Comments on: A Recipe for Greatness https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/04/a-recipe-for-greatness/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Mon, 10 Apr 2006 01:41:41 +0000 hourly 1 By: wavemaker https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/04/a-recipe-for-greatness/comment-page-1/#comment-13390 Mon, 10 Apr 2006 01:41:41 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/index.php/2006/04/a-recipe-for-greatness/#comment-13390 Thank you for your important contribution, Tom. Plese see this.

]]> By: TomHynes https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/04/a-recipe-for-greatness/comment-page-1/#comment-13389 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 20:31:56 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/index.php/2006/04/a-recipe-for-greatness/#comment-13389 I don’t remember much from law school back in the early 1980s’, but Professor Tom Bergin taught us to spell “minuscule” correctly.

]]> By: wavemaker https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/04/a-recipe-for-greatness/comment-page-1/#comment-13388 Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:50:37 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/index.php/2006/04/a-recipe-for-greatness/#comment-13388 Er, what’s bad lawyering Dusty? The case was decided in 1964. One would suppose that the federal government has had more than enough time to spoil a good rule since then.

But even today I wouldn’t expect a fair minded jury to find that a bowl of fish chowder with a bone in it is “ordinarily injurious.”

]]> By: Dusty https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/04/a-recipe-for-greatness/comment-page-1/#comment-13387 Fri, 07 Apr 2006 18:26:27 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/index.php/2006/04/a-recipe-for-greatness/#comment-13387 That’s bad lawyering? The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Title 21 of the US Code) states that food is adulterated if it is ‘ordinarily injurious’. I think most juries would agree that fish bones are injurious.

]]> By: peter morin https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/04/a-recipe-for-greatness/comment-page-1/#comment-13386 Wed, 05 Apr 2006 21:25:24 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/index.php/2006/04/a-recipe-for-greatness/#comment-13386 According to my citing history, there are only three cases in the country that declined to follow the rule or called it into question — they are in the states of Minnesota, Delaware and Illinois.

The Webster case applies what is called the “foreign-natural” test, which has been discussed at length in contracts classes and articles for decades. That the rule is still followed broadly is a testament to its common sense.

]]> By: Deoxy https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/04/a-recipe-for-greatness/comment-page-1/#comment-13385 Wed, 05 Apr 2006 21:15:07 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/index.php/2006/04/a-recipe-for-greatness/#comment-13385 Kent,

Sure… which is why the lawyers will make sure to find a way to sue in a different jurisdiction.

]]> By: Peter https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/04/a-recipe-for-greatness/comment-page-1/#comment-13384 Wed, 05 Apr 2006 20:49:42 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/index.php/2006/04/a-recipe-for-greatness/#comment-13384 “While she was eating the chowder, a fish bone became lodged in her throat…”

But if they took the bones out, it wouldn’t be crunchy! (Stop me before I reference Monty Python again!)

]]> By: Kent https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/04/a-recipe-for-greatness/comment-page-1/#comment-13383 Wed, 05 Apr 2006 20:17:49 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/index.php/2006/04/a-recipe-for-greatness/#comment-13383 Is there any court, anywhere in America, that would find for the defendant on a case like this today?

]]>