Man sues parents for giving birth to him

The philosophy of anti-natalism has been around for a while. It’s the belief that reproduction is bad because it involves bringing someone into this world without their consent and dooming them to potential suffering.

Mumbai businessman Raphael Samuel (aka Nihil Anand) has now taken this one step further by claiming that he’s going to sue his parents for giving birth to him without his consent.

His mother's response: "I must admire my son's temerity to want to take his parents to court knowing both of us are lawyers. And if Raphael could come up with a rational explanation as to how we could have sought his consent to be born, I will accept my fault."

Of course, Samuel hasn't yet found a lawyer willing to take his case. And he fully anticipates that the case will promptly be thrown out. But he's plowing ahead nevertheless.

More details: BBC News

Posted By: Alex - Wed Feb 13, 2019 - Comments (3)
Category: Philosophy, Lawsuits, Birth Control

Girl Scouts File Suit

The most controversial poster of 1969, which prompted the Girl Scouts to file suit. Although a judge threw out the case, citing no evidence that the organization had suffered any damages.


source: Vintage Girl Scout

Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle - Aug 6, 1969

Austin American - Oct 10, 1969

Posted By: Alex - Tue Oct 09, 2018 - Comments (6)
Category: Lawsuits, 1960s, Pregnancy

Are Crunchberries real?

A classic, weird lawsuit from 2009. As summarized by

The plaintiff, Janine Sugawara, says shes bought the Cap’N'Crunch with crunchberries because she thought crunchberries were real fruit. She subsequently learned that the “berries” were actually nothing more than brightly colored cereal balls, and that the cereal contained no real fruit.
She sued on the grounds that the cereal advertised falsely. She reported that she was suing for herself, and every other consumer that had been “tricked” by the cereal company. According to the complaint, Sugawara and other consumers were misled not only by the use of the word “berries” in the name, but also by an image on the front of the box, which features the product’s namesake, Cap’N'Crunch, aggressively “thrusting a spoonful of ‘Crunchberries’ at the prospective buyer.” The plaintiff brought claims for fraud, breach of warranty, and the California Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Long story short, the judge didn't buy her argument. You can read the full decision here (pdf).

Posted By: Alex - Sat Sep 29, 2018 - Comments (5)
Category: Lawsuits

A great moment in criminal defense

"The mere fact that you're holding up McDonald's with a gun doesn't mean you give up your right to be protected from somebody who wants to shoot you."
-Attorney for Timothy Ray Anderson who was shot by a security guard while robbing a McDonald's in 1991.

I'm curious to know what happened to Anderson's case, but haven't been able to find any follow-up about it.

Wisconsin State Journal - May 29, 1993

Posted By: Alex - Mon Sep 24, 2018 - Comments (6)
Category: Crime, Lawsuits

A quarter pounder, hold the cheese

Cynthia Kissner and Leonard Werner have filed a class-action lawsuit against McDonald's, complaining that the cost of a Quarter Pounder without cheese is the same as it with cheese.

As people who like their Quarter Pounders without cheese, they feel ripped off and are asking for $5 million in damages.

Read their complaint here.

More info here.

Posted By: Alex - Tue Jun 26, 2018 - Comments (4)
Category: Lawsuits, Junk Food

Takes $1.95 Dispute to Supreme Court

During the gasoline shortage of 1979, New York state ordered a $7 minimum purchase of gas at stations, to stop people topping up. Frank Makara's tank would only hold $5.05 woth of gas, but he had to pay the full $7 minimum anyway. Outraged, he sued the BP station that charged him the $7, and took his suit all the way to the supreme court... which refused to hear the case. He ended up spending over $100 to try to recover $1.95.

According to the online inflation calculator I ran the numbers through, $1.95 in 1979 has the same purchasing power as $7.18 in 2017. So, even in today's money, not worth going to court over. Unless you're a stubborn old goat for whom the principle is worth more than the money spent on court fees.

White Plains Journal News - Apr 21, 1981

Posted By: Alex - Thu Nov 16, 2017 - Comments (7)
Category: Lawsuits, 1980s

Cry of ecstasy or yell of pain?

November 1949: Mrs. Valerie Humphries accused artist Rodney Roth of biting her bare midriff during a Halloween party — so hard that she yelled out in pain. Roth didn't dispute the bite but insisted that the sound she made was actually a "cry of ecstasy." The judge ruled in favor of Mrs. Humphries.

Arizona Republic - Nov 26, 1949

Posted By: Alex - Sat Feb 04, 2017 - Comments (3)
Category: Noises and Other Public Disturbances of the Peace, Lawsuits, 1940s

Thought she could fly like Batman

On January 28, 1966, Erma Veith was driving along Highway 19 in Wisconsin when suddenly she veered out of her lane and sideswiped an oncoming truck driven by Phillip Breunig.

Breunig later sued for damages, but Mrs. Veith's insurance company offered an unusual defense. It said she wasn't negligent and therefore not liable because she had been overcome by a mental delusion moments before swerving out of her lane. She hadn't been operating her automobile "with her conscious mind."

The insurance company lost the initial case, but appealed, and eventually the dispute ended up before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin (Breunig v. American Family Insurance Co.). There, the court heard the nature of the mental delusion that had gripped Mrs. Veith:

The psychiatrist testified Mrs. Veith told him she was driving on a road when she believed that God was taking ahold of the steering wheel and was directing her car. She saw the truck coming and stepped on the gas in order to become airborne because she knew she could fly because Batman does it. To her surprise she was not airborne before striking the truck but after the impact she was flying.

Actually, Mrs. Veith's car continued west on Highway 19 for about a mile. The road was straight for this distance and then made a gradual turn to the right. At this turn her car left the road in a straight line, negotiated a deep ditch and came to rest in a cornfield. When a traffic officer came to the car to investigate the accident, he found Mrs. Veith sitting behind the wheel looking off into space. He could not get a statement of any kind from her.

The court ultimately agreed with the insurance company that a sudden mental incapacity might excuse a person from the normal standard of negligence. It noted that a Canadian court had once reached a similar conclusion: "There, the court found no negligence when a truck driver was overcome by a sudden insane delusion that his truck was being operated by remote control of his employer and as a result he was in fact helpless to avert a collision."

But the Wisconsin Supreme Court then ruled that this excuse didn't apply in Veith's case because she had had similar episodes before. Therefore, she should have reasonably concluded that she wasn't fit to drive.

This case has become an important precedent in tort law, establishing the principle that you can't use sudden mental illness as an excuse if you have forewarning of your susceptibility to the condition.

The case is such a classic that in an issue of the Georgia Law Review (Summer 2005) it was even described in verse:

A bright white light on the car ahead,
Entranced Erma Veith, so she later said.
Pursuing that light, a miracle did unfold:
Of Erma's steering wheel, God took control.
Under the influence of celestial propulsion,
Erma now operated by divine compulsion.
She met a truck, and responded in scorn:
She hit the gas, so she'd become airborne.
Why, Erma, would you seek elevation?
"Batman!" she replied, "my inspiration!"
Moreover, at trial, other evidence of panic:
She had previously invoked the Duo Dynamic.
Once to her daughter, she had commented:
"Batman is good; your father is demented."
The law held sympathy for Erma's plight:
After all, mankind has long yearned for flight.
Soaring above, slipping gravity's attraction,
Many have aspired to that satisfaction.
Still, the law cautioned, the limits were great:
"Was Erma forewarned of her delusional state?"
On this issue, the evidence appeared strong:
"She had known of her condition all along."
She experienced a vision, at a shrine in a park:
When the end came, she would be in the Ark.
Indeed, she would assist, in sorting them out:
Those to be saved, and those not devout.
Knowing all this, said the court in conclusion,
She might well expect, she'd suffer delusion.
In her condition, a state most bizarre,
Erma was negligent, to drive a car.
And to Erma, a lesson of universal appeal:
"Nothing can emulate the Batmobile!"

Posted By: Alex - Thu Sep 15, 2016 - Comments (5)
Category: Law, Lawsuits, 1960s

Cable Car Nymphomaniac

In my latest article over at, I tell the story of the 1970 Cable Car Nymphomaniac lawsuit — which is still one of the most infamous legal cases in SF's history (and was recently made into a musical).

Posted By: Alex - Fri Apr 29, 2016 - Comments (8)
Category: Lawsuits, 1970s

Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

Get WU Posts by Email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

weird universe thumbnail
Who We Are
Alex Boese
Alex is the creator and curator of the Museum of Hoaxes. He's also the author of various weird, non-fiction books such as Elephants on Acid.

Paul Di Filippo
Paul has been paid to put weird ideas into fictional form for over thirty years, in his career as a noted science fiction writer. He has recently begun blogging on many curious topics with three fellow writers at The Inferior 4+1.

Our banner was drawn by the legendary underground cartoonist Rick Altergott.

Contact Us
Monthly Archives
April 2019 •  March 2019 •  February 2019 •  January 2019

December 2018 •  November 2018 •  October 2018 •  September 2018 •  August 2018 •  July 2018 •  June 2018 •  May 2018 •  April 2018 •  March 2018 •  February 2018 •  January 2018

December 2017 •  November 2017 •  October 2017 •  September 2017 •  August 2017 •  July 2017 •  June 2017 •  May 2017 •  April 2017 •  March 2017 •  February 2017 •  January 2017

December 2016 •  November 2016 •  October 2016 •  September 2016 •  August 2016 •  July 2016 •  June 2016 •  May 2016 •  April 2016 •  March 2016 •  February 2016 •  January 2016

December 2015 •  November 2015 •  October 2015 •  September 2015 •  August 2015 •  July 2015 •  June 2015 •  May 2015 •  April 2015 •  March 2015 •  February 2015 •  January 2015

December 2014 •  November 2014 •  October 2014 •  September 2014 •  August 2014 •  July 2014 •  June 2014 •  May 2014 •  April 2014 •  March 2014 •  February 2014 •  January 2014

December 2013 •  November 2013 •  October 2013 •  September 2013 •  August 2013 •  July 2013 •  June 2013 •  May 2013 •  April 2013 •  March 2013 •  February 2013 •  January 2013

December 2012 •  November 2012 •  October 2012 •  September 2012 •  August 2012 •  July 2012 •  June 2012 •  May 2012 •  April 2012 •  March 2012 •  February 2012 •  January 2012

December 2011 •  November 2011 •  October 2011 •  September 2011 •  August 2011 •  July 2011 •  June 2011 •  May 2011 •  April 2011 •  March 2011 •  February 2011 •  January 2011

December 2010 •  November 2010 •  October 2010 •  September 2010 •  August 2010 •  July 2010 •  June 2010 •  May 2010 •  April 2010 •  March 2010 •  February 2010 •  January 2010

December 2009 •  November 2009 •  October 2009 •  September 2009 •  August 2009 •  July 2009 •  June 2009 •  May 2009 •  April 2009 •  March 2009 •  February 2009 •  January 2009

December 2008 •  November 2008 •  October 2008 •  September 2008 •  August 2008 •  July 2008 •