* Re: [9fans] Acme definition
2001-03-12 2:57 [9fans] Acme definition rob pike
@ 2001-03-12 9:58 ` Dave Turner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Dave Turner @ 2001-03-12 9:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
rob@plan9.bell-labs.com (rob pike) wrote:
> Nowadays, I suspect a smart lawyer could injunct either Acme, or the
> new mexico roads department, possibly both.
>
>Ian Frazier wrote a story called "Coyote v. Acme" that later became the
>eponymous member of a book collecting his stories.
Here are "Coyote v. Acme" and Mr. Coyote's defense:
COYOTE V. ACME
In The United States District Court, Southwestern District, Tempe, Arizona
Case No. B19293, Judge Joan Kujava, Presiding
Wile E. Coyote, Plaintiff
-v.-
Acme Company, Defendant
Opening statement of Mr. Harold Schoff, attorney for Mr. Coyote:
My client, Mr. Wile E. Coyote, a resident of Arizona and contiguous
states, does hearby 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 of 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 labeling. 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 horizon at such speed as to leave a diminishing jet trail along its
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, due to poorly designed steering on the Rocket Sled 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 Acme 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
Defendant: the Acme "Little Giant" Firecracker, the Acme Self-Guided
Aerial Bomb, etc. (For a full listing, see the Acme Mail Order
Explosives Catalog and attached deposition, entered in 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 spiraling 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
(Catalog #78-832), climbed to the top of the butte. Mr. Coyote`s prey,
seeing the birdseed, 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 preparations 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 in 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 cam 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.
The sequence of collisions resulted in systemic physical damage to
Mr. Coyote, vix., 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 an 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 mistrust
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. 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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHWESTERN DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
_______________________________
WILE E. COYOTE, :
Plaintiff :
:
vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO. B19294
:
ACME COMPANY, :
Defendant :
_______________________________:
OPENING STATEMENT OF ARTHUR B. FUDDLE, ESQUIRE,
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
By Mr. Fuddle:
Ladies and Gentleman of the jury: the opening statement you have just
heard from Mr. Schoff on behalf of the plaintiff, Wile E. Coyote, paints an
incomplete picture of what occurred on the occasions when Mr. Coyote claims he
was injured by ACME products.
The evidence will clearly show that my client, ACME Products Corp., a
Division of Dangerously Innovative Products and Patents Incorporated (or
"DIPPI") is not at fault in this matter, and that any injuries sustained by the
plaintiff were clearly caused by his own negligence, assumption of the risk
and/or misuse of the products.
Now, we have all seen the footage on television of the plaintiff
withstanding various injuries which appear to be caused by ACME's products.
You have seen over and over the tape of a hapless coyote being bludgeoned by a
boulder as he is helplessly trapped by his ACME Spring Loaded Shoes. We have
all seen the photographs taken at Warner Memorial Hospital of Mr. Coyote in a
very small incubator, on life support, as his doctors attempt to straighten out
the accordion-like folds from his body. We have all seen the gruesome images
of the operation in which Dr. Tazmanian D. Devil whirls like a dervish,
obscuring his features and creating a starry, "dust cloud" effect, while
numerous limbs holding various surgical instruments swiftly repair the nerve
damage to Mr. Coyote's extremities.
It is normal for any human being to feel pity, horror, and even anger
at such images. I want you to put those images aside for the moment, because
they paint an incomplete picture. What the media has not disclosed to you, and
what you will see in this courtroom, are various attempts at murder committed
by the plaintiff - attempts which, fortunately, failed - while using my
client's products. As the plaintiff readily admits, he is a predator, and his
sole function in life is to track down and kill an innocent, highway traversing
ornithoid.
You see, ladies and gentleman, while the plaintiff is a natural
predator, he is not a very good one. His own skills were inadequate to
complete the task at hand, so he chose to seek the aid of various devices to
effectuate his diabolical schemes. He looked in a catalogue, saw my client's
products, and ordered them in the hope that they would assist him in killing
his prey.
But ladies and gentleman, ACME's products are not meant to cause
intentional harm to anyone. The plaintiff has taken what were designed as
amusements, toys for the young and feebleminded, and has twisted their use to
his own purposes.
But I digress. Let us examine the plaintiff's claims and how the
evidence clearly refutes the proposition that ACME is responsible for any harm
sustained by the plaintiff.
Mr. Coyote states that on December 13 he received an ACME Rocked Sled,
that he attempted to use said rocket sled to pursue his prey, and that, upon
igniting the sled, it accelerated with "sudden and precipitate force as to
stretch Mr. Coyote's forelimbs to a length of fifty feet."
There are several reasons why ACME cannot be held responsible for any
injuries caused by this incident. First, the warning label attached
conspicuously to the inside of the left front tire of the sled clearly stated,
and I quote: "WARNING: IGNITION OF THIS DEVICE AT FULL THROTTLE MAY CAUSE
SUDDEN AND PRECIPITATE FORCE AS TO STRETCH USER'S FORELIMBS TO A LENGTH OF UP
TO SIXTY FEET, OR MAY CAUSE DEATH." That the plaintiff suffered so little as a
result of his carelessness can be attributed only to Providence.
Second, Arizona law is clear on this point: a plaintiff who is found to
be violating any law whose purpose is safety at the time of his injury is
contributorily negligent *per se*. There is ample evidence that Mr. Coyote was
violating both the laws of gravity and inertia at the time of this incident,
and thus he is responsible for his own woes.
I could list many more examples of Mr. Coyote's negligent conduct in
connection with his use of ACME's products, but you will hear all about them as
the trial goes on. You will also hear the following evidence:
(1) You will hear the plaintiff himself testify that, prior to the injuries
complained of in this accident, he has suffered numerous injuries. As
an example, on one occasion prior to the use of any ACME product, the
plaintiff cornered his prey on the edge of a rather thin precipice.
Taking an ordinary saw, the plaintiff began cutting away so that the
edge of the cliff, with his prey on it, would drop some 1500 feet to a
jagged, rocky destruction. Instead, by some inexplicable twist of fate
the edge of the cliff remained standing while the whole mountain, on
which the plaintiff was standing, plummeted to the bottom of the
ravine, causing numerous injuries which affect the plaintiff to this
day.
On another occasion, Mr. Coyote was chasing his prey and followed it
off of the edge of a cliff onto thin air, not realizing until too late
that his prey, a bird, could remain in the air almost indefinitely
while he, a canine, could not. As a result, he fell yet again,
suffering even further severe and debilitating injuries which predate
the injuries complained of in this action.
(2) You will also hear the testimony of Mr. Road Runner, the plaintiff's
prey and the true victim in this tragedy. Mr. Runner has been forced
to live a nomadic lifestyle as a result of Mr. Coyote's unwanted
attention, preventing him from forming any type of long term
relationships. Numerous restraining orders had no effect. Mr. Runner
has also suffered numerous psychological problems as a result of Mr.
Coyote's actions, including but not limited to an inability to trust
anyone who provides him with bird seed, a necessary ingredient in his
daily nutritional schedule.
(3) You will also hear from a witness to many of the incidents alleged in
plaintiff's complaint, a colorful local prospector with red hair and
moustache who has been known to proclaim: "No rootin' tootin' coyote
can outsmart Yosemite Sam on any day of the week!" Don't be fooled by
his gruff manner and twin pearl-handled six-shooters, he's a pussycat.
(4) Customer service records of defendant ACME, which we were forced to
produce in this matter, clearly show that none of the complaints
registered by ACME's customers nation-wide have ever resulted in
criminal convictions of the officers of the corporation.
(5) Finally, videotape evidence will demonstrate that plaintiff faked many
of his injuries, setting out to create performances especially for a
jury such as yourself. On numerous occasions he would "mug" for the
camera, as if he was well aware beforehand that he was being taped.
For instance, during the "Rocked Sled" incident, as his forelimbs were
stretched out ahead of him and his body remained behind, he looked
straight into the camera with a forlorn, tired expression, as if to
say: "look at how terrible my situation is, can you guess what's going
to happen to me now." This jury is too smart to fall for such petty
theatrics.
In summary, ladies and gentlemen, it will be clear to you from the
evidence that ACME's products, if used properly, will cause only minimal
injuries to a user and his loved ones. The plaintiff in this case has brought
his troubles upon himself by adopting his carnivorous lifestyle. As others
have so adequately uttered: "Live by the Super Slick Jet Propulsion Automated
Explosive Metal-Shearing Heat-Seeking Laser-Guided Razor-Edged Boomerang, die
by the Super Slick, etc."
I ask you, on behalf of my client, to dismiss the plaintiff's claims
against it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread