Defendants may be presented at a very late stage with new allegations which they’ve never heard before and are precluded from challenging [Scott Greenfield]
Author Archive
“Lawsuits for the cure?”
The Susan G. Komen for the Cure organization continues to take an aggressive stance against other groups using “for the cure” phrasing in breast cancer charitable efforts, part of a wider trend toward disputes between non-profits on trademark issues. [Minneapolis Star-Tribune, earlier]
Self-driving cars
The technology is advancing rapidly, and promises a vast emancipation from drudgery — if punitive/prohibitive liability and regulatory rules don’t block its path. [Tyler Cowen] More: Ryan Calo.
June 7 roundup
- Claim: unwanted sugar in Dunkin’ Donuts coffee order sent customer into diabetic shock [AP]
- Schadenfreude aside, key theory in feds’ case against John Edwards looking mighty strained [Meck Deck/John Locke Foundation, Steve Hayward/Power Line, Ted Frank, Jacob Sullum] “They’ve indicted one former presidential candidate on one count of false statements?” [Caleb Brown] American Lawyer looks back at the law firms that backed Edwards in 2008; our coverage of his ’04 law-firm backers and of moneyman Fred Baron, and my commentary on Baron’s ethical standards;
- Edwards-reminiscent? Theory that earlier C-section would have averted cerebral palsy nets $58 M verdict [Thomas Scheffey, Connecticut Law Tribune]
- Carter Wood, key business-policy blogger, departs NAM for Business Roundtable;
- Tenderer tort-law treatment for trespassers, courtesy 3rd Restatement? [David Freddoso/Examiner, Richard Cupp via TortsProf]
- Non-shockingly, some litigation defense lawyers aren’t enthusiastic about lawsuit reform [Texas Lawyer]
- “Attorney charged with stealing clerk’s textbook from courtroom” [Baltimore Sun]
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Congress is once again considering expanding an “anti-hacking” law that’s already disturbingly broad. Will users someday risk a felony rap for flouting websites’ Terms of Use? [Orin Kerr, Volokh]
“Acrophobic bridge worker protected by ADA”
The Seventh Circuit said a bridge worker with fear of heights can proceed with his suit contending the Illinois Department of Transportation should have done more to accommodate his wish to work only on those bridge maintenance tasks that did not leave him in an overly exposed position. It also said a jury could reasonably find IDOT was improperly eager for the plaintiff to depart because it regarded him as “annoying” and because he had had frictions with other employees, as when he said of one co-worker, “Sometimes I would like to knock her teeth out.” [Pat Murphy, Lawyers USA; Joe Lustig; Miller v. IDOT, courtesy Law.com]
CPSC database: Wobbly on its feet
The new Consumer Product Safety Commission database, promoted by its backers as a vital new source of information about safety threats to the public, has garnered lots of consumer complaints about … shoes. [CPSC commissioner Nancy Nord] Earlier at Cato.
Trolley-jumping in Memphis
Last week two trolley cars collided in downtown Memphis, and according to Allison Burton, a spokeswoman for the transit authority, some bystanders attempted to board the cars and fake injuries. Burton “said witnesses saw at least eight people run at the trolleys following the wreck” and at least two appear to have gotten in. [Commercial Appeal] Earlier bus-jumping here, etc.
Economics of patent trolling
Rob Beschizza sees clues to the economics of patent litigation in the public pronouncements of Lodsys, a company that has sued small Apple developers based on IP claims covering such common app features as upgrade buttons. [BoingBoing, more, This Is My Next (with copy of a 2007 patent for “Methods and Systems for Gathering Information from Units of a Commodity Across a Network”] Update: Apple intervenes.
NJ high court: drunks can sue bars that served them
Although the New Jersey legislature enacted a law in 1997 flatly barring drunk drivers from recovering damages over their own car crashes, the state’s supreme court ruled that because the law did not explicitly override the state’s dramshop (liquor-server liability) law, it would be read as having left it intact. [NJLJ, NJLRA, more]