Posts Tagged ‘Germany’

“Singles Shopping” Nixed

A Roanoke Wal-Mart cashier heard of, and convinced her manager to copy, German Wal-Marts’ practice of passing out “red bows” to singles on otherwise-slow Friday nights. Singles would put the bow on their carts to indicate their motive, and meet at specially designated “flirt points” in the store; the events attract hundreds of customers. Roanoke’s “Singles Shopping” program was also a huge success, attracting shoppers who would drive from hours away to attend—until corporate headquarters abruptly demanded the weekly event be cancelled. Alas, the chain doesn’t explain itself, and the AP doesn’t try to speculate, but I’d wager pretty good money that it was the fear of lawsuits like this one or this one that squelched the practice. The AP’s condensed version of the original Roanoke Times story is kinder to Dale Firebaugh, because it omits the fact that he was so heart-broken over the cancellation that he purchased a 26-cent red bow and stood by the door hoping someone would recognize the symbol. Is he another victim of the liability crisis, or is there a different economic reason we’re missing? Perhaps love-smitten shoppers purchase less, though one would think the increased traffic makes up for it given the success of the program elsewhere. Comments open for the limited purpose of inviting readers to use their imagination for what might have motivated this decision other than liability fears. (AP/MSNBC, Jul. 23; Marques G. Harper, “Apparently, the cost of love can’t be discounted”, Roanoke Times, Jul. 22; Courtney Cutright, “Find milk, soap – a mate? at the Roanoke Wal-Mart”, Roanoke Times, Jul. 15; Rex Bowman, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Jul. 23 & Jul. 25; Pete Dybdahl, “Wal-Mart: ‘It was time to move on'”, Roanoke Times, Jul. 28; Parija Bhatnagar, “Lookin’ for a cheap date? Try Wal-Mart”, CNN/Money, Apr. 7; “Wal Mart to Hold Singles Shopping Night”, Chosun (English version), Jul. 7) (hat-tip to PG, whose link to the AP story gave me the idea).

“GDR athletes sue over steroid damage”

“A big group of former East German athletes is to sue a pharmaceuticals giant over the damage they suffered under the country’s doping program of the 1970s and 80s.” The chief executive of the Jenapharm drug manufacturing group, Isabelle Roth, said the steroids in question were lawful and that the enterprise had no choice but to furnish them under the then-Communist regime: “As a part of a group of pharmaceutical companies, Jenapharm was obliged to collaborate in the State Plan 1425”. (BBC, Mar. 13). More: Tom Palmer comments. (& update Dec. 4).

Edward Fagan’s tsunami lawsuit

Nineteen German and Austrian tourists are filing a lawsuit against the government of Thailand and the French hotel chain Accor over the Indian Ocean tsunami. Naturally, the lawsuit has been filed in New York. Another defendant is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; plaintiffs complain that NOAA’s Pacific Tsunami Warning System failed to issue a warning for a tsunami in a completely different ocean. (Aside from the fact that NOAA owes no duty to vacationing Germans in Thailand, NOAA did try to notify other countries of the tsunami potential of the earthquake.) The suits against NOAA and Thailand in a US court are frivolous in the narrowest sense of the word, and will likely be quickly dismissed; Accor will probably have to spend some time and money if it can’t get out on jurisdictional grounds. Edward Fagan (Feb. 5, Aug. 13, Apr. 2, Aug. 8, 2003 and links therein) is the attorney; press coverage uncritically repeats the claim that he is “best known for filing lawsuits seeking reparations for Holocaust victims,” a self-promotion others disagree with. (Jean-Michel Stoullig, AFP/Wash. Times, Feb. 15; cf. also AP, Feb. 13; hat tip to reader D.C.). I’m curious: does Fagan sue his local news weather department if he gets wet because of an unanticipated rainstorm?

At least Fagan isn’t claiming that his lawsuit will stop tsunamis. This site does make that claim for its “lawsuit”; it’s possible that it’s a tongue-in-cheek art project, but the smart money is betting that it’s the work of a full-fledged self-parodying moonbat. It’s not clear if there’s an actual lawsuit; lawsuits by the deranged tend to be more entertaining than socially problematic, except for district court judges unfortunate enough to be in the Ninth Circuit.

EC fax mistake

Five German banks appealed a 100-million Euro fine by the European Commission. The European Court of the First Instance reversed the fine when the EC attorney faxing a brief “accidentally placed it face upwards in the fax machine”; the court received 100 blank pages instead of the brief, and defaulted the appeal. Press accounts are unclear whether the EC’s right to review that decision has effectively been waived. (James Kirkup, “EC loses ?70m after lawyer botches fax”, The Scotsman, Oct. 16). Washington state also had a similar problem when an attorney forgot to appeal an $18 million judgment against the state. (Sep. 13, 2000) (via Fark).

Germany Overlawyered

On April 11, 2002, al Qaeda terrorists exploded a tanker truck outside a synagogue in Tunisia, killing 20 other people, including 14 German tourists, and grievously wounding several others, including three-year-old Adrian Esper, who suffered third-degree burns to his face, arms, and upper body, and has had to undergo thirty operations. Thus, the Esper family is suing… the package tour company that arranged the trip to the synagogue, alleging that the company should have known about the terrorist danger at that destination. Lest you think the Germans have completely bought into the American system of jackpot justice, the Espers are only seeking 100,000 Euros in damages. A judge will decide the case October 27 if the parties don’t reach a settlement first. (“Couple Sues Travel Company Over Terror Attack”, Deutsche Welle, Sep. 1; “Germans seek damages for boy burned in Tunisia terror”, Expatica, Sep. 1).

Germany: pub owner wrong to sack 100-beer-a-day worker

“A German waiter who was sacked for drinking up to 100 bottles of beer every day has won a case for unfair dismissal. The 50-year-old, who had worked at the Unter Taschenmacher pub in Cologne for eight years, admitted that his managers had repeatedly warned him not to drink at work.” The unnamed man conceded drinking the beer but said he had been traumatized by losing his “dream” job. The tribunal agreed and awarded him three months’ salary plus ?3,000. (“German pub owner left crying into his beer by tribunal ruling”, Personnel Today (UK), Aug. 24).

Update: German court dismisses licorice-addiction suit

Update to our Apr. 16 story: Margit Kieske, 48, who says she developed heart problems after consuming nearly one pound of licorice per day, has lost her suit against the German confectioner Haribo for not posting a health warning on boxes of the candy. A court in Bonn ruled that the company had complied with the law, which provides that special labeling is needed only if licorice contains more than 0.2 percent of glycyrrhizin, a threshold not reached by the candies in question. (“Licorice Lawsuit Goes Down the Tubes”, Fox News, Apr. 20).

“Licorice Addict Sues German Confectioner”

Food-overuse suits not solely an American phenomenon: “German candy manufacturer Haribo has been sued by a woman who blames her addiction to licorice and consequent heart problems on the confectioner, according to a Berlin court announcement. The 48-year-old plaintiff from Berlin is asking for ?6,000 ($7,148) in damages from Haribo because she developed heart problems after consuming 400 grams (14 ounces) of the chewy candy every day for four months.” Medical literature has warned that the active compound in licorice, glycyrrhizin, can cause physiological effects when consumed in extremely large quantities. (Deutsche Welle, Apr. 16). See also Nov. 14, 2001. Update Apr. 20: court dismisses suit, saying product was correctly labeled.

Forum shopping

Two Germans had a contract dispute with their former employer, German media giant Bertelsmann AG, regarding a European joint venture. The contract, written in German, required the application of German law, and (according to the defense) the major dispute was over the meaning of a German term in the contract. So where to sue? California, of course! The jury came through with a verdict of over a quarter-billion dollars, and their verdict form was apparently sufficiently muddled that the plaintiffs are going to argue that they were meant to receive over a billion dollars. The defense argues that part of the problem is a mistranslation of “participation” into “equity.” (Greg Risling, “Calif. Jury Rules Against Bertelsmann”, AP, Dec. 12; Gina Keating, “Jury Faults Bertelsmann in AOL Europe Suit”, Reuters, Dec. 11).

Update, Jan. 6, 2004: The plaintiffs’ attorney confirms that the main dispute was over interpretation of a clause in the German-language contract, but argues that it would have been “prohibitively costly” for the plaintiffs to bring the case in Germany–which, based on my experience in a number of cases where critical documents are not in English, and require expensive translation, strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely that the case would have been more expensive in Germany, much less prohibitively so if plaintiffs had a sincere belief that their case was worth in the billions. But the reporter does not challenge the assertion. (Nora Lockwood Tooher, “Two German Entrepreneurs Win $255 Million”, Lawyers Weekly USA, 2004).