Madison - St. Clair Record

Saturday, December 7, 2019

Door control legislation

By The Madison County Record | Mar 18, 2007

You don't say!

Pizza Hut plaintiff Amanda Verett inspired an outpouring of unsympathetic jabs on last week.

Represented by Thomas Maag -- who also brought us Madison County serial plaintiffs Armettia and Ashley Peach -- Verett's suit says she came down with a shoulder injury after opening a door for a man at the Edwardsville pizzeria. The attention also prompted more than 55,000 readers to check out the Record story.

Among the amusing Farkisms:

  • I hope Pizza Hut pays her the entire settlement. In Canadian bacon. (Source: Chemical Stump Remover)

  • Perhaps now, finally, we will get some meaningful Door Control legislation. (Source: Duke_of_URL)

    Living without it

    The Lakin Law Firm-sponsored website promises to dish timely information on a variety of topics "that can make the difference between living a good life and a great life."

    A panel of Lakin experts touts knowledge of relationship success, stress management, career advancement, health and fitness, time management, financial success, family bonding and, of course, consumer law.

    In hopes of catching a whiff of tips we're told we can't live without, Dicta signed up for the free monthly e-newsletter months ago. It may just be an oversight, but at this writing, we're still living without it.

    Uncivil civil justice

    Justice may be blind, but it's not always civil. Jurors in a recent slip and fall trial against Ramon's El Dorado Restaurant of Collinsville apparently had had enough of one another's company during their relatively short week-long encounter.

    During deliberations, the panel's arguments reverberated well outside the jury room's closed doors.

    Sources tell Dicta the plaintiff's verdict was expeditiously reached, which backfired on the unhappy campers. The jury was forced back into deliberations when a polled juror told Judge Crowder she didn't agree with the announced verdict.

    In the end the jury cut the plaintiff's $204,375.77 award in half, assessing 50 percent blame to each plaintiff and defendant.

  • Want to get notified whenever we write about ?

    Sign-up Next time we write about , we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.