COYOTE V. ACME
 In The United States District Court, Southwestern District, Tempe, Arizona
          Case No. B19293, Judge Homer Simpson, 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 his 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 fifty 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 poorly designed sttering on the Rocket Sled and a
 faulty or nonexistent braking system.  Shortly thereafter, the unchecked 
 progress of the Rocket Sled brought 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. Ernest 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 
 occured 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 Catalogue 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 (Catalogue #78-832),
 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, causeing 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 air.  Then the twin springs
 recoiled, bringing Mr. Coyote to a violent feet-first collision with the 
 boulder, the full weight fo 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 cam into contact with the boulder, or
 the boulder cam 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, vix., 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.  Repetion 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 off-key, 
 accordionlike 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.

Wil Stark, wstark04 (at) pobox _dot_com

---

Back to home page...