“[H]is stump speech often sounds less like a political platform and more like a laundry list of class-action suits he’d like to get a piece of ?- we need to act against credit card companies that charge excessive interest etc.” (“Knowns, unknowns and the Ketchup Kid”, Daily Telegraph (UK), Jan. 27). The cash register continues to ring for Edwards with his friends in the Texas bar: “At the end of the fall filing period for campaign contributions, Texans had given more to John Edwards than to all of the other Democratic candidates combined, almost $2 million.” (Shelley Kofler, “Texas money a major part of Edwards’ NH campaign”, WFAA-TV (Dallas-Fort Worth), Jan. 27). On the other hand, Dave Barry thinks the photogenic Senator may be losing the bowlers’ vote (“Senator who? We’re trying to bowl here!!”, Miami Herald, Jan. 26; Julian Borger, “Edwards bowls along, with Dean still at a loss”, The Guardian (UK), Jan. 26)(via Command Post). See also Rich Lowry, “The Trial Lawyer?s Shtick”, syndicated/National Review Online, Jan. 27.
Archive for January, 2004
Madison County coffee case
It’s an entry that seems like self-parody for this site — a Madison County lawsuit over spilled coffee — but the lawsuit against Starbucks is true. It differs from the McDonald’s case in that it involves a defective cup, but the alleged second-degree burns show that, once again, the plaintiffs’ bar’s claim that McDonald’s coffee was unusually likely to burn was somewhat fictional. (Brian Brueggeman, “Lawyer: McDonald’s coffee case different”, Belleville News-Democrat, Jan. 27) (via Obscure Store).
Fricassee of Martha
Prof. Bainbridge, who has followed the Martha Stewart prosecution (see Oct. 14) and is now following the trial, reports that a series of pro-prosecution rulings by the judge is going to tie the hands of the domestic diva’s defense team, barring them, for example, from pointing out to the jury the novelty of the charges. (Jan. 26). Plus: the Washington Post has more (Brooke A. Masters, “Judge Limits Martha Stewart Defense Tactics”, Jan. 27)
Microsoft and MikeRoweSoft
One reparations suit down
…with many more, we fear, yet to come: “A federal judge today dismissed a lawsuit brought by descendants of slaves from across the country seeking reparations from corporations they say profited from the forced labor of their ancestors before the Civil War.” U.S. District Judge Charles Norgle cited the political-question doctrine, said the plaintiffs had failed to overcome statute of limitation questions, and “said the suit alleged no specific connection between the plaintiffs and the banks, tobacco companies, railroads and other companies named as defendants.” (Mike Robinson, “Judge dismisses slave reparations suit”, AP/Chicago Tribune, Jan. 26) FrontPage has a timely article on the suit (Curtis Lawrence, “The Reparations Lobby Sues Again”, Jan. 25). Plus: Prof. Bainbridge, much quoted here of late, has more (Jan. 27)
Blockbuster suit: unsafe for adults
“A couple who says their 4-year-old daughter saw hard-core pornography on a PG-rated movie tape from Blockbuster has sued the video company.” The lawsuit, filed in New Jersey, says the rental chain “had a responsibility and a duty to inspect, monitor and ensure the quality and propriety of all video products purchased by its customers.” Blockbuster spokesman Randy Hargrove said “that the company does not carry X- or NC-17-rated movies, and depends on renters to return a tape ‘in the same condition it was given to them.’ ‘Unfortunately there are those rare instances when someone will abuse that privilege and damage one of our tapes,’ he said.” (“Blockbuster sued for porn on PG movie”, AP/CNN, Jan. 24). Reader Jeff Rowes writes: “I haven’t read the complaint, only the CNN story, but the theory of recovery seems to be that Blockbuster has a duty to review every videotape returned after renting to ensure that its contents have not been adulterated with pornography. If adopted, this duty of care would obviously jeopardize Blockbuster’s business because each outlet would need dozens of full time videotape reviewers (or some expensive, as-yet-uninvented technology). It would also create an explosion in fraud as all one would need to recover is a Blockbuster video with a few minutes of porn on it.”
Welcome National Review Online readers
My Manhattan Institute colleague Jim Copland has a piece this morning on Sen. Edwards as the candidate of Trial Lawyers, Inc. (“Primary Pass”, Jan. 26) citing our Jan. 20 commentary. For more of our coverage of Sen. Edwards, see links from that commentary and from our Jan. 23 item.
Hot potato suit
Thomas Gould is suing a West Palm Beach steakhouse over a hot baked potato that his lawyer claims “melted his esophagus.” (Alex Clifton, “Boca man sues steakhouse, claiming potato burn”, Palm Beach Post, Jan. 17) (via “On Point”). The news coverage is devoid of details, but perhaps the theory is that the Raindancer Steak House negligently made the spud look so appetizing that Mr. Gould could not bear to wait for his meal to cool.
Radio this a.m.; Indiana on Wed.
Updated: I had been scheduled to be a guest on Laura Ingraham’s national radio show this morning, but it didn’t wind up happening. Also, I’m set to speak on Wednesday to the Federalist Society chapters in Indianapolis (breakfast) and Indiana University School of Law in Bloomington (lunch), weather permitting.
Tennessee schools end honor roll over privacy laws
In response to parent complaints that the public posting of an Honor Roll would embarrass students without good grades, Nashville school lawyers recommended that the practice be stopped–as well as awards for good attendance and other academic achievement. When protests reached the state education department, the general counsel interpreted state privacy laws as prohibiting the dissemination of an honor roll without parental permission. While the concept seems absurd, another school system had to defend the practice of students grading each other’s exams all the way to the Supreme Court. (Matt Gouras, AP, Jan. 24). There’s no legal consequence to being overconservative and avoiding a lawsuit, and one can hardly expect bureaucrats to defend good educational policy if their wallets are potentially personally at issue.