> That goes right up there with the case of the woman who sued the tobacco company because their cigarettes were addictive.

This one I can almost understand, if I knew more about the details of the situation. I do know that tobacco companies claimed for a very long time that cigarettes were not addictive, and at that point, who is the consumer supposed to believe? If you have the right information and perspective, you can easily say "Obviously they're addictive!", but without that information and perspective, you should theoretically be able to trust the statement from the people selling the product, and when you find out that they have lied to you at serious detriment to yourself, you might be entitled to some sort of reparations.

This argument is based on some pretty broad assumptions. If any of these assumptions are wrong, it obviously doesn't hold.

> Sometimes I think some people use the legal system not to seek justice, but rather more to find a scapegoat.

I won't argue with that. :-)

> AB

Don Monkey