“An exclusive London restaurant stopped asking customers to sign a legal disclaimer if they order rare or medium-rare burgers after the practice came to the attention of the city’s legal community. The restaurant at the five-star Marriott West India Quay in London’s Docklands required diners to complete a form which said it waived the hotel chain’s responsibilities should they suffer food poisoning.” (“Rare burger? Just don’t sue us”, CNN, Sept. 29). We first covered the burger-disclaimer issue more than five years ago: see Aug. 9, 1999.
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Oz: burger pebble depressed her libido
In Australia, Kelly Rae Hennessey is suing McDonald’s claiming she suffered a loss of libido after biting into a cheeseburger that contained a rock, according to a report in the Melbourne Herald Sun. As a result of the contaminated burger, purchased from a drive-through in Adelaide in 2000, “Hennessey says she’s suffered a loss of libido, as well as depression, nightmares, anxiety, nausea, palpitations, diarrhea, shortness of breath and toothache.” (“Woman sues over bad burger”, UPI/InterestAlert, Sept. 26).
9/11 fund may have been a mistake
Even Ken Feinberg, the man who ran it, acknowledges as much. Must-read column from Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby (“Why the 9/11 fund was a mistake”, Sept. 27). One remarkable passage among many:
“You would get situations like this,” Feinberg said. ” `Mr. Feinberg, I’m the brother of the victim. Don’t let my sister get a nickel. The victim hated his sister, trust me.’ Then the sister comes in. `Is my brother spreading rumors. . .? My [deceased] brother and I loved each other.’
“Or: `Mr. Feinberg, I’m the biological parent of my son who was killed. Don’t you dare give the fiancee any money. That marriage was never going to take place.’ Then the fiancee comes in. `We were going to be married on October 11th.’ And you go back to the biological parent. `They were going to be married October 11th. You threw a shower for them. You said you were gaining a daughter, not losing a son.’ `Yeah, but on Sept. 10, my son told me it was off.’ “
Update: blame it on Riyadh
Even though the 9/11 commission (debunking certain widely circulated stories to the contrary) concluded that the government of Saudi Arabia did not fund al-Qaeda, several institutional victims of the terrorist attacks, including Cantor Fitzgerald Securities and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, recently filed suit against a long list of foreign entities including the Saudi government and various financial institutions for their alleged role in the attacks (Larry Neumeister, “Port Authority to Join Suit Against Saudi Arabia Over 9/11 Attack”, AP/Law.com, Sept. 13). The U.S. government has been highly critical of the freelance use of private litigation to second-guess the state of U.S.-Saudi relations, which has in no way deterred colorful asbestos-tobacco zillionaire Ron Motley from setting up his own mini-CIA-cum-State-Department-for-profit toward that end (Jennifer Senior, “Intruders in the House of Saud, Part II: A Nation Unto Himself”, New York Times Magazine, Mar. 14)(see Jul. 11, 2003). And in the New York Observer, Nina Burleigh in February profiled attorney Brian Alexander of the prominent plaintiff’s air-crash firm of Kreindler & Kreindler, who had “already filed a suit — on behalf of the families of more than 1,000 9/11 families?against a list of foreign entities hundreds of pages long.” (“Air Disasters, Legal Fees And Justice for the Victims”, New York Observer, Feb. 23).
Welcome “All Things Considered” listeners
National Public Radio’s widely aired news show ran a piece yesterday afternoon (Saturday) on lawsuit reform as a factor in the election; the reporter first interviewed me at a couple of minutes’ length, and then turned the floor over to two professors who took the opposite view. The second of the two profs carried on at length about supposed public misunderstanding of the McDonald’s coffee (Stella Liebeck) case in a way that made me wish Ted had gotten some air time. I’m likewise quoted in a Denver Post article analyzing Congress’s failure to pass any litigation reform this term (Anne C. Mulkern, “Lawsuit caps lose support at roll call”, Sept. 13). Karen Selick kindly referenced me this summer in a piece for Canada’s National Post (“Stacking the deck against big tobacco”, Jun. 2, not online). And New York’s esteemed Observer, the one on the orange paper, carried in its last issue a favorable-in-context reference to “the [unnamed] Overlawyered.com guy”, meaning in this case me rather than Ted. (Tom Scocca, “Blogging Off Daily Can Make You Blind”, New York Observer, Sept. 20).
IRS ordered to pay damages for taxpayer’s emotional distress
Now here’s a case you might think would really open the floodgates: Prof. Paul Caron of the University of Cincinnati reports at TaxProf (Sept. 17) that a court has ordered the Internal Revenue Service to pay a taxpayer $10,000 for the emotional distress occasioned by its overzealous collection techniques. The case arose in bankruptcy proceedings, however, and its relevance as precedent for solvent taxpayers is not clear. The $10,000 will be paid at the expense of other taxpayers who presumably will surrender their money in a way that involves no emotional distress for them.
Bounteous bankruptcies, cont’d: PG&E
A judge’s OK for fees in the insolvency of the giant California utility “puts the final tally for more than three years’ worth of work at about $450 million to $475 million, according to an accounting by the Office of the U.S. Trustee. Of the total, about $100 million goes to law firms representing the utility in different capacities. ” Milbank Tweed originally agreed to charge $595 per hour but now wants that figure revised upward. (Jeff Chorney, “Calif. Bankruptcy Judge OKs About $450 Million in PG&E Fees”, The Recorder, Sept. 16). See Jul. 23, Dec. 6, Nov. 26.
Copyright litigation for trolls
“‘The trolls have made amazing comebacks. They just keep coming back from the dead,’ said IP attorney Parker Bagley, a partner at New York’s Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy who in the past has helped the Hummel figurine company protect its copyright status.” (Tresa Baldas, “Trolling for Copyrights”, National Law Journal, Sept. 21).
Libel: the damage winning can do
About a year ago the conservative magazine National Review (disclosure: I’ve written for them and for a while served as a contributing editor on their masthead) was sued by a Muslim activist who claimed to have been defamed by an article containing inaccuracies about his connection to a controversial gathering. The communications director for the local chapter of the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) expressed the hope that the lawsuit would “deter hate-mongers from undermining the character and work of those who do not share their extremist views.” The magazine eventually succeeded in getting the suit thrown out and even got a small payment from the plaintiff, but its libel insurance policy carried a $50,000 deductible, and its total expenses exceeded $65,000. It’s opened an appeal for contributions to cover the resulting hole in its budget — a “post-defense defense fund”. As Voltaire put it, “I was never ruined but twice: once when I lost a lawsuit and once when I won one.”
U.K.: toward Christmas pantomime sensitivity
In Devon, England, a community theater producer who faced accusations of hate speech last year after staging a Christmas pantomime entitled Snow White and the Seven Asylum Seekers has announced that he has begun production on a presumably less offensive show, Snow Person and the Seven Completely Ordinary People. The north Devon village of Merton near Okehampton had banned producer Bob Harrod’s pantomime last year following advice from the government’s Commission for Racial Equality and a regional race council, after complaints that the show’s satirical portrayal of asylum seekers might violate laws against racially offensive speech. The show featured seven asylum seekers with names like Chemical Ali, Comical Ali, Back Ali, Dark Ali, and Bowling Ali. The nearby village of Langtree, however, agreed to host the production. (“New target for Snow White writer”, BBC, Sept. 11; Nov. 3 and Dec. 1, 2003)(via Norvell). More on British hate speech laws: Jul. 16, 2004, Dec. 18-19, 2002,