Dec 302017
 
Humorous text about a case in court : WILEY E. COYOTE VS. ACME COMPANY.
File COYOTE.ZIP from The Programmer’s Corner in
Category Various Text files
Humorous text about a case in court : WILEY E. COYOTE VS. ACME COMPANY.
File Name File Size Zip Size Zip Type
COYOTE.TXT 10405 4517 deflated

Download File COYOTE.ZIP Here

Contents of the COYOTE.TXT file


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COYOTE v. ACME
In the United States District Court, Southwestern District, Tempe, Arizona
Case No. B191294, Judge Joan Kujava, Presiding

Wiley E. Coyote, Plaintiff
v.
Acme Company, Defendant

Opening Statement of Harold Schoff, attorney for Mr. Coyote: My client,
Mr. Wiley E. Coyote, a resident of Arizona and contiguous states, does
hereby bring suit for damages against the Acme Company, manufacturer and
retail distributor of assorted merchandise, incorporated in Delaware and
doing business in every state, district and territory. Mr. Coyote seeks
compensation for personal injuries, loss of business income, and mental
suffering caused as a direct result the actions and/or gross negligence
of said company, under Title 15 of the United States Code, Chapter 47,
section 2072, subsection (a), relating to product liability.

Mr. Coyote states that on eighty-five separate occasions he has
purchased of the Acme Company (hereinafter, "Defendant"), through that
company's mail-order department, certain products which did cause him
bodily injury due to defects in manufacture or improper cautionary
labelling. Sales slips made out to Mr. Coyote as proof of purchase are
at present in the possession of the Court, marked Exhibit A. Such
injuries sustained by Mr. Coyote have temporarily restricted his ability
to make a living in his profession of predator. Mr. Coyote is self-
employed and thus not eligible for Workmen's Compensation.

Mr. Coyote states that on December 13th he received of Defendant via
parcel post one Acme Rocket Sled. The intention of Mr. Coyote was to use
the Rocket Sled to aid him in pursuit of his prey. Upon receipt of the
Rocket Sled Mr. Coyote removed it from its wooden shipping crate and,
sighting his prey in the distance, activated the ignition. As Mr. Coyote
gripped the handlebars, the Rocket Sled accelerated with such sudden and
precipitate force as to stretch Mr. Coyote's forelimbs to a length of
fifty feet. Subsequently, the rest of Mr. Coyote's body shot forward
with a violent jolt, causing severe strain to his back and neck and
placing him unexpectedly astride the Rocket Sled. Disappearing over the
path, the Rocket Sled soon brought Mr. Coyote abreast of his prey. At
that moment the animal he was pursuing veered sharply to the right. Mr.
Coyote vigorously attempted to follow this maneuver but was unable to do
so, due to poorly designed steering and a faulty or nonexistent braking
system. Shortly thereafter, the unchecked progress of the Rocket Sled
brought it and Mr. Coyote into collision with the side of a mesa.

Paragraph One of the Report of Attending Physician (Exhibit B), prepared
by Dr. Ernest Grosscup, M.D., D.O., details the multiple fractures,
contusions and tissue damage suffered by Mr. Coyote as a result of this
collision. Repair of the injuries required a full bandage around the
head (excluding the ears), a neck brace, and full or partial casts on
all four legs.

Hampered by these injuries, Mr. Coyote was nevertheless obliged to
support himself. With this in mind, he purchased of Defendant as an aid
to mobility one pair of rocket skates. When he attempted to use this
product, however, he became involved in an accident remarkably similar
to that which occurred with the Rocket Sled. Again, Defendant sold over
the counter, without caveat, a product which attached powerful jet
engines (in this case, two) to inadequate vehicles, with little or no
provision for passenger safety. Encumbered by his heavy casts, Mr.
Coyote lost control of the Rocket Skates soon after strapping them on,
and collided with a roadside billboard so violently as to leave a hole
in the shape of his full silhouette.

Mr. Coyote states that on occasions too numerous to list in this
document he has suffered mishaps with explosives purchased of the
Defendant: the Acme "Little Giant" Firecracker, the Acme Self-Guided
Aerial Bomb, etc. (For a full listing see the Acme Mail Order Explosives
Catalogue and attached deposition, entered into evidence as Exhibit C.)
Indeed, it is safe to say that not once has an explosive purchased of
Defendant by Mr. Coyote performed in an expected manner. To cite just
one example: At the expense of much time and personal effort, Mr. Coyote
constructed around the outer rim of a butte a wooden trough beginning at
the top of the butte and spiralling downward around it to some few feet
above a black X painted on the desert floor. The trough was designed in
such a way that a spherical explosive of the type sold by Defendant
would roll easily and swiftly down to the point of detonation indicated
by the X. Mr. Coyote placed a generous pile of birdseed directly on the
X, and then, carrying the spherical Acme Bomb (Catalogue #78-832),
climbed to the top of the butte. Mr. Coyote's prey, seeing the bird
seed, approached, and Mr. Coyote proceeded to light the fuse. In an
instant, the fuse burned down to the stem, causing the bomb to
detonate.

In addition to reducing all Mr. Coyote's careful preparation to naught,
the premature detonation of Defendant's product resulted in the
following disfigurements to Mr. Coyote:

1. Severe singeing of the hair on the head, neck and muzzle.

2. Sooty discoloration.

3. Fracture of the left ear at the stem, causing the ear to dangle in
the aftershock with a creaking noise.

4. Full or partial combustion of whiskers, producing kinking, frazzling,
and ashy disintegration.

5. Radical widening of the eyes, due to brow and lid charring.

We come now to the Acme Spring-Powered Shoes. The remains of a pair of
these purchased by Mr. Coyote on June 23rd are Plaintiff's Exhibit D.
Selected fragments have been shipped to the metallurgical laboratories
of the University of California at Santa Barbara for analysis, but to
date no explanation has been found for this product's sudden and extreme
malfunction. As advertised by Defendant, this product is simplicity
itself: two wood-and-metal sandals, each attached to milled-steel
springs of high tensile strength and compressed into a tightly coiled
position by a cocking device with a lanyard release. Mr. Coyote believed
that this product would enable him to pounce upon his prey in the
initial moments of the chase, when swift reflexes are at a premium.

To increase the shoes' thrusting power still further, Mr. Coyote
affixed them by their bottoms to the side of a large boulder. Adjacent
to the boulder was a path which Mr. Coyote's prey was known to frequent.
Mr. Coyote put his hind feet in the wood-and-metal sandals and crouched
in readiness, his right forepaw holding firmly to the lanyard release.
Within a short time Mr. Coyote's prey did indeed appear on the path
coming toward him. Unsuspecting, the prey stopped near Mr. Coyote, well
within range of the springs at full extension. Mr. Coyote gauged the
distance with care and proceeded to pull the lanyard release.

At this point, Defendant's product should have thrust Mr. Coyote
forward and away from the boulder. Instead, for reasons yet unknown, the
Acme Spring-Powered Shoes thrust the boulder away from Mr. Coyote. As
the intended prey looked on unharmed, Mr. Coyote hung suspended in air.
Then the twin springs recoiled, bringing Mr. Coyote to a violent feet-
first collision with the boulder, the full weight of his head and
forequarters falling upon his lower extremities.

The force of this impact then caused the springs to rebound, whereupon
Mr. Coyote was thrust skyward. A second recoil and collision followed.
The boulder, meanwhile, which was roughly ovoid in shape, had begun to
bounce down a hillside, the coiling and recoiling of the springs adding
to its velocity. At each bounce, Mr. Coyote came into contact with the
boulder, or the boulder came into contact with Mr. Coyote, or both came
into contact with the ground. As the grade was a long one, this process
continued for some time.

A sequence of collisions resulted in systemic physical damage to Mr.
Coyote, viz., flattening of the cranium, sideways displacement of the
tongue, reduction of length of legs and upper body, and compression of
vertebrae from base of tail to head. Repetition of blows along a
vertical axis produced a series of regular horizontal folds in Mr.
Coyote's body tissues -- a rare and painful condition which caused Mr.
Coyote to expand upward and contract downward alternately as he walked,
and to emit off-key, accordionlike wheezing with every step. The
distracting and embarrassing nature of this symptom has been a major
impediment to Mr. Coyote's pursuit of a normal social life.

As the Court is no doubt aware, Defendant has a virtual monopoly of
manufacture and sale of goods required by Mr. Coyote's work. It is our
contention that Defendant has used its market advantage to the detriment
of the consumer of such specialized products as itching powder, giant
kites, Burmese tiger traps, anvils, and two-hundred-foot-long rubber
bands. Much as he has come to distrust Defendant's products, Mr. Coyote
has no other domestic source of supply to which to turn. One can only
wonder what our trading partners in Western Europe and Japan would make
of such a situation, where a giant company is allowed to victimize the
consumer in the most reckless and wrongful manner over and over again.

Mr. Coyote respectfully requests that the Court regard these larger
economic implications and assess punitive damages in the amount of
seventeen million dollars. In addition, Mr. Coyote seeks actual
damages (missed meals, medical expenses, days lost from professional
occupation) of one million dollars; general damages (mental suffering,
injury to reputation) of twenty million dollars; and attorney's fees of
seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Total damages: thirty-eight
million seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. By awarding Mr. Coyote
the full amount, this Court will censure Defendant, its directors,
officers, shareholders, successors, and assigns, in the only language
they understand, and reaffirm the right of the individual predator to
equal protection under the law.


 December 30, 2017  Add comments

Leave a Reply