A list from Britain includes “a bin man who made a claim against his council after being ‘startled’ by a dead badger which fell out of a bag, a shoplifter who sued because she fell down stairs while running from the scene of a crime, and a motorist who claimed he did not see a traffic roundabout in daylight – despite there being a large tree in the middle.” (Patrick Barkham, “The wronged trousers, and other scams”, The Guardian, Jan. 3; “Dubious insurance claims ‘rising'”, BBC, Jan. 2).
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
“Create an e-annoyance, go to jail”
“Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.” Declan McCullagh at CNET sounds the alarm about a provision quietly tucked into the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Sec. 113 of the bill, entitled “Preventing Cyberstalking,” “rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet ‘without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy.'” The implications for anonymity on the web, in email correspondence, and in other Internet applications could be enormous, McCullagh says. Penalties include stiff fines and jail terms of up to two years (Jan. 9).
More: Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy says McCullagh is wrong to be so alarmed and that the actual effect of the law would be much narrower (see Ted’s post above). A key question raised in the Volokh comments is whether the bill will apply only to VOIP (internet-based telephone service) or have a broader reach than that. Other discussions worth reading: Concurring Opinions, Boing Boing.
Blawg Review #39 — and “best name” honors
Blawg Review #39, the carnival of law bloggers, is hosted this week at Bruce MacEwen’s Adam Smith Esq., which is an invaluable source for those interested in the economic aspects of law-firm practice. Calling me “ever-reliable”, he links to last week’s item on the Dallas restaurateur who sued over a bad review.
Speaking of Blawg Review, the anonymous organizer of that endeavor has announced the winners of “Blawg Awards 2005”, and Overlawyered is happy to have won for Best Name for a Legal Blog. Among those commenting: Patent Baristas and the naming-and-branding site WordLab.
“Wal-Mart ends food donations to charity”
Is the nation’s largest grocer being ignorant or overcautious? Or has it reckoned that even a “gross negligence” standard will not prevent it from being a target after some future incident of food poisoning?
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the nation’s largest food retailer, said Thursday it will no longer donate nearly-expired or expired food to local groups feeding the hungry….
Olan James, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said the policy, which applies to all 1,224 Wal-Marts, 1,929 Supercenters and 558 Sam’s Clubs, is an attempt to protect the corporation from liability in case someone who eats the donated food gets sick….
Ernie Brown, a spokesman for Sacramento’s Senior Gleaners, which received about 25,000 pounds of food in 2005 from Sam’s Club on Greenback Lane in Citrus Heights, said most food is fine to eat for days after the “sell-by” date.
He said Wal-Mart’s concerns about liability seem misplaced in light of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, a federal law passed in 1996 offering food donors wide-ranging protections from civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution. The law states that donors can be held liable only in instances of “gross negligence.”
“Lord, we get millions and millions of pounds from Raley’s and Bel-Air and Albertson’s, and they don’t have a problem understanding the law,” Brown said. “Why don’t Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club understand the law?”
The food will be thrown out instead. (Todd Milbourn, Sacramento Bee, Jan. 6). More: Dvorak Uncensored, Jan. 11.
Islamic Society of Boston
It’s filed lawsuits against “Fox Channel 25, the Boston Herald, and 14 other private citizens and organizations for having conspired to defame the organization.” Its critics aren’t easy to silence, though. (Dean Barnett, “A Mosque Grows in Boston”, Weekly Standard, Dec. 14; Mark Jurkowitz, “Trial and terror”, Boston Phoenix, Nov. 18-24; Jeff Jacoby, “Questions the Islamic Society should answer”, Boston Globe, Jan. 1 (via Dan Kennedy)).
Overlawyered Italy
Gadfly Signor Cascioli has engaged in three years of litigation against local priest Father Enrico Righi on the grounds that Christianity violates Italy’s version of consumer fraud laws. A court of appeal reinstated the suit after the trial court threw it out. (Richard Owen, “Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest”, The Times, Jan. 3; Phil Stewart, “Did Jesus exist? Italian court to decide”, Reuters, Jan. 3) (via Bashman). Update Feb. 11: case thrown out again.
Bounced check can secure car insurance
Thus ruled the West Virginia Supreme Court in a 4-1 decision, over a heated dissent from Justice Spike Maynard. Reports the Charleston Daily Mail: “Stephanie Michelle Conley sent West Virginia National a worthless check just days before she was involved in an accident on Aug. 31, 2001. According to the suit, Conley’s negligence behind the wheel caused injury to three people.” A lower court ordered the insurance company to make good on the policy. Justice Joseph P. Albright, in the majority, said the high court was simply applying existing precedent. (Bryan Chambers, “Car insurance ruling raises concerns”, Huntington Herald-Dispatch, Dec. 10; “Court Upholds W. Va. Woman’s Coverage, Despite Bounced Check”, Insurance Journal, Dec. 12; “Maynard is wrong, Albright contends”, Charleston Daily Mail, Dec. 22).
Update: Dallas paper agrees to second restaurant review
Restaurateur (see comments) Phil Romano has agreed to drop his lawsuit against the Dallas Morning News over its review of his local eatery, Il Mulino, in exchange for the paper’s promise to run a second review of the restaurant in coming months. “While [reviewer Dotty] Griffith handed out 4-star ratings for service and ambience, Mr. Romano took offense at her criticism of some of the restaurant’s main dishes, including entrees featuring its Bolognese and vodka sauces.” We covered the case Aug. 24, 2004. (“Restaurateur, News settle review lawsuit”, Dallas Morning News, Dec. 17)(via Romenesko).
Update: “Texas judge dismisses lawsuit against Pope”
Head-of-state immunity comes through for the Pontiff in a case alleging abuse cover-up. See Dec. 14, etc. (Catholic World News, Dec. 22). “The U.S. Department of State issued a suggestion of immunity in May, requesting that the pope be dismissed from the suit. ‘Judicial review of this determination is not appropriate,’ [U.S. District Judge Lee] Rosenthal wrote in the opinion.” (Mary Alice Robbins, “Pope Dismissed From Suit Alleging Sexual-Abuse Coverup”, Texas Lawyer, Dec. 23).
Push for veterinarian immunity
Disturbed at the growth of recent sizable rulings and requests for non-economic damages for pets (Sep. 7; Mar. 8; Nov. 21, 2003; Jul. 30, 2003), the Animal Health Institute is lobbying for liability reform that precludes such damages. (Judy Sarasohn, “Tort Watch for Animal Lovers”, Washington Post, Dec. 29).