Lee Reinsch of the Fond du Lac Reporter caught on to a story that could only happen in the darkest jungles of America. Reinsch reports that Timothy Dumouchel, a Wisconsin resident, is threatening to sue his cable provider, Charter Communications
Apparently, Dumouchel asked Charter to disconnect his cable service four years ago, and they failed to do so. At the time, he told his wife that she could continue to watch cable for as long as it stayed connected. Four years later, though he hasn't paid a cent to Charter for the service, it still is.
In a written complaint against the company, Dumouchel states, "I believe that the reason I smoke and drink every day and my wife is overweight is because we watched TV every day for the last four years." Ya think?
Question for Charter: Can I get on that particular billing plan? And if this claim is true, what the heck is going on over there?
Reinsch says that no actual suit has been filed in any court of competent jurisdiction in Wisconsin. Dumouchel's threat of lawsuit comes from police records following an altercation at a local Charter Communications office where he made "low level threats" to Charter employees. Dumouchel wants $5,000 or three computers, and a lifetime supply of free Internet service from Charter Communications.
An addictive personality who wants a lifetime supply of Internet service? I'm sure that will end well, since there is nothing addictive on the Internet.
Charter was expectedly bemused, stating that they didn't consider the suit to be credible, but recognized that their service offers a "powerful entertainment product." This, of course, leads me to an idea. In the law, negligence can be spread amongst multiple parties if they are found to have even the slightest responsibility for damages.
This is what puts so many businesses at risk for asbestos litigation, for example, even if their connection to asbestos manufacturing is extremely remote. But if Charter can be on the hook for providing a product that turned Mr. Dumouchel's family into fat, drunk television addicts, there have to be plenty of companies that contributed, right?
Are they ESPN junkies? Then I'd suggest Disney
Bill Mann owns shares of Disney.