Sexy Damages

Damages and proximate cause are two of my favorite subjects.

OK, I'm weird.

But I have some examples of how fascinating these topics can be, from lawsuits filed recently in Los Angeles.

A man - I repeat, a man - sued a drug company called Glenmark Generics because his former - I repeat, former - girlfriend got a mislabeled package of birth control pills.

It seems that "select blisters inside the pill box were rotated 180 degrees within the card, reversing the weekly tablet orientation."

Apparently that's a bad thing. Former girlfriend got pregnant.

Damages?

"Plaintiff has a claim for the reimbursement of monies spent for an unwanted pregnancy, costs incurred in custody disputes, and costs incurred in child rearing and support, both past and future."

Yes: It's unrelated third-party product liability.

Consider the issues here.

Should the plaintiff have mitigated damages by not breaking up with the girlfriend, or at least not disputing custody?

Is the plaintiff contributorily negligent for having sex?

If so, is there such a thing as negligent sex?

Though the plaintiff didn't want the pregnancy, what if the girlfriend did?

Discovery will be fun.

Next, we have a lawsuit against Sprint that made news a few weeks back because it was so entertaining.

It seems a guy bought what he thought was a new cellphone, took it home, and let his kid play with it.

According the lawsuit: "After a few minutes, plaintiff started asking Mr. Garibyan, 'Daddy, what is this?'"

This was pornographic pictures and videos of sales representatives at the Sprint store.

I don't know about you, but my reaction was: What a great idea! A phone pre-loaded with porn!

Not only that, you can examine the actors live in the store before buying the phone, to see if you want to view them naked.

I'm guessing this phone store has been mobbed by customers.

It's a marketing innovation.

Be that as it may, the lawsuit refers to this event as a "horrific situation."

You just can't please every customer.

What do you think the damage calculation for brief accidental exposure to porn is likely to be?

Finally, we have the federal class action against RockHard Laboratories.

Yes, you can keep your mind in the gutter. The company does make what you think it makes.

The item at issue is a male enhancement product called RockHard Weekend. Ads for it said - or used to day - that it was for 72-hour sexual performance. (Not on stage, I'm assuming).

Said the lawsuit: "(T)here is no evidence a single capsule of RockHard Weekend provides enhanced sexual male performance throughout the course of a weekend, which typically spans from 48 to 72 hours. The small print on the pack of the Product's packaging states that consumers should 'take one capsule every 24 hours' only bolsters this point."

So should you mitigate damages by reading the directions?

Another enjoyable upcoming deposition.

By the way, I've just had a revelation: All these cases are about sex.

Maybe I'm not that interested in damages and proximate cause ...

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit