I lost a coat (including a checkbook) in the Cincy airport. Someone was nice enough to turn it in. I realized a week later, called them up and got it back. I was glad.

If I hadn't, I might have been upset, but it is my responsibility to watch out for my stuff.

How about this one? Last I checked, if you were behind the wheel, and there was no mechanical malfunction, you were responsible. However, if you're a lawyer, somehow, you're not.

http://www.rrstar.com/news/x154408005/Lawyer-liable-for-nearly-400K-in-Chicago-restaurant-crash

The legal profession, like the medical profession, needs to regulate itself. I've no patience at all for this sort of abuse. Loser pays, anyone?

"The legal profession, like the medical profession, needs to regulate itself."

I'm a free-marketer as well, but I'm at the point where I think the model should be "regulate itself, but with the knowledge that someone can swoop in at a moment's notice if things get out of hand". Kind of like how it's up to you to control the volume on your stereo in your apartment, but knowing if it gets too loud someone's gonna come along and make you turn it down to like 3.

"Loser pays, anyone?"

Similarly, that sounds like a great idea, but there are a lot of legitimate claims that lose, claims that could never even be brought if loser pays was an across-the-board rule. I'm more of the opinion it should be a penalty that the judge could call down for a blatantly frivolous case.

Pass laws to cover the 10% of bad eggs, and don't over-legislate the reasonable people. Seems the best idea. Which is why those Zero-tolerance policies are so mindless.

Vinnie writes: "I'm a free-marketer as well, but I'm at the point where I think the model should be 'regulate itself, but with the knowledge that someone can swoop in at a moment's notice if things get out of hand'".

The problem is that our lawyers are also, by and large, our lawmakers; nearly all federal and state legislators are lawyers. What this means is that the law profession is not subject to market constraints; it can create new markets for itself at will by passing new laws.

"I'm more of the opinion it should be a penalty that the judge could call down for a blatantly frivolous case."

That remedy is already available, but it is almost never invoked even in blatantly frivolous cases. Why not? The judges are lawyers too.

About 15 years ago I was waiting for a flight in the Bar at the San Francisco airport.

I don't wear a watch so I was looking for a clock to check to make sure I wasn't going to miss my flight and there wasn't one anywhere in the bar. I had to keep asking the bartender what time it was. It finally dawned on me that it was pretty stupid not to have a clock on display in a place where people really needed to know what time it was and I asked the bartender why they didn't have one.

He told me that they used to have a clock but it was off by 5 minutes one day and a guy missed his flight because of it and then sued the airport company in charge of running the bar.

The solution? Get rid of the clock.

I don't know if that was true or not but that's what the bartender told me.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Sigh.

This is very wrong of me, but my initial reaction is "sorry about your tiny penis, dude, now go buy yourself a reasonably priced jacket to wear in airports."

When I was in London, I ate lunch in a pub (the Hoop & Toy, fabulous food) that was in a semi-seedy part of town. Their solution to possible theft? Signs that said (paraphrasing) "This area is frequented by pickpockets, so keep an eye on your belongings. We are not responsible for stolen personal items." I just loved that. Don't leave your stuff laying around and expect someone else to keep an eye on it for you. If I had seen that guy's leather jacket, I would have turned it in to someone at the airport, but I do not expect that to happen if I lose something. Also, a leather jacket is quite the heavy item, so how did the guy not realize he didn't have it? A wallet or something I can understand leaving behind, but a leather jacket?

It's hard for there to be a "breach of duty" when there was no duty owed to him to begin with.

Sad truth is though, that this guy will get a payoff because it will be a lot less costly for these defendants' insurance companies to settle than it would be to pay for defense costs.

Vexatious litigant.

"It's hard for there to be a "breach of duty" when there was no duty owed to him to begin with."

Even if there were a clear duty - small claims court. Roy Pearson is a laughing stock for making a mountain out of a mole hill, I feel for this guy's partner and their associates.

I once lost a shoe in a motel, brand new, wore them once.

call 1: "Hello I lost a shoe in room..." , "Oh you need to talk to Mary, the head housekeeper, she's not here."

Call2 : "Hello I lost a sho...", "You need to talk to Mary, she's not in right now."

Call 3: "Hello I lost..." , "Oh yeah, I remember you, you need to talk to Mary, she's not in right now."

Call4: "Hello, this is Mary.", "Yes, um, I lost a shoe." "Oh I remember it, you should have called earlier, we threw it out."