Woman sued weatherman for $1,000 after he made the wrong weather prediction
A woman attempted to sue a weatherman for a whopping $1,000 after he made the wrong weather forecast.
It’s thought that weather predictions have a high rate of accuracy up to 72 hours but drops significantly after that.
This is because nature can be chaotic and it is often hard to guess which way the weather will sway ahead of time, with many different factors impacting its course.
So, this is why a weather forecast is considered to be a predication, rather than a certainty, but that didn’t stop one woman from trying to sue a TV channel and its weather forecaster after they got the forecast wrong.
Advert
According to Kahane Law Office, a woman in Israel attempted to sue Channel 2 along with weatherman Danny Rup, back in 2015.
This came after Rup predicted that the weather would be sunny but it ended up being rainy and stormy.
The woman was seeking $1,000 in damages after she left the house in clothes appropriate for sunny weather, only to be caught in a storm.
She says she ended up catching the flu, missing out on four days of work and spending $38 on medication.
She also says she suffered from stress as a result of the incorrect forecast and requested an apology from Rup himself.
The TV channel actually ended up settling the issue out of court, giving the woman the $1,000 that she requested and issuing an apology.
The outcome has led many people to wonder whether others may go on to file lawsuits against forecasters and more importantly, will they win?
Discussing on Reddit, people had a few thoughts about the case.
One user wrote: “It could have been sunny, and if she ran into the person who transmitted the flu to her, she still would have gotten it. If she was dressed warm, she still would have gotten it. Stormy weather does not create flu virus.”
Another said: “Can confirm, being cold does NOT make you sick.”
And a third added: “Weatherman could simply counter argue that weather prediction cannot be always correct.”
Meanwhile, some pointed out that settling out of court, with a payment of $1,000, could have been cheaper for the television station, as opposed to hiring lawyers to fight the case in court.
One wrote: “It was settled out of court. Often businesses will settle out of court, get an agreement that this and any future related issues are settled, and pay a ‘small amount’.
“$1000 is cheap compared to the cost of paying an attorney to fight it in court.”