I’ve heard more than a few jokes that started out that way, but this one, from Nicole Black at Legal Antics, did make me laugh.
Archive for May, 2009
Ensuring Pollan-ization
A controversy had erupted at Washington State University over whether it was really a good idea to require all freshmen to read and discuss Michael Pollan’s impassioned attack on the American food industry, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”. (The word “indoctrination” might even have come up.) Then famed Seattle-based injury attorney Bill Marler, whose practice focuses on suing over food poisoning and who has extensive ties to the university, offered to foot the bill himself for the program’s cost. Which, as the New York Times reports, seems to have made everything okay.
I wonder what the various personages decrying the “commercialization of the university” will have to say about all this. (Fixed name of university, originally mistakenly given as U-W, thanks Jason Barney in comments. And see response from attorney Bill Marler in comments).
“New drain-safety law may close some pools”
When compared, at least, with the comprehensively horrendous CPSIA, the other big consumer product safety law that Congress passed last year — the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act — might seem practically uncontroversial. That doesn’t mean it was good legislation, though. [Arizona Republic, Common Room, Coyote]
“Zoo settles with brothers in tiger attack”
“The San Francisco Zoo agreed Thursday to pay $900,000 to two brothers who survived the fatal attack by an escaped tiger on Christmas Day 2007, sources familiar with the case told The Chronicle.” Earlier here, here, etc.
“Excuse Me, Ma’am, We’ve Had Reports of Prayer”
The zoning and use-permit woes of Bible study groups [Sullum, Reason “Hit and Run”; San Diego 10 News] Update: County backs down [San Diego Union-Tribune via Common Room]
SCOTUS refuses to review Flax punitive damages
I expressed skepticism this summer that the Exxon Shipping v. Baker decision was a positive sign for the Court’s punitive damages jurisprudence. After the replay of Philip Morris v. Williams and, now, the Court’s denial of certiorari in DaimlerChrysler v. Flax this week, I can say I was right.
As readers of Overlawyered know, the Tennessee Supreme Court reinstated $13.3 million of punitive damages over a good-faith dispute over a van’s seat back design (in an accident caused by a drunk driver), giving no credit to the fact that the design in question was safer than federal safety standards, or to Exxon Shipping’s suggestion that punitive damages greater than a 1:1 ratio were possibly constitutionally inappropriate where compensatory damages were substantial and the defendant’s actions were not intentional or done for profit. As I described the case back then:
In 2001, Louis Stockell, driving his pickup at 70 mph, twice the speed limit, rear-ended a Chrysler minivan. Physics being what they are, the front passenger seat in the van collapsed backwards and the passenger’s head struck and fatally injured 8-month old Joshua Flax. The rest of the family walked away from the horrific accident. Plaintiffs’ attorney Jim Butler argued that Chrysler, which already designed its seats above federal standards, should be punished for not making the seats stronger — never mind that a stronger and stiffer seat would result in more injuries from other kinds of crashes because it wouldn’t absorb any energy from the crash. (Rear-end collisions are responsible for only 3% of auto fatalities.) Apparently car companies are expected to anticipate which type of crash a particular vehicle will encounter, and design accordingly.
(h/t Cutting)
Quoted more on Sotomayor
In today’s San Francisco Chronicle, Carolyn Lochhead quotes me on the Supreme Court pick:
“It’s not as if I think Obama’s incapable of nominating someone who is more adventurous and more activist by nature,” said Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute. “Maybe we should save the all-out blast for when he nominates that one.”
I also have a comment on Ricci v. DeStefano, the lawsuit that arose from relatively blatant discrimination by the city of New Haven against non-minority firefighter applicants. I would not be surprised to learn that Sotomayor’s views on reverse discrimination differed widely from my own, but still note that it’s vaguely incongruous to treat as Exhibit A for a charge of judicial activism an instance in which the judge and her colleagues ducked a case.
Finally, my postings on the Sotomayor nomination continue at Point of Law, including an item on a Connecticut school discipline case where the nominee has drawn fire for (as part of a unanimous panel) siding with the school authorities. More: Jake Tapper, ABC.
“A Stimulus You Can Believe In”
I summarize my recent testimony on the Hill in today’s American:
As I discussed in recent testimony on Capitol Hill, if one takes conservative estimates from these economic studies and adds it all up, the total cost to the economy from excessive litigation can be estimated to be between $600 billion and $900 billion a year, the vast majority of which is simply wealth destruction. That is between 4 and 6 percent of GNP, a tort tax of between $8,000 and $12,000 a year for an average family of four.
The entire hearing is on YouTube, or you can watch a highlight reel.
Cases that could never live up to their headlines dept.
“Inventor of Vibrating Toilet Seat Sues Google Over Allegedly Defamatory Search Results” [Citizen Media Law]
P.S. Also in the news this morning, a less colorful lawsuit against Google over search results: the principals of the New Haven, Connecticut personal injury law firm of Stratton Faxon are incensed that when you search on their firm’s name in Google, you get along with the results an auto-generated ad from a competitive firm.
Continental charges pilots with sham divorces
Continental Airlines says nine pilots got “paper” divorces from their spouses and then remarried after securing lump-sum distributions from the carrier’s retirement plan. Federal regulators have in the past indicated that plan administrators should disallow sham transactions intended to qualify for tax-favored retirement benefits. Two pilots have now countered with charges that the airline invaded their privacy when it investigated whether their divorces were really what they seemed. [Houston Chronicle and followup]