<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Running car in enclosed garage not obvious risk	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/05/running-car-in-enclosed-garage-not-obvious-risk/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/05/running-car-in-enclosed-garage-not-obvious-risk/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 May 2010 14:11:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: PointOfLaw Forum		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/05/running-car-in-enclosed-garage-not-obvious-risk/comment-page-1/#comment-91129</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[PointOfLaw Forum]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2010 14:11:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=17488#comment-91129</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;Around the web, May 28...&lt;/strong&gt;

Add the plaintiff-friendly Exxon Shipping v. Baker to the list of Supreme Court decisions some in Congress wish to make even more plaintiff-friendly. [NLJ] Richard Epstein on the Rand Paul-Rachel Maddow hubbub. [Forbes] Michigan appellate court holds 2...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Around the web, May 28&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Add the plaintiff-friendly Exxon Shipping v. Baker to the list of Supreme Court decisions some in Congress wish to make even more plaintiff-friendly. [NLJ] Richard Epstein on the Rand Paul-Rachel Maddow hubbub. [Forbes] Michigan appellate court holds 2&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: More On Michigan Case: &#8220;Who Knew Carbon Monoxide Kills&#8221;? &#124; American Courthouse		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/05/running-car-in-enclosed-garage-not-obvious-risk/comment-page-1/#comment-91067</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[More On Michigan Case: &#8220;Who Knew Carbon Monoxide Kills&#8221;? &#124; American Courthouse]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2010 20:23:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=17488#comment-91067</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] Olson at Overlawyered links to a great piece by Daniel Fisher of Forbes. (I blogged on this earlier this [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Olson at Overlawyered links to a great piece by Daniel Fisher of Forbes. (I blogged on this earlier this [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: E-Bell		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/05/running-car-in-enclosed-garage-not-obvious-risk/comment-page-1/#comment-91053</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[E-Bell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2010 15:48:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=17488#comment-91053</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Up next:  summary judgment inappropriate because defendant failed to present evidence that the sky is blue.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Up next:  summary judgment inappropriate because defendant failed to present evidence that the sky is blue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ron Miller		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/05/running-car-in-enclosed-garage-not-obvious-risk/comment-page-1/#comment-90999</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ron Miller]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 12:47:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=17488#comment-90999</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[That is not what the court is saying.  The court agrees that  reasonable fact-finder may ultimately conclude that defendants are correct that a reasonably prudent person would know that car exhaust contains carbon monoxide that could cause injury.  Defendant provided no evidence to support the remedy it sought.   It STILL may win on a motion for summary judgment.  Just not now with no evidence.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is not what the court is saying.  The court agrees that  reasonable fact-finder may ultimately conclude that defendants are correct that a reasonably prudent person would know that car exhaust contains carbon monoxide that could cause injury.  Defendant provided no evidence to support the remedy it sought.   It STILL may win on a motion for summary judgment.  Just not now with no evidence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
