will be subject to sanctions, including delays in proceedings — with the attorney responsible for costs incurred by other litigants due to those delays. The attorney also faces the possibility of being found in contempt of court.
Karl Ahlrichs, a senior consultant at Gregory & Appel Insurance who works in human resources and risk management, said dress codes are often about power and control. But, he added, businesses and other organizations do have the right to set standards for dress. The way people dress, he said, does have an impact on how they are viewed and treated.
“One of the things people in HR hate the most is having to do dress codes,” he explained. “They really want to have one line that says ‘dress should be appropriate,’ not pages and pages of definitions to describe exactly what capri pants are.”
In some situations, such as in a courtroom, decorum and dress is integral to the process, Ahlrichs added.
“In this case, we as a society should be supporting this judge,” he said. “A courtroom is a stage, and in that theater justice is played out and everybody has a very specific role to play.”
As an HR veteran, however, Ahlrichs said he always looks for a win-win situation. And he thinks he has one that will satisfy both sides in the dispute.
“I would tell this attorney to cut the top part off of a pair of socks so his ankles are clothed so his role in the courtroom fits society’s mold,” he explained. “His toes can still be uncontrolled by socks, so what happens inside his shoes is his own business.”
Submitted By: loser on September 5, 2014
A 75-year-old grandfather was killed Saturday when a tree fell on him while he was outside in his daughter’s back yard BBQ grilling for a family re-union. The victim’s three grandchildren, ages 9, 10 and 16, were also injured by the falling tree.
The tree also caused extensive damage to four vehicles and the homeowners house. The house is uninhabitable due to a large gaping hole in the roof. Investigators reported the tree was rotten and gave way. The sad part is the homeowner could have and should have prevented this with proper maintenance of their yard!!!!!
Submitted By: betty on September 2, 2014
A 9-year-old girl’s parents brought her to a shooting range to shoot automatic weapons under the close supervision of an instructor. While shooting an Uzi, the recoil caused the weapon to move in such a way that the instructor is shot in the head and killed. The parents are nearby. Would it be crazy for the instructor’s survivors to file a wrongful death claim against the parents or the shooting range? Were the parents negligent for allowing their young daughter to shoot an automatic weapon? Was it unreasonable for the shooting range to allow children to shoot Uzis? Does the young girl who is likely traumatized have a cause of action against her parents and/or the range? This incident was crazy and will likely result in crazy claims.
Submitted By: Crazy on August 29, 2014
Our client is a small family owned restaurant which has many returning customers. One couple was well known by the waitstaff for leaving very small tips. A very tired and overworked waitress discovered that the low tipping couple had just walked out of the front door when she discovered she had been left a quarter as her tip. She was so angry that she ran to the front door, yelled, “You need this more than I do, and she threw the quarter at the couple. Unfortunately, the thrown quarter struck the man in his right eye. The claim is still in litigation. And I sure hope the waitress was fired.
Submitted By: Jmoore on August 28, 2014
One of the stars of a show called, “Dating Naked” signed on with the understanding that her private parts would be blurred for the viewing public. To her surprise, a shot of her privates was beamed to millions of television viewers and so she filed a $10 million lawsuit against the network and two production companies. The defense will likely argue that she assumed the risk of being shown naked on a show with such name. Is this a Crazy Claim?
Submitted By: Nokaoi on August 25, 2014
China’s Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that employees injured on their way to do grocery shopping after work could receive workers’ compensation, a report said. The Supreme Court said it supported on-the-job injury claims, even when the accidents happen after work hours “within a reasonable time range” and “on a reasonable route” from a place of employment, Administrative Division Chief Justice Zhao Daguang was quoted as saying in a Chinese-language report by the state-run Xinhua News Agency. The claim would be valid if the injured worker “needed go to the food market to do some grocery shopping on a direct route” from his or her workplace, Zhao said. Likewise, workers could claim such compensation even if returning home late because they wanted to work extra hours or avoid rush-hour traffic, he said. The judicial interpretation would take effect starting Sept. 1, the report said.
Submitted By: danielle on August 22, 2014
Enter to Win Crazy Gift Cards -- Up to $100.00! You would be Crazy not to submit your bizarro claims stories for the chance to win up to $100.00 in gift cards if your story is laugh out loud funniest, cringe-worthiest or craziest. Submit your Crazy claims today -- just make sure not to use any real names of people or companies. You could be a winner!