I wouldn't *completely* dunk on a lawsuit against GorillaGlue. Label says "skin" not "hair" which is different. And there are things such as hair glue.
It's not the easiest case to make, but it's not as dumb as, like, 90% of the Trump election lawsuits the media took seriously.
It's not the easiest case to make, but it's not as dumb as, like, 90% of the Trump election lawsuits the media took seriously.
And, that's absolutely a point worth making. People feel chesty to dunk on a Black woman who admittedly did something stupid.
But the actual POTUS and the @GOP made far more legally dubious arguments for 77 days and mainstream press treated them like they had a shot.
But the actual POTUS and the @GOP made far more legally dubious arguments for 77 days and mainstream press treated them like they had a shot.
So, I dunno, maybe think about who you're dragging and why. Is it that you've really thought through personal injury law? At the very least, consider if you've brought the same energy for this person as you've brought to Rand Paul, who is actually dumber.
Anyway, my "official legal take" is that a lawsuit against GorillaGlue on the facts as I understand them would not survive a motion to dismiss.
And if she loses, I doubt she'll try this 61 additional times and try to start a riot over the issue.
And if she loses, I doubt she'll try this 61 additional times and try to start a riot over the issue.
Okay, people who don't get why there *could* be a case can just do a little 1L Torts exercise: Pick a product in your house, read the warning label. Understand that all those dumb ass things are something somebody PROBABLY WON A LAWSUIT after doing that one time.
*Somebody*... tried to iron their clothes while wearing them and won a lawsuit. *Somebody*... drank the Drano and they (well, their estate) sued. Warning labels are a history lesson of dumb stuff people did and then sued the manufacturer for.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
