I wish I was a judge. Anyone bringing a frivolous lawsuit would spend two years in prison along with their snake attorney who urged them to file.

Alrighty then,...How breaking a dental plate causes fun boy to loose his abilities to "comfort" his wife is best left unexplored. I presume it never occurred to him to just get it fixed. The dental plate I mean........His other problem probably requires putting a younger man on the job.

I'm no fan of the "tort industry," but as has been pointed out elsewhere, when a food vendor sells food, there is an implied contract that it will be edible. One does not expect to break one's teeth on food, nor should one have to take precautions not to do so.

Sorry, but IMO this is a completely justifiable lawsuit, even if the tort is stated in peculiar terms.

Dave,

I have no problem with the lawsuit per se. Yes, food should be edible when you buy it from a vendor. I guess the problem I have is that the wording suggests to me that these people are going after some big "pain and suffering" angle to the case.

Do they have the right to sue for all costs associated with the injury, and ask for a reasonable award for pain from broken bridgework - sure they do. Do they get to try and rip McDonald's off for millions (I have no idea what the amount they are asking for is - so this is really more hyperbole to make apoint rather than a factual argument) because of some broken bridgework - I don't think so.....

This presumes a lot, how exactly do we know he broke his bridgework on the bagel, as opposed to dropping it on the bathroom floor? Did he do it in the resturant and tell management at the time? Or is this a drive by sort of thing, no warning, no chance to settle, diving straight for the big bucks?

Anybody who thinks a bagel isn't a tough rubbery slab of gristle has never eaten one. And frankly how old was the bridgework? 5 years, ten or more? Sorry but why not sue the Dentist, unless the goal is the tort lottery?

This is indeed frivilous, because any normal person would have gotten his bridge fixed, and understood that they suffer a huge amount of wear and tear. This guy ran out and got a lawyer.

He wants redress for a minor happenstance of life. That screams greedy golddigger to me Dave. Just because he CAN sue, doesn't mean he should. Legalisms like you suggest are why nobody, but nobody likes lawyers. To often the law is used as an excuse for greed, lawyers high five each other over the money they won. And working people like me end up paying for it. Seen the price of a new car lately, or been to the doctors office?

Some suggest that lawyers are on the side of the little guy, I'll believe that when Hell freezes over. Every case sited where someone is truely helped can be matched by dozens where nobody benefits except the attorney's bank account.