It’s an entry that seems like self-parody for this site — a Madison County lawsuit over spilled coffee — but the lawsuit against Starbucks is true. It differs from the McDonald’s case in that it involves a defective cup, but the alleged second-degree burns show that, once again, the plaintiffs’ bar’s claim that McDonald’s coffee was unusually likely to burn was somewhat fictional. (Brian Brueggeman, “Lawyer: McDonald’s coffee case different”, Belleville News-Democrat, Jan. 27) (via Obscure Store).
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
One reparations suit down
…with many more, we fear, yet to come: “A federal judge today dismissed a lawsuit brought by descendants of slaves from across the country seeking reparations from corporations they say profited from the forced labor of their ancestors before the Civil War.” U.S. District Judge Charles Norgle cited the political-question doctrine, said the plaintiffs had failed to overcome statute of limitation questions, and “said the suit alleged no specific connection between the plaintiffs and the banks, tobacco companies, railroads and other companies named as defendants.” (Mike Robinson, “Judge dismisses slave reparations suit”, AP/Chicago Tribune, Jan. 26) FrontPage has a timely article on the suit (Curtis Lawrence, “The Reparations Lobby Sues Again”, Jan. 25). Plus: Prof. Bainbridge, much quoted here of late, has more (Jan. 27)
Blockbuster suit: unsafe for adults
“A couple who says their 4-year-old daughter saw hard-core pornography on a PG-rated movie tape from Blockbuster has sued the video company.” The lawsuit, filed in New Jersey, says the rental chain “had a responsibility and a duty to inspect, monitor and ensure the quality and propriety of all video products purchased by its customers.” Blockbuster spokesman Randy Hargrove said “that the company does not carry X- or NC-17-rated movies, and depends on renters to return a tape ‘in the same condition it was given to them.’ ‘Unfortunately there are those rare instances when someone will abuse that privilege and damage one of our tapes,’ he said.” (“Blockbuster sued for porn on PG movie”, AP/CNN, Jan. 24). Reader Jeff Rowes writes: “I haven’t read the complaint, only the CNN story, but the theory of recovery seems to be that Blockbuster has a duty to review every videotape returned after renting to ensure that its contents have not been adulterated with pornography. If adopted, this duty of care would obviously jeopardize Blockbuster’s business because each outlet would need dozens of full time videotape reviewers (or some expensive, as-yet-uninvented technology). It would also create an explosion in fraud as all one would need to recover is a Blockbuster video with a few minutes of porn on it.”
Hot potato suit
Thomas Gould is suing a West Palm Beach steakhouse over a hot baked potato that his lawyer claims “melted his esophagus.” (Alex Clifton, “Boca man sues steakhouse, claiming potato burn”, Palm Beach Post, Jan. 17) (via “On Point”). The news coverage is devoid of details, but perhaps the theory is that the Raindancer Steak House negligently made the spud look so appetizing that Mr. Gould could not bear to wait for his meal to cool.
Radio this a.m.; Indiana on Wed.
Updated: I had been scheduled to be a guest on Laura Ingraham’s national radio show this morning, but it didn’t wind up happening. Also, I’m set to speak on Wednesday to the Federalist Society chapters in Indianapolis (breakfast) and Indiana University School of Law in Bloomington (lunch), weather permitting.
Another traffic record; Laura Ingraham radio show
With our commentary on John Edwards drawing links from all over the place, yesterday was another record day for traffic, with 12,908 unique visitors, breaking Jan. 7’s record of 10,798. We’re being forced to upgrade to a new and more expensive hosting plan, but that’s the sort of problem it’s nice to have (to send us an Amazon donation that will help defray the costs, click here).
I’m set to appear as a guest on Laura Ingraham’s national radio show to discuss Sen. Edwards, but not this morning as originally scheduled. It’ll probably be next week.
More weblogs threatened with lawsuits
The widely discussed Luskin/Atrios affair last fall (see Oct. 30) was just the start, it seems, as far as webloggers being menaced with litigation over their sites’ contents. In November Justene Adamec of CalBlog (Nov. 14) received a demand letter from a lawyer for a telemarketing firm “threatening to sue me and ‘my agents’ for invasion of privacy, misrepresentation and interference with economic relations” because of critical discussion about the firm in readers’ comments at the site. See also Damnum Absque Injuria, Nov. 9 and Nov. 14 and Right on the Left Beach, Nov. 15 and Nov. 17, which have useful information on the workings of this particular telemarketing firm/directory publisher, Infotel by name. And last month Michael Airhart at Ex-Gay Watch (Dec. 23) received a letter from LightHouse World Evangelism, Inc. located in Rohnert Park, Calif., threatening a defamation suit over a post in which Airhart expressed decided doubt about the medical claims made by Pastor Matthew C. Manning, who has appeared on Pat Robertson’s broadcast “700 Club” to say that he was healed by faith from HIV/AIDS.
Bad-teacher removal: consensus now complete?
As Joanne Jacobs puts it, remarkable and refreshing: “The New York City teachers’ union proposed yesterday cutting to six months the time it takes to remove incompetent teachers, speeding up a process that can now drag on for years.
“As part of a broad overhaul of the disciplinary process and evaluation system for teachers, the union president, Randi Weingarten, also called for ending so-called rubber rooms, where more than 200 teachers facing charges of malfeasance are sent to languish, some for years, while still receiving full pay. She proposed the appointment of a special master and a task force of pro bono lawyers to clear the backlog of cases.” (David Herszenhorn, “Failing City Teachers Face a Faster Ax”, New York Times, Jan. 15) (more)
“Compensation battles inflict new wounds on 9/11 families”
“The million-dollar federal payments that Congress designed to help the nearly 3,000 families of people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks have sparked feuds within hundreds of the families.” Stepfamilies, domestic partners, and surprise claimants asserting previously unsuspected overseas marital or blood relationships have all gotten into bitter disputes. Understatement alert: “When money is involved, there’s even more incentive to come forward,” says a NYC court official. (Martin Kasindorf, USA Today, Jan. 19). See Sept. 11.
“Library cat” trial set to begin soon
Welcome San Diego Union Tribune readers: trial is set to begin Jan. 26 in Richard Espinosa’s lawsuit over the incident in which a cat who resided at the Escondido public library attacked Espinosa’s state certified assistance dog, who helps him control panic attacks. Espinosa wants $1.5 million. For our earlier coverage of the saga see May 7, 2001, Jun. 13, 2001 (letter from Espinosa), Dec. 4, 2001, and Apr. 15, 2002. (Dana Littlefield, “Court TV loses bid for cameras at cat trial”,(Jan. 16) (mentions this site)