Lawyers Who Found Devious Loopholes
Loopholes and weird laws make their way into courtrooms more often than you’d think. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t, but it’s always entertaining either way.
1. Good Grief
In Arkansas, the prosecutor filed involuntary commitment against my neighbor who had come to believe he was Jesus Christ. Judge ruled against the commitment. The prosecutor asked how he could rule against committing someone clearly insane.
The judge replied, “The law requires you to prove he’s a danger to himself or others and you didn’t do that...besides this Friday is Good Friday and he’s going to be locked away anyhow.”
2. Had He Only Known
My city has a rule requiring advance notice to the government for any hazards before the city is responsible for it. I learned about this when my roommate hit a bunch of concrete bags that had fallen off a DOT truck.
On the freeway at night, he hit them at full speed.
His car was totaled, but the city said, "Sorry, we are only liable if someone had given us advanced warning 30 days ago. We aren't responsible for driving hazards that fall off our trucks until then."
3. Words Matter
I had a case where a guy was charged for running a red light. The thing is, he had been sitting at the light for over 5 minutes and it hadn’t changed. The wording of the specific section under which he was charged with running the red related to stop signs and traffic lights and referred to them as “traffic regulation devices.” That gave me an idea.
I successfully argued that as the traffic light wasn’t changing, it wasn’t regulating traffic but completely stopping it. The judge actually dismissed the ticket.
I couldn’t believe it when the judge ruled in my favor, neither could the prosecutor!
Pexels
4. But Why Sue The Dentists?
I was doing some research for a case when I was a law student and found something wild. What happened was this: A man sued the College of Dental Surgeons (among others) for “persecuting him” and interfering in his ability to live as a “
genetic Martian.” The plaintiff claimed that he had been cloned from space debris NASA found in the 1960s.
He claimed he had a genetic test to prove this, but it had been doctored by the CIA as part of the conspiracy against him. Well, naturally, this claim raises the concern that the plaintiff was bonkers, but there was no evidence (aside from his bizarre claims). In court, the case was handled in two ways. First, they decided that the case was patently frivolous and vexatious because it was absurd. But the second part was so crazy, my jaw dropped.
The judge held that only a “person” could commence an action in Ontario. The Rules of Civil Procedure define a “person” to be either a human being or a corporation. The plaintiff’s whole case was based on him being a Martian.
If he was not a Martian, his case had no merit. If he was a Martian, he lacked standing to commence a lawsuit in Ontario!
In short, we now have precedent that Martians cannot sue in Ontario.
