September 6, 2013, - 2:00 pm

RIDICULOUS: Obama Judge Allows Absurd “Dr. Scholl’s Ruined My Life” Lawsuit to Proceed

By Debbie Schlussel

Wanna see how ridiculous a Barack Obama-appointed judge can get? Check out the case of Morway v. Dr. Scholl’s et al, the dumb lawsuit that newly-appointed Obama judge, the Honorable Gershwin Drain, refuses to dismiss. Read the lawsuit complaint (beginning on the fifth page here). The case has been going on since 2011.

drschollskillthelawyers

Debra Morway, a Detroit-area resident, is suing the makers of Dr. Scholl’s shoes and Walmart (where she bought them), claiming that Dr. Scholl’s sandals ruined her life. She says she is allergic to them and that buying and wearing the shoes inflicted mental and emotional distress upon her, that she lost past and future wages, and that she has been disfigured, humiliated, and disgraced by the shoes. Oh, and she also says she has lost career opportunities . . . all because of some sandals. Absurd.






Somebody’s clearly looking for a payday. Somebody and that somebody’s lawyer, Paul G. Valentino, who filed this frivolous, parasitic, nuisance lawsuit. Morway and Valentino are seeking more than $75,000 because of this alleged allergy to Dr. Scholl’s sandals.

Because of this, Dr. Scholl’s and Walmart’s insurance company, Travelers, has had to hire a big law firm to defend itself, and the price will be passed on to you, the consumer. If this were the only outrageous, blood-sucking lawsuit of its kind, it wouldn’t be such a big deal. Thing is, there are a gazillion lawsuits like this filed in local, state, and federal courts every single second of every business day. And all it does is make people hate lawyers and cost consumers a $10 billion plus litigation tax in the form of higher prices and costs for our products and services.

Dr. Scholl’s sandals have gone in and out of fashion many times since I was a kid. I never bought a pair because they look incredibly uncomfortable–and they’re not that attractive or fashionable. But they are cheap and economical. And if I had bought the shoes, it wouldn’t be a license to get the company to take care of me financially for the rest of my life, which is what this woman, Debra Morway, is seeking.

Travelers’ lawyers made a valiant case for why this ludicrous lawsuit–an obvious attempt at an easy payday–should be dismissed. But Drain–who is doing Obama’s bidding in going after “Big Shoes”–recently denied their motion. So, the case continues, and Debra Morway and her lawyer, Mr. Valentino, have a better chance at collecting, when the lawyers on the other side see that they may have no chance but to settle to make this absurdity go away.

Cha-ching!

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

38 Responses

A good pair of quality shoes cost money!

It would have been cheaper for Debra Morway to upgrade her shoes than to spend money on a pointless lawsuit. We have dumb people in this country.

To discourage frivolous lawsuits, we need a loser-pays rule. If you lose your case, you should pay for it.

In the end, Walmart will probably elect to settle because its still a lot cheaper than taking their chances with a jury. Morway may be smiling all the way to a fatter bank account but the rest of us will pay for it in the long run in not being able to buy what we want.

No wonder people hate lawyers!

NormanF on September 6, 2013 at 5:42 pm

Off topic but maybe you can weigh in on it. Is DeWayne Wickham, the black liberal Democrat who is an oped writer for USA Today, invoking anti-Israel and anti-Semitic conspiracies here in his column arguing against intervention in Syria? It really does seem to me that he is blaming the drive to attack Syria on Jews.

I hope Madam Schlussel gets a chance to see and weigh in on this before the Jewish Sabbath. Not a Zionist or anything like that, but for goodness sakes to have a lead columnist of a major newspaper overtly impugn Jewish politicians and Israel with this “Jewish lobby” conspiracy type stuff is amazing. How did this column even make it past the editorial board at USA Today, who is supposed to screen out anti-Semitic and other bigoted content? And I am really disappointed in Wickham. He may be a liberal Democrat, but I have never seen anything with anti-Semitic undertones from the guy before now.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/09/02/dewayne-wickham-on-obama-and-syria/2754355/

Gerald on September 6, 2013 at 5:59 pm

    Gerald, you should know more than anyone when dumb, Libtard Blacks on the White, Libtard, Slave Plantation (but they’re so dumb they don’t know it, LOLOL!) have to blame someone, looking in that mirror is a bit too scary. Can’t blame themselves for being foolish and being so transparently duped so they go for the Joooooooos to blame dump. Like 7 always comes before 8.

    I don’t need to read that boring article to know that. When one can think for themselves AND also lacks critical thinking skills a dumb Black will most likely always be a Jew hater. Bor! Ing!

    And it’s funny that you couldn’t dare be a Zionist. Bet you’d love to give Africa back to Blacks everywhere thou’. LMAO.

    And fools like you should try to take back The Dark Continent. I dare ya, Gerald. Have a go! ;P

    Skunky on September 6, 2013 at 7:28 pm

      skunky: “And it’s funny that you couldn’t dare be a Zionist.”

      Ha! Good catch on that one. Gerald is a L.I. conservative, I guess? Taking his “talking points” and “stance” from CNN and CNBC that now it’s unfashionable to be a Zionist.

      Hey Gerald, why should Jews be denied their tiny, hard-fought historical and religious homeland? Why are you afraid to defend Israel’s right to exist and exist in peace?

      “Zionism”, unlike what idiot leftists (and the scumbag muslim subversives) try to assert, is not a dirty or shameful word.

      DS_ROCKS! on September 7, 2013 at 1:37 am

We have seen far too many of these “Payday” lawsuits. Judges should act as the gatekeepers to keep such garbage out.

Worry01 on September 6, 2013 at 6:13 pm

While Dr Scholl may not look attractive or fashionable, the whole point of them is about being comfortable. But of course, mileages vary, and in the event of them not meeting the expectations, stop wearing them & either exchange or refund.

It’s funny how people who always proclaim the superiority of the Europeans won’t adapt one European practice that makes sense in this case – Loser pays!

Infidel on September 6, 2013 at 7:01 pm

    “While Dr Scholl may not look attractive or fashionable…”

    Speak for yerself. Girls wearing those drive me crazy.

    DS_ROCKS! on September 7, 2013 at 1:30 am

Even if you bought the shoes and didn’t like them or they gave you a problem, wouldn’t any retard simply stop wearing them and not buy them again?

jerry on September 6, 2013 at 8:38 pm

“Oh, and she also says she has lost career opportunities . . . all because of some sandals.”

…yeah, well, show up for a job interview in said sandals, PJ’s, curlers in your hair and a cigarette dangling from your lips… what would you expect?

@Infidel @ 7:01 pm: “Loser Pays” should be the law, but imagine all the lawyers out of work?..Unthinkable! Unemployment rates would go through the roof! ;)

theShadow on September 6, 2013 at 9:58 pm

1st. Is this article about a silly judge really suppose to impugn the president? Come on, its really foolish thing to just blame blame blame. Just foolish. Im sure the judge is qualified but he’s allowing a silly case to proceed, ok, so lets blame President Barack, lol, while he’s dealing with World War 3 potential. Quack.
2nd. Skunky some days your posts are just inane. Gerald asked a good question, and you answer with complete absurdness. You do your intelligence and quick wit such a disservice harping like you do at times. Some days you can be so Underwhelming but you think you’re being sharp. Be still sometimes and think before you answer. Africa? who brought up Africa, Skunky sometimes you need to just Shut IT.
Hopefully someone answers Geralds question with a cogent thought, unlike Skunky

Big D on September 7, 2013 at 12:35 am

    That’s right, Big, Dumb Dinky, you ARE the dumb type of Black I am referencing in my response to Gerald. You should be given dentures and diapers when you enter this site. You’re woefully lacking and need support.

    Gerald’s post was OT but he was indeed trying to stir the turd. That you’re not intelligent enough to see that ain’t my problem. In fact you and Gerald are Siamese Twins when it comes to brain power (low-ebb…you share half a brain) and critical thinking skills (never had it, may never have it…).

    DS_Rocks saw it but he eats morons like you for brekky. Gerald doesn’t really care what some “pinched-nosed negro” has to say about Syria…he just wants to whip Conservatives up. You didn’t see that. Sorry, dopey, so sad, too bad. :(

    He also was being provocative with his little “Zionist” comment. If you had a brain you could see I pulled the rug out from out of him quite easily. That’s what can happen when you out smart dummies. Not a Zionist but he sees Africa in a different way (see what DS_Rocks intelligently wrote). So beautiful!

    And finally, for someone who admires a talent for writing you sure don’t ever learn from what you like. But that’s what happens with morons. No threat, no competition…you just eat our dust. Bon appetite, dumb-dumb!

    Skunky on September 7, 2013 at 10:15 am

Black or Fat I presume.

pat on September 7, 2013 at 12:52 am

Her career probably consists of drawing welfare.

RT on September 7, 2013 at 1:46 am

Anybody with a hundred dollars and a bad attitude can sue anyone for any reason regardless of how insane the claim is. Todays legal system really is Alice in Wonderland!

who knows? on September 7, 2013 at 9:30 am

    Sometimes more depending what county. True, but the key is winning and then actually collecting. A lot of dumb-asses that seem to show up in small claims court, in some states like California, the amount that you can sue is up to 7 thousands, may be judgement proof because they do not have a pot to piss in.

    AR on September 7, 2013 at 11:50 am

I’ve read some amusing articles about the man behind Dr. Scholl who started his footwear and insole empire after being insulted by how horrible everyone else’s products were. His motto?

“Early to bed, early to rise, work like hell, and advertise!”

luagha on September 7, 2013 at 10:46 am

Remember the same judge will retire and will want to be an “Arbitrator” and is looking for clients. Not letting the lawsuit dismissed, both sides attorneys have a good income flow. The client be damned. The final settlement will include lawyer fee for the Plaintiff while d the defendant attorney gets paid regardless. In the meantime the judge insured at least two new clients for the future.

You be the judge what the problem is?

Steve Gardality on September 7, 2013 at 10:55 am

I attempted to review the cause of action but could not do so. It is just a case of how desperate some personal injury sharks will stoop. Most ambulance chasers actually do not know how to litigate a case and strictly rely on just using a few letters and filing a complaint in hopes of settlement.

There is one thing Walmart can do and that is to defend a frivolous lawsuit; but in my view, the case should never have even progressed to the pleading stage. Did the opposition institute a general demurrer or summary judgement? If so, what was the ruling?

I would venture to guess that the petitioner is on contingency. This means that she still has to bear costs. No ambulance chaser would advance those for a case that is a dawg.

AR on September 7, 2013 at 11:46 am

OK, I read the complaint filed with the court and have a couple of comments:

1) The allergen in question, PPDA, is commonly found in hair dye. I’m at a loss to figure out how this allergen could possibly be used in wooden shoes, which is what Dr. Scholls sandals are. The only thing I can figure that would have the dye in it is the leather strap.

2) I would think that a “reasonable person,” suffering from contact dermatitis from the alleged dye in the strap would STOP WEARING THE STUPID SHOES!!! Personally, I would take them back to the store. Instead, according to the complaint, the plaintiff CONTINUED to wear the shoes and continued to suffer the contact dermatitis. Now I don’t know about you, but I find most women’s shoes to be uncomfortable. If I buy a pair of shoes, wear them once and have a problem with them, I TAKE THEM BACK to the store. I do not continue to wear them! Now I have NEVER had a pair of shoes cause my feet to break out in a rash, but if I did, I certainly wouldn’t wear them a second time.

3) According to the sites I found through Google, some people have such a severe allergic reaction to PPDA that they swell up and require medical attention. Benedryl cream or capsules should take care of that swelling, along with hydrocortisol – ALL available over the counter. Unless, of course, you’re so stupid that instead of dealing with the rash you keep exposing yourself to the allergen.

4) How on EARTH can having contact dermatitis on your FEET prevent you from getting a job? You might itch, but if I had any kind of rash when I went to an interview, I would cover that area of my body – easily done in her case by wearing SHOES!!!

5) I looked up this woman’s address online (publicly available) and she lives in a pretty low-rent area of Pontiac. Sounds like someone is looking for a payday via the courts. The federal judge (being an Obama appointee) is probably allowing this dog to go through the system because WalMart is one of the defendants.

MIGirl on September 7, 2013 at 12:24 pm

So NOW can I sue ONE DIRECTION ???!!!!!!!!!!!???????

john on September 7, 2013 at 2:12 pm

    What’s your case John?
    Are you gonna sue because you danced all night to the best song ever and you knew every line, but now you don’t remember?

    Sounds like a case for Lionel Hutz

    Lionel Hutz: Now, Mrs. Simpson, tell the court in your own words what happened after you and your husband were ejected out of the restaurant.
    Marge: Well, we pretty much went straight home.
    Lionel Hutz: Mrs. Simpson, remember that you are under oath.
    Marge: We drove around until three in the morning looking for another open all-you-can-eat seafood restaurant.
    Lionel Hutz: And when you couldn’t find one?
    Marge: [crying] We… went… fishing.
    Lionel Hutz: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, do these sound like the actions of a man whose had ALL he could eat?
    [the jury is made up of fat, obese people]
    Jury: No, no.
    Man in Jury: No, that could’ve been me!

    [Homer has been thrown out of an all-you-can-eat restaurant for eating too much]
    Lionel Hutz: This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story.
    Homer: So, do you think I have a case?
    Lionel Hutz: Mr. Simpson, I don’t use the word ‘hero’ lightly, but you are the greatest hero in American history.
    Homer: Woohoo!

    Clayton on September 7, 2013 at 5:32 pm

John, of course is correct about India. I won’t respond (or even completely read…) the post by the CrAzEd Indian (Ghee, not Land-O-Lakes…) but John posted the most well-known of the heinous gang-rapes that happened in India (recently). I can assure you there have been more than 10 since that heinous crime…and the “minor” received a virtual slap on the wrist.

DS will delete non-sequitur his nonsense when she returns. That’s all that needs to be known.

I really get such a kick out of how I annoy so many dopes. They hate me but can’t stop reading what I contribute. Unlike me, who gets bored easily and ignores the dumbest of the dumb with ease.

That said, I am LOLing at his special name for me. It’s like my Japanese nickname and I promise to use it if I ever visit Japan. They are known for their unique eccentricities. It’ll fit right in. Konnichiwa, bitches! :P

Skunky on September 7, 2013 at 5:27 pm

Good, everybody should have to go to court for the stupid reasons that we have in this country. I have had an attempted suit over a patient that I never even saw. Then I defended several VA doctors in Federal court over the fact that they did not prescribe a low cholesterol diet to a heart patient. In the course of things I used the Federal information on cholesterol to show that lipids have nothing to do with heart disease and diets do nothing to promote health. I won. Then I am going as a witness to court for a case that is 16 years old, for which I have no idea as to what is going on. On the flip side, I have testified against doctors that clearly committed malpractice, but the juries were so stupid that they could not convict. One was were a doctor injected air into a patient, resulting in his death, but the jury could not understand the process. This despite hours of explanation. As they say, being placed on a jury is a bad thing, it means you are one of the less intelligent people in the community (lawyers will not allow a person that can think). Our judicial system is broken and will only be fixed when everybody is in court. Of course, the same complaint came from Greece and Rome in the years before their fall.

david7134 on September 7, 2013 at 5:45 pm

    David, I wonder about courts and juries too. I was talking to an acquaintance recently who was telling me about a malpractice suit her sister won against a doctor we both know. The sister, we’ll call her Sue, was 7 months pregnant. One weekend she suffered severe abdominal pain and went to the emergency room. The emergency room docs tried to diagnose what was wrong with her, but she insisted that she had to see her OB/GYN, who we’ll call Dr. A. Dr. A was out of town on vacation in the Caribbean for a week, but his partner, Dr. C was covering his calls and came to the ER. The woman insisted that something was wrong with the baby, so Dr. C did a bunch of tests to determine what might be wrong with the baby. They couldn’t find anything wrong, the woman said she felt better, so she went home. A couple of days later she was back in the ER with severe abdominal pain. Her appendix had burst. She was rushed into surgery, but the peritonitis gave her a severe infection and ultimately endangered her baby, who later died.

    She filed a malpractice suit against her regular OB/GYN for being out of town and not available to treat her. I guess I can understand suing the hospital because ER docs should be able to diagnose appendicitis, one of the most frequent sources of emergency abdominal pain. Maybe the OB/GYN partner who actually TREATED the patient. But the doc who was on VACATION?

    He ended up settling the case (or his insurance company did) for $500K, and now he is a huge activist for tort reform in Washington.

    DG in GA on September 8, 2013 at 6:36 pm

One other thing. Many people hate plaintiff attorneys, yet I have found that defense attorneys are just as bad. They will seem to be in your corner, but will do things to keep the action going in order to stick it to the insurance companies.

david7134 on September 7, 2013 at 5:49 pm

“RIDICULOUS: Obama Judge Allows Absurd “Dr. Scholl’s Ruined My Life” Lawsuit to Proceed”

Why not? Obama judges will be ruining all of our lives soon too.

Frankz on September 7, 2013 at 7:18 pm

Oh my my, look how the exalted Skunky has fallen and regressed.
Some days Skunky, your mind is as sharp as a tack, others, its as dull as an emery board just used on Sasquatch’s toes.

Big D on September 7, 2013 at 7:28 pm

    What a groan-worthy and douche-chilly attempt at writing, Big, Dumb Dinky. Don’t quit that Adult Education “Creative Writing” course. You need the help, desperately.

    And I couldn’t give a rat’s fat what your opinion of my writing is. Not someone as obtuse, simple-minded and lacking in brains as you. Dummy, Puh-Leeze!

    Skunky on September 7, 2013 at 8:13 pm

      “Don’t quit that Adult Education “Creative Writing” course”

      LOLing again.

      DS_ROCKS! on September 8, 2013 at 9:46 pm

Don’t ya just love ugly women with fat feet and stubby little toes, who wear sandals? [toe rings & foot tattoos optional].

#1 Vato on September 8, 2013 at 12:52 am

Ah Skunky, I can appreciate your contributions to this blog, my simile was meh, I admit, however I save my best for the best and your tangent on Gerald’s post was so feeble, a mediocre simile, is what you deserved. I did like the “Groan-Worthy” snipe, that’s the Skunky I fell for, good to see you staying on point, and not some errant, b.s. Stay focused sista.

Big D on September 8, 2013 at 11:43 am

The woman’s law suit says she lost past wages? Hmm,I’d actually like to see them prove that in court!

Red Randy on September 8, 2013 at 10:31 pm

This case raises a couple of key questions: Should defendants be liable for failing to have a warning label regarding the presence of paraphenylenedeamine (PPDA)in the sandals (probably in the dye used in the leather straps)? Should someone who has such an extreme sensitivity to PPDA have a duty to investigate the possible presence of that substance in a product before buying and using it? Should companies that make and sell products with PPDA warn people of its hazards if only a very small percentage of the population is so affected? What amount of damages would be involved (assuming liability) and how would those damages be reasonably calculated?

So, what’s PPDA? The plaintiff is someone who happens to allergic to PPDA, a product that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has deemed to be a “hazardous substance.” PPDA is an ingredient found in permanent hair dyes. People allergic to PPDA should not use any permanent hair dyes. About one fourth of the people allergic to PPDA are also allergic to ingredients in semi-permanent dyes. While PPDA dyes are rarely used in clothing, other dyes that may cross-react with PPDA are in clothing. As a result, some PPDA-sensitive patients cannot wear dark clothing, but can wear fabrics dyed in lighter shades.

What happens to someone who is allergic to PPDA when they come into contact with it? Contact dermatitis is the most common reaction for those with acute PPDA sensitivity. PPDA does not adversely affect most people, and may not even be noticed the first time a person prone to such sensitivity is exposed. But once the skin becomes sensitive or allergic to the substance, any exposure will produce a rash. The rash usually doesn’t start until a day or two later, but can start a soon as hours or as late as a week. The dermatitis usually shows redness, swelling and water blisters, from tiny to large. The blisters may break, forming crusts and scales. Untreated, the skin may darken and become leathery and cracked. Allergic contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish from other rashes, especially after it been present for a while.

In addition to PPDA sensitivities, some people may have sensitivities to rubber that may be used in the shoe’s or sandal’s construction. Adhesives, both rubber and non-rubber, can also cause problems. Even leather shoes may contain these. Shoes without rubber should be substituted.

The plaintiff in this case already knew that she was highly allergic to PPDA. In my opinion, someone who has such rather unique skin sensitivities needs to do their own due diligence on products. The plaintiff should do some research on all types of clothing and footwear products, and should not depend on manufacturers (and certainly not merchants) for product disclosures addressing every possible adverse reaction to a product. Most manufacturers have toll-free numbers to get product content information, and even if the rep on the other end of the line doesn’t know the immediate answer, most companies would be able to an answer to you within a day or two at most.

In this case, the plaintiff did no due diligence whatsoever, despite her extreme PPDA sensitivity and with full knowledge of her sensitivities. Certainly, once the plaintiff experienced the skin rashes on her feet, she should have immediately suspected the cause and ceased wearing the sandals, thereby minimizing any further pain and irritation.

Thus, even if a determination is ultimately made that the manufacturer was liable because it should have put a PPDA warning disclosure on the product, this case should in no way be a “lottery-winner” from a damages calculation perspective(unless we’re talking about, maybe, the daily number).

Ralph Adamo on September 9, 2013 at 1:43 am

DG,
I have several better stories. A doctor was called to come deliver his patient. He left the hospital were he was doing similar activity and traveled across town to the hospital where the lady was in confinement. He did not show for the delivery and the woman was administered to by the nurses, no problems with delivery or baby. The woman sued and won. Why didn’t the doctor show? Because he was found dead in his car in the hospital parking lot. He had a MI.

Then there is my case. I had severe, severe abdominal pain and after about 20 hours went to the ER and saw a friend as the attending ER doctor. He sent me for an ultra-sound and did blood test. Gave me pain meds. The conclusion was that nothing was wrong. As a physician I suspected different but was not in a position to assert myself (which can be bad). I went home and was generally sick for several months, doctors don’t go the get help. Finally, my wife took me back to the doctor after I started hallucinating. It turns out my gallbladder was ruptured. The mortality on a fresh rupture is 50%, one that is septic, like me, is about 90%. It took me 4 years to recover. It did not sue.

david7134 on September 9, 2013 at 2:28 pm

As a man in my 30s who never officially grew up, I still wear nothing but Doc Martins. The most comfortable shoe known to man. Might I add, they are good for all occasions as well. However, despite attending a public school, I would think that if I bought a pair of shoes and they bothered me, I would simply never wear them again. The last thing on my mind would be to sue someone over something that is essentially my fault. Does this mean when I go to a restaurant and order something that I dont like, I can now sue people as well?
People need to seriously stop wearing sandals all together. Nobody wants to see your disgusting feet. Buy a real pair of shoes.

Forsberg on September 13, 2013 at 5:36 pm

You should take part in a contest for one of the best sites
on the web. I’m going to recommend this site!

driving lessons in east ham on December 9, 2013 at 11:19 pm

2012 DELHI GANG RAPE CASE

The victims, a 23-year-old woman and a male friend, were on their way home on the night of 16 December 2012 after watching the film Life of Pi in Saket in South Delhi.[8][9] They boarded a chartered bus at Munirka for Dwarka that was being driven by joyriders at about 9:30 pm (IST). There were only six others in the bus, including the driver. One of the men, a minor, had called for passengers telling them that the bus was going towards their destination.[3][10] The woman’s friend became suspicious when the bus deviated from its normal route and its doors were shut. When he objected, the group of six men already on board, including the driver, taunted the couple, asking what they were doing alone at such a late hour.[11]

When the woman’s friend tried to intervene, he was beaten, gagged and knocked unconscious with an iron rod. The men then dragged the woman to the rear of the bus, beating her with the rod and raping her while the bus driver continued to drive. Medical reports later said that the woman suffered serious injuries to her abdomen, intestines and genitals due to the assault, and doctors said that the damage indicated that a blunt object (suspected to be the iron rod) may have been used for penetration.[9] That rod was later described by police as being a rusted, L-shaped implement of the type used as a wheel jack handle.[12] According to the International Business Times, a police spokesman said that the minor was the most brutal attacker and had “sexually abused his victim twice and ripped out her intestines with his bare hands.”[13] According to police reports the woman attempted to fight off her assailants, biting three of the attackers and leaving bite marks on the accused men.[14] After the beatings and rape ended, the attackers threw both the victims from the moving bus. Then the bus driver allegedly tried to drive the bus over the woman, but she was pulled aside by her male friend. One of the perpetrators later cleaned the vehicle to remove evidence. Police impounded it the next day.[14][15]

The partially clothed victims were found on the road by a passerby at around 11 pm (IST). The passerby phoned the Delhi Police, who took the couple to Safdarjung Hospital, where the female victim was given emergency treatment and placed on mechanical ventilation.[16] She was found with injury marks all over her body, and only five percent of her intestines remaining inside of her abdomen. A doctor at the hospital later said that the “rod was inserted into her and it was pulled out with so much force that the act brought out her intestines also. That is probably the only thing that explains such severe damage to her intestines.”

OH YOU’RE THE ONE TO TALK ,EH???
TRYING TO BE A WISE GUY… I BET YOU DIDN’T ACTUALLY ‘READ’ WHAT YOU JUST POSTED “SUPER RETARD”
HELL! I BET YOU DIDN’T READ THE ARTICLE OR WHAT IT WAS ABOUT.
I HOPE YOU DIE………

john on September 7, 2013 at 2:03 pm

Nineteen percent of the world’s children live in India,[173][174] which constitutes 42 percent of India’s total population.[175]

In 2007 the Ministry of Women and Child Development published the “Study on Child Abuse: India 2007.”[173] It sampled 12447 children, 2324 young adults and 2449 stakeholders across 13 states. It looked at different forms of child abuse: physical abuse, sexual abuse and emotional abuse and girl child neglect in five evidence groups, namely, children in a family environment, children in school, children at work, children on the street and children in institutions.

The study’s[173] main findings included: 53.22% of children reported having faced sexual abuse. Among them 52.94% were boys and 47.06% girls. Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar and Delhi reported the highest percentage of sexual abuse among both boys and girls, as well as the highest incidence of sexual assaults. 21.90% of child respondents faced severe forms of sexual abuse, 5.69% had been sexually assaulted and 50.76% reported other forms of sexual abuse. Children on the street, at work and in institutional care reported the highest incidence of sexual assault. The study also reported that 50% of abusers are known to the child or are in a position of trust and responsibility and most children had not reported the matter to anyone. Despite years of lack of any specific child sexual abuse laws in India, which treated them separately from adults in case of sexual offense, the ‘Protection of Children Against Sexual Offences Bill, 2011′ was passed the Indian parliament on May 22, 2012.

Even children aren’t safe in your country you pathtic piece of HOLY COW CRAP!!! That is SO disgusting!!
When I read what a hellhole the INDIA is I feel PROUD be an american citizen.

SO stfU!!!

john on September 7, 2013 at 2:26 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field