One of the more unique aspects of living in the US is that we have a particularly strong sense of justice. Suing one another is as an American as apple pie or baseball. But since this is also a country of extremes that means there are some extremely ridiculous lawsuits out there.
For more unusual things on beer check our 5 Top Strange Beer Concepts.
1. Flat beer case
When you buy yourself a 6 pack of ice-cold beers you would expect to get 6 nice frothy beers. One day a Californian man opened a can of beer and after taking a sip he immediately pronounced it flat. He went back to the liquor store where he got the beer but they refused to give him a fresh can of giving him his money back. He spent $20 and several hours going to the small claims court. In this case, the Californian man was given his $.75 and justice for flat beers everywhere was served.
2. Richard Overton
Richard Overton watched a lot of TV. Always weeing a flurry of beer commercials come across the screen as he watched all his favorite sports programs. Seeing all those nice-looking women fawning over average-looking guys inspired him to grab a case of Budweiser in order to solve all his problems. When nothing happened he sued the brewing company for a ton of money. Basically, he was claiming that Anheuser-Busch had violated a Michigan Staten Law against deceptive advertising by not disclosing in their ads that alcohol has some negative side effects. Anheuser-Busch argued that there was under no obligation to disclose the dangers of overconsumption under Michigan law.
The Michigan courts decided to rule in favor of Anheuser-Busch for two main reasons. They concluded that beer ads in question didn’t constitute fraud by using nice locations and good-looking people. The court agreed with Anheuser-Busch that they didn’t need to disclose the dangers of alcohol abuse. His case was dismissed.
3. Inmates suing beer breweries
In the state of Idaho in 2013, five inmates at the Idaho State Correctional Institution sued national beer and wine companies for $1 billion. They claim that alcohol was responsible for their life of crime ad they weren’t sufficiently warned about alcohol’s addictive properties. Inmates didn’t have an attorney and drafted the litigation themselves. None of the companies responded to the suit.