Brian Lafferty wrote:

Phil Innes AKA Chess One wrote:

If you know what it was, then you can't, so you don't look too hard, eh?

I've tried running this sentence through various language translations
using the Google language tool. No luck. Can anyone out there
translate the above sentence into modern English? Thanks in advance.

As near as I can figure, the translation is:



Product Liability Suit

In The United States District Court, Southwestern District,
Tempe, Arizona Case No. B19293, Judge Joan Kujava, Presiding

Wile E. Coyote, Plaintiff vs. 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 labelling.
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 the 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 fifteen 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 poor design and engineering on the Rocket
Sled and a faulty or nonexistent steering system. Shortly
thereafter, the unchecked progress of the Rocket Sled led 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. Ernst 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 spiralling 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) 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 the 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
came 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, viz, 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 offkey,
accordion-like 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.

--Mr. Harold Schoff, Attorney at Law


(Please note that, unlike the other posts in this thread,
mine is on-topic in misc.legal...)