<?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: November 15 roundup	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/11/november-15-roundup/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/11/november-15-roundup/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:25:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: November 30 roundup		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/11/november-15-roundup/comment-page-1/#comment-109269</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[November 30 roundup]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:25:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=20130#comment-109269</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] Parent who sent buzzworthy demand letter to Kansas City school board is a jazz musician [Wayward Blog, earlier] [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Parent who sent buzzworthy demand letter to Kansas City school board is a jazz musician [Wayward Blog, earlier] [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: E-Bell		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/11/november-15-roundup/comment-page-1/#comment-107971</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[E-Bell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:23:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=20130#comment-107971</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[This has got to be the first time that Overlawyered has ever linked to SomethingAwful.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This has got to be the first time that Overlawyered has ever linked to SomethingAwful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: wfjag		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/11/november-15-roundup/comment-page-1/#comment-107959</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[wfjag]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:07:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=20130#comment-107959</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[RE: Suit against the Air Force.  It would be interesting to see the Complaint, which isn&#039;t apparently posted on-line.
 Based on the press release of the plaintiffs&#039; lawyers, it looks like they haven&#039;t bothered to read the Federal Tort Claims Act.  Only the US gov&#039;t, not an agency, is the proper defendant.  Next, &quot;unspecified damages&quot; are sought.  The FTCA requires a &quot;sum certain&quot; (specific amount) in ad damnum.  FTCA claims are limited to negligent acts or omissions by an employee of the gov&#039;t acting within scope of employment.  The alleged negligence is failure to demolish a bunker.  But, that appears barred by the discretionary function exception to FTCA liability, 28 USC 2680(a).  And, why California&#039;s Recreational Use Act wouldn&#039;t reduce duties owed the decedents to those owed a common law trespasser isn&#039;t clear.  This looks like it could be a suit filed more for its publicity value than any real hope of recovery.  Still, one the hand are grieving parents and other the other are deadbeats who killed the kids and the deep pocket of Uncle Sam.  In California, you can&#039;t tell how a USDC or the 9th Circuit might handle that.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RE: Suit against the Air Force.  It would be interesting to see the Complaint, which isn&#8217;t apparently posted on-line.<br />
 Based on the press release of the plaintiffs&#8217; lawyers, it looks like they haven&#8217;t bothered to read the Federal Tort Claims Act.  Only the US gov&#8217;t, not an agency, is the proper defendant.  Next, &#8220;unspecified damages&#8221; are sought.  The FTCA requires a &#8220;sum certain&#8221; (specific amount) in ad damnum.  FTCA claims are limited to negligent acts or omissions by an employee of the gov&#8217;t acting within scope of employment.  The alleged negligence is failure to demolish a bunker.  But, that appears barred by the discretionary function exception to FTCA liability, 28 USC 2680(a).  And, why California&#8217;s Recreational Use Act wouldn&#8217;t reduce duties owed the decedents to those owed a common law trespasser isn&#8217;t clear.  This looks like it could be a suit filed more for its publicity value than any real hope of recovery.  Still, one the hand are grieving parents and other the other are deadbeats who killed the kids and the deep pocket of Uncle Sam.  In California, you can&#8217;t tell how a USDC or the 9th Circuit might handle that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
