The United States has a rich history of outlandish trials. The Institute of Legal Reforms of the US Code of Commerce listed “frivolous” claims: from everything related to Taco Bell meat to Velveeta Mac N ‘Cheese, which is preparing for too long, and Crocs, which are compressed in the heat.
Nevertheless, one conflict can simply get a reward as the most ridiculous reason to sue someone. Recently, another case of an absurd court claim occurred: a resident of an apartment building for two years used the Internet for his neighbor for free, and after installing a password, he demanded access to the network through the court.
Rick Connor, the plaintiff, claimed that access to the Internet was necessary for his work. The judge, amazed at the absurdity of the lawsuit, said to Connor whether he really wanted to access the Wi-Fi neighbor through the court. Connor confidently confirmed his intentions.
At the meeting, Rick said that he has been living opposite the neighbor Jennifer for two years and all this time he used her Internet without problems until the password appeared. According to him, he politely asked Jennifer several times to provide him with a password, but received a refusal.
The judge asked if Jennifer knew that Connor used her Internet. The woman replied that she understood this only when the account for the Internet grew to an unacceptable level. Initially, its monthly payment amounted to about $100, but over time increased to $150.
Connor said that he considers himself the right to use the Wi-Fi neighbor, as he was interfered with loud music, which Jennifer included in his apartment. However, the judge did not accept these arguments and asked Connor a simple question: why don’t he connect his own Internet?
The conflict between the neighbors continued to aggravate. Jennifer said that Connor often knocks on her door at any time of the day, leaves notes demanding a password. One of these notes contained a request in which he argued that his work depends on access to Wi-Fi.
The judge not only rejected Connor’s claim but also issued a temporary prohibitive warrant that prohibits him from bothering Jennifer. Connor was forbidden to knock on the door of the neighbor and leave notes. The judge emphasized that in case of violation of the ban, the case will be revised.