Archive for February, 2009

California towns ban speedboarding

No doubt there are also other reasons why councilors might vote to keep daredevil and extreme skateboarders off public streets, as the L.A. Times is reporting, but the liability climate can’t help:

In 2004, a 17-year-old boy skating down a Mission Viejo street hit “an alleged defect in the street and took a tumble. In a bicycle he would have rolled right over it,” [self-insurance pool executive Jonathan] Shull said.

The boy suffered a brain injury and his family filed suit, alleging municipal negligence and asking for money to help care for him for the rest of his life.

Under state liability law, a city might have to pay the full settlement if a jury finds it was even 1% liable for the injury, according to Shull.

CPSIA chronicles, February 24

fenceconversationwithdoll

  • More thrift store and reseller reports, not linked earlier: Blacksburg, Va. (“a lot of customer complaints at the YMCA at Virginia Tech since the thrift shop pulled kids’ toys off its shelves”), Chapel Hill/Carrboro, N.C. (“many patrons are upset” at absence of children’s items), Sioux City, Iowa (“To be on the safe side, Goodwill removed from the sales floors nearly all its used children’s clothing and all its toys”), Le Mars, Iowa (youngster’s outing ends in tears; items in storage for now).

    And yet at many other stores — in other states or cities, maybe even down the block in the same town — decisions on what to drop have been much more selective. Thus New Orleans (large thrift store in St. Charles Parish “no longer accepting small toys, painted wood items or clothing with trinkets or toys attached to them,” those being, of course, a small fraction of the items that could lead to an inadvertent CPSIA violation), and Lufkin, Texas (list of goods Goodwill won’t accept includes bunk beds, bicycle helmets, embellished books, and many others, but a good bit narrower than CPSC guidance would suggest). The shop I visit most often, in a relatively prosperous NYC suburb, had a sparser-looking-than-usual selection yesterday, which nonetheless included items that would raise a definite eyebrow under the CPSC guidelines, such as kids’ athletic shoes with metal lacing grommets. And it’s not hard to find thrift outlets with relatively high profiles in their community — I won’t name names for fear of getting them into trouble — that don’t seem to have dropped much of anything. You’d hardly imagine that CPSIA was supposed to be a uniform national law.
  • Related: Riverside, Calif. Press-Enterprise, “Goodwill Industries International said it could potentially lose $134 million nationwide in the coming year if forced to dispose of all children’s clothing and products, according to spokeswoman Lauren Lawson.” And the Naperville, Ill., Sun covered the headaches of maternity and children’s reseller Connie Ballas (From My Room).
  • Hugh Hewitt’s popular conservative radio show devoted an hour to the law yesterday, interviewing attorney Gary Wolensky of Snell & Wilmer, who represents manufacturers and whose discussion primarily focused on the headaches they face. The show drew a strong call-in reaction and has already led to a flurry of online interest in CPSIA reform.
  • Meanwhile, Jennifer Grinnell of Sherborn, Mass. writes that CPSIA reform needs to be approached as more than a right-vs.-left, blue-red, Dem-Rep political football [Change.org]
  • When the New Orleans Times-Picayune interviewed local toy stores, the independent retailer was finding the law “burdensome” and “very cumbersome” as she tried to communicate with all the producers of items in her stock, while the franchise operator seemed to be having a much easier time of it because he carried only items on a checklist from national and could piggyback his compliance paperwork on headquarters’. Yes, that sounds about right.
  • Don’t toss those pre-’85 kids’ books, thrifters! Set them aside and await orders from D.C.! That seems to be the advice of Examiner columnist (and former children’s bookseller) Diane Petryk Bloom, who’s confident that a law this bad will be amended and suggests that in the mean time some civil disobedience might be in order, advice that might not be taken readily by resellers staring down the business end of those $100,000 potential fines.

    Let’s assume she’s right that most people in the thrift store business can’t bring themselves to leave perfectly good children’s books out on the curb, and instead tuck them into storage for the time being or look the other way while an employee “borrows” them for home use. What happens next, as the weeks turn into months (or perhaps years) with no action from Henry Waxman & co.? The main mechanism by which we will lose older books is not so much that thrift stores will toss them in the trash, as that they’ll refuse to accept them as donations or consignments in the first place, while other outlets worried about legal liability (such as online auction sites) adopt similar policies. Once there’s no convenient way to dispose of the books even as donations, families will simply discard most of them (with occasional collectible/rarity exceptions) when the kids grow up, when moving house, or when winding up a family estate. It’s not as if there’s likely to be much press coverage of these micro-events, which doesn’t make them less than real.

    ParentDish and Etsy also have active threads in progress on the issue of older children’s books.

  • Some other blog talk: Blue Rose Girls, Kora in Hell/WordSmoker (rude language), Lex Fortis (satire), and of course leading CPSIA-watchers Deputy Headmistress/Common Room (on press coverage, Consumers’ Union and dragons) and Valerie Jacobsen (what? you mean CPSC would target small business with punitive actions?)
  • yorkiebarrette

  • Sorry, even if your little girl has been saving up her allowance for one of our pretty hair barrettes, we can’t sell it to you, unless you want it for her dog [MaidenUS]

Public domain image: Grandma’s Graphics, Mabel Betsy Hill; dog image from MaidenUS.

iPod nano scratch settlement: count him out

Massachusetts lawyer and blogger Peter Morin, who has guest-blogged here on more than one occasion, is one of the members of the class entitled to participate in the settlement of class action claims over scratched Apple iPod nano units. He sent the following letter:

February 20, 2009

Apple iPod nano Cases
Claims Administrator
P.O. Box 6104
Novato, CA 94948-6104

Dear Sir:

I have received a Notice of Class Action Settlement For Uncoated First Generation iPod nanos. My control number is xxxxxxxxxxx.

I wish to submit my objection to the terms of settlement.

I have been the recipient of more than a few similar Notices during the past twenty years, but this is the stupidest b—s— I have ever witnessed.

I have owned a first generation nano (“uncoated” ) from the inception of its release. It is one of the most reliable and attractive devices I had ever owned (until the most recent design, which is gorgeous). The fact that a group of class action lawyers would sue Apple on behalf of some “aggrieved” group of nano owners because the device might get a little scratched up without the use of a cover is beyond absurd. It is insanity.

According to the Notice, in order to qualify for a fund payment, I “must have experienced scratching of [my] iPod nano that impaired [my] use or enjoyment of it.”

Impaired my use or enjoyment of it? This must be a joke. Is a federal judge to believe that a bit of scratching on this device is going to reasonably impair someone’s enjoyment of it? What does one do, sit and stare at his nano, beholding its sleekness and polish? Obviously not. It is tucked inside sweaty pockets in gyms, in classes, on subways. It is not an item to display, except to the most insanely vain. It is an item to store and play music. That it does, in a most reliable and effective fashion. How could such a class be certified?

I wish to make one final point.

As asinine as it is to claim that one’s enjoyment of the nano is “impaired” by a few scratches upon it (I for one considered the scratches the equivalent of battle scars), it pales against the idea that some group of lawyers would actually be paid the gargantuan sum of $4.5 million for perpetuating this idiocy.

It would be my preference that every lawyer participating in the group of Plaintiffs’ Counsel be marched into a Shea Stadium full of satisfied iPod owners and pelted with the electronic detritus of their choice. I predict that the “uncoated” iPod nano will not be among them.

Count me out!

Respectfully,
Peter B. Morin

CPSIA and print-on-demand

sisforstrawberry
Print-on-demand technology has many promising applications for children’s products: it can keep low-sales-volume children’s books from falling out of print, for example, and it can make available T-shirts, posters or school supplies customized with the name of a particular child or family or that of a particular teacher’s class. Unfortunately, in the absence of a green light for component testing, each tiny “run” of goods may need to be lab-tested separately at what will often be prohibitive expense. The CPSC’s enforcement stay as to new-item testing bought a year’s time for most product makers, and its narrow and hastily granted exemption for newly printed books (which, alas, did not extend to countless other printed products) may have saved that particular product category. zisforzinnia For many other users and potential users of the technology, however, the problem has merely been kicked forward to next year in the absence of any willingness by Congress to clarify or change the law. Some discussions: Will Benton; Adam Dewitz, Print CEO (via Book Journeys), WSJ forums (dilemma faced by Tennessee printer). More on book exemption: AAP request, PDF; Etsy thread.

“How Prosecutor Elections Fail Us”

For one thing, notes Ronald Wright of Wake Forest, relatively few incumbent D.A.s face serious contests:

Even in those exceptional campaign settings when the incumbent prosecutor faces a challenge and is forced to explain the priorities and performance of the office, elections do not perform well. This article surveys the typical rhetoric in prosecutor election campaigns, drawing on a new database that collects news accounts of candidate statements during prosecutor elections. Sadly, these campaign statements dwell on outcomes in a few high visibility cases, such as botched murder trials and public corruption investigations. Incumbents and challengers have little to say about the overall pattern of outcomes that attorneys in the office produce or the priorities of the office.