Acme vs. Wile E. Coyote

[Bumper]

ACME Responds To The Coyote


In the United States District Court, Southwestern District, Tempe Arizona
Case No. B191294, Judge Joan Kujava, Presiding

Wile E. Coyote, Plaintiff
v.
ACME Company, Defendant

Opening statement of Arthur B. Fuddle, Attorney of record for Acme Company:

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the opening statement you have just heard from Mr. Schoff on behalf of the plaintiff, Mr. Wile E. Coyote, paints an incomplete picture of what occurred on the occasions when Mr. Coyote claims he was injured through the use of products supplied by the ACME Company.

The evidence we will introduce will clearly show that my client, ACME Products Corp., a division of Dangerously Innovative Products and Preparations Incorporated (or “Dippi”) is not at fault in this matter, and that any injuries sustained by the plaintiff were clearly caused by his own negligence, and through his assumption of the risk inherent in the use and/or misuse of the products.

Now, we have all seen the footage on television of the plaintiff sustaining various injuries which appear to be caused by ACME’s products. Over and over you have seen pictures of a hapless coyote being pulverized by an enormous boulder as he is helplessly trapped by his ACME Spring Loaded Shoes. We have all seen the photographs taken at Warner Memorial Hospital of Mr. Coyote in the intensive care unit, on full life support, as his doctors attempt to straighten out the accordion-like folds from his body. We have all witnessed the gruesome images of the operation in which Dr. Tasmanian D. Devil whirls like a dervish, obscuring his features, while numerous limbs holding various surgical instruments swiftly undertake the repair of the nerve damage to Mr. Coyote’s extremities.

It is normal for any human being to feel pity, horror, disgust, and even anger at such illustrations. I want you to put those images aside for the moment, because they paint an inaccurate and incomplete picture. What the media has not disclosed to you, and what you will come to see in this courtroom, are various attempts at murder initiated by the plaintiff - attempts which, fortunately, were unsuccessful - while using my client’s products. As the plaintiff readily admits, he is a predator, whose sole function in life is to track down and slaughter an innocent, highway travelling ornithoid.


You see, ladies and gentlemen, while the plaintiff is a natural predator, the unfortunate fact is that he is not a very competent one. His own instinctive skills were inadequate to complete the tasks at hand, so he chose to augment his ineffective capabilities through employing numerous commercially available devices to effectuate his diabolical schemes. He researched catalogues, saw my client’s variety of products, and ordered a selection of them in the hope they would assist him in the pursuit of his prey.

But, ladies and gentlemen, ACME’s products are not intended to cause intentional harm to anyone. The plaintiff has taken merchandise that was designed as toys and objects of amusement for the young and feebleminded, and has corrupted them to his own nefarious ends.

But I digress. Let us examine the plaintiff’s claims and how the evidence clearly refutes his contention that ACME is responsible in any way for the physical trauma sustained by the plaintiff.

Mr. Coyote maintains that on December 13th he received an ACME Rocket Sled, and that he attempted to employ said rocket sled to pursue his prey, and that, upon igniting the rocket sled’s engine, it accelerated with “such sudden and precipitate force as to stretch Mr. Coyote’s forelimbs to a length of fifty feet.”

There are several reasons why ACME cannot be held culpable for any injuries caused by this incident.

First, the precautionary label prominently displayed on the left front quarter panel of the sled clearly points out, and I quote, “WARNING: IGNITION OF THIS DEVICE AT FULL THROTTLE MAY CAUSE SUFFICIENT SUDDEN AND PRECIPITATE ACCELERATION AS TO STRETCH THE USER’S FORELIMBS TO A LENGTH OF UP TO SIXTY FEET, OR MAY RESULT IN PERMANENT PHYSICAL INJURY OR DEATH.” The fact that the plaintiff suffered only the relatively minor harm that he did may only be attributed to providence.

Second, and Arizona law is clear on this issue: a plaintiff who is found to be violating any law whose expressed purpose is safety at the time of their injury is contributorily negligent “per se”. There is certainly ample evidence that Mr. Coyote was violating both the laws of gravity and inertia at the time of this incident, and thus he is ultimately responsible for his unfortunate injuries.


I could enumerate many more examples of Mr. Coyote’s negligent conduct in connection with his use of ACME’s products, but you will hear all about them as these proceedings go forward.

You will hear the plaintiff himself testify that, prior to the damage sustained in the incident being considered before this court, he has suffered numerous other injuries. As an example, on one occasion prior to the use of any ACME product, the plaintiff cornered his prey on the edge of a rather thin precipice. Taking an ordinary saw, Mr. Coyote began cutting away at the ground in such a manner that the edge of the cliff was intended to fall away with his victim on it, and plummet some 1,500 feet to jagged, rocky destruction. Instead, by some inexplicable twist of fate, and in apparent opposition to the laws of gravity, the edge of the cliff remained intact, while the balance of the mountain, including that portion on which the plaintiff was standing, plunged to the bottom of the ravine, causing him serious injuries which afflict Mr. Coyote to this day.

On another occasion, Mr. Coyote was in pursuit of his intended victim and followed it off the edge of a cliff onto thin air, not realizing until too late that his prey, a bird, could remain aloft almost indefinitely while he, a canine, did not have this option. As a result, he fell yet again, suffering further severe and debilitating injuries which pre-date the damage complained of in this action.

You will also hear the testimony of Mr. Road Runner, the plaintiff’s intended prey and the true victim of these tragic events. Mr. Runner has been forced to adopt a nomadic lifestyle as a result of Mr. Coyote’s constant harassment, preventing him from undertaking any long-term or meaningful relationships. A series of restraining orders have apparently had no effect. Mr. Runner has also endured a variety of psychological difficulties as a result of Mr. Coyote’s unwelcome and unwarranted attention, including but not restricted to an inability to trust anyone who offers to provide him with birdseed, a necessary ingredient in his regular nutritional regime.

You will also hear from a witness to many of the situations alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint, a colourful local prospector with red hair and mustache who has been heard to exclaim, “No rootin’ tootin’ coyote can outsmart Yosemite Sam on any day of the week!” You must not be put off by his gruff manner and pearl-handled six shooters, for while he may initially be an intimidating character, his testimony will prove invaluable in arriving at the truth of the matter before us.

Finally, videotape evidence will be introduced to demonstrate that the plaintiff has exaggerated, if not totally fabricated many of his injuries, setting out to create performances intended to sway a jury such as yourselves. On numerous occasions he would “mug” for the camera, as if he was aware well before the events in question that the incident was being recorded. For instance, during the rocket sled interlude, as his forelimbs were being stretched out ahead of him while the rest of his body remained behind, Mr. Coyote looked directly into the camera with a godforsaken, forlorn expression, as if to say: “Look at how terrible, and tragic my situation is, can you imagine what horrible things are going to befall me now.” I’m confident this jury is too perceptive to be taken in by such transparent theatrics.

In summary, ladies and gentlemen, it will become clear and obvious to you from the evidence that we introduce that ACME’s products, if utilized properly and as intended, will cause no detrimental effects to a responsible and ethical consumer. It is our contention that the plaintiff in this action has brought his troubles upon himself by adopting behaviours necessitated by his chosen carnivorous lifestyle. As others have been known to maintain, “Live by the Super-Slick, Jet-Propelled Automated, Explosive, Metal-Shearing, Heat-Seeking, Laser-Guided, Razor-Edged, Atomic Boomerang, and you shall die by the Super-Slick, Jet-Propelled etc.”

I ask you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, on behalf of my client, to dismiss the plaintiff’s unwarranted claims against the ACME Corporation.

[TAPPY]

This is funny, and so close to the truth !!!!!