Full Article

Worthless junk or priceless package?

  • Font Size:  
  • Make Text Smaller
  • Make Text Larger
  • Share: 
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Facebook

Phillip Seaton, age 61, for unknown reasons decided to get himself circumcised. He presented himself and his manly unit to Jewish Hospital in Lewisville, Ky. During the operation, according to published reports, his physician, Dr. John Patterson, discovered a cancerous growth on Seaton’s wee-willy and, without further testing, decided to lob the whole thing off.

Mr. Seaton was understandably upset when he awoke to find himself... uhhmmm ... somewhat altered. He was even more upset when he later learned that his cancer was only stage one, which is considered relatively treatable.

Jewish Hospital and the anesthesiologist quickly reached a settlement with Mr. Seaton, wisely realizing that a jury would surely side for the wounded plaintiff.

No mention was made concerning settlement amounts, which leaves one to wonder: How much is a 61-year-old male tool worth?

In settling the personal injury lawsuit (and this is about as personal as you can get), do they look at whether the equipment was functioning at capacity before amputation? A small drill with a short in it certainly should fetch less than a fully functional jackhammer.

Are damages awarded based on the probable life left in the member? I'm just sayin... if it was gonna konk out soon anyway...

Is any thought given to size and weight? I would expect to receive more for a Mack truck than for a Yugo.

Money may be awarded because he is no longer able to perform his marital duties (loss of consortium). In that case, I would want to call his ex-wife to the stand.

"Ex-Mrs. Seaton, was the plaintiff able to perform satisfactorily before his injury?"

Should he receive extra compensation if the tool was used to fix things away from his primary residence? Hmmm...

Consequential damages, a type of compensatory damage, may be awarded where the loss suffered by a plaintiff is not caused directly or immediately by the wrongful conduct of a defendant, but instead results from the defendant's act. With that in mind, should the plaintiff be awarded extra sums for mental impairment, since men are known to sometimes think with those things?

Mr. Seaton has my sympathy. A man’s member is his friend, like a faithful puppy that comes when called, that jumps up when it needs attention and is always waiting for a friendly pat or stroke.

But if that puppy has 61 dog-years, how much life was left in him anyway?
***
D. Barbara McWhite grew up in York County, South Carolina, and lives in Orange Park, Florida, with her husband and cat.

Got news to share with Qcity readers? Email us at editor@qcitymetro.com.
Sign up for our weekly email newsletter below

Sign up for our Weekly Email Newsletter
Email:
For Email Marketing you can trust
Other Ways to Share

Discussions and Submission Agreement

Send This Story to A Friend

Report Abusive/Inappropriate Comments

May 23, 2012
INSIDE THE


Editor's Blog

78°


Mostly Cloudy Full Forecast
Qcity Jobs Search
Eg. Nurse

Los Angeles, CA



  
Charlotte Jobs by Category