- As one who wrote at length about the silicone-implant litigation at the time — founded as it was on junk science theories hyped to panic potential plaintiffs — I agree that Elizabeth Warren has nothing to apologize for about her bankruptcy work for Dow Corning. Move on to better criticisms, please [Darren McKinney, WSJ] Related: Federalist Society teleforum on mass tort bankruptcies with Steven Todd Brown, Ralph Brubaker, and Dan Prieto;
- “What should be the duty of public retailers whose customers have bizarre or offensive clothing, appearance, demeanor or behavior but do not actually engage in or threaten violence on the retailers’ premises? To avoid risk, should the retailers exclude them from their stores?” [Eugene Volokh quoting federal court opinion in Budreau v. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc. (D. Maine)]
- New York residents should brace for higher taxes as trial-lawyer-backed bill in Albany exposes public authorities to more road claims [John Whittaker, Jamestown Post-Journal]
- “Kansas Supreme Court Throws Out Personal Injury Damages Cap” [Associated Press]
- Whose proposal for joint trial counts as triggering removal of mass action under the Class Action Fairness Act? The court’s? Choice between federal and state courts implicates fundamental questions of fairness [Eric Alexander, Drug and Device Law on Supreme Court certiorari petition in Pfizer v. Adamyan]
- Glyphosate, talc verdicts suggest juries may be paying more attention to purported smoking-gun documents than to scientific evidence on causation [Daniel D. Fisher, Northern California Record; Corbin Barthold, WLF] “Inconsistent Gatekeeping Undercuts the Continuing Promise of Daubert” [Joe G. Hollingsworth and Mark A. Miller, WLF]
“The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday agreed to settle a pivotal and contentious case on the property rights of homeless people — a decision that is likely to limit the seizure and destruction of encampments on skid row.” Since 2016 the city has been in litigation with civil rights lawyers representing homeless persons “and two Skid Row anti-poverty groups.” Subsequently, “U.S. District Judge S. James Otero in Los Angeles issued an injunction [that] barred the city from seizing and destroying homeless people’s property on skid row unless officials could show it had been abandoned, threatened public health or safety, or consisted of contraband or evidence of a crime.” [Gale Holland, L.A. Times; Susan Shelley, L.A. Daily News] An estimated 2,000 persons live in the downtown L.A. encampments, and diseases little seen in peacetime in the modern era, including flea-borne typhus, have been making a comeback. [Anna Gorman, Kaiser Health News/The Atlantic; KCOP; earlier]
L.A. should have put the Skid Row encampments under the authority of the California Coastal Commission. That would have ended all chance that anyone could successfully assert property rights in them.
Creators of art displayed in parks and other public spaces have been using assertions of copyright to demand cash from, or play favorites among, private persons and groups seeking to carry on video or photography in those spaces. Aaron Renn: “Any city installing public art should ensure that the agreement with the artist provides for unconditional royalty free pictures and videos, or the art shouldn’t be installed.”
Pennsylvania: “A Ligonier woman claims a car crash less than two weeks before the 2016 presidential election was caused by the likeness of Donald Trump.” Trump House, a residence painted by its owner in flag colors and bearing a 12-foot-high cutout likeness of the 45th President, has become a local attraction and the lawsuit says another driver was distracted by it and struck the plaintiff’s Honda Civic. Plaintiff Kellie Roadman “claims property owner Leslie Baum Rossi was negligent for failing to properly mark the driveway and not receiving a permit from PennDOT…. The driver of the second car was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.” [Rich Chodolofsky, PennLive]
Tickets — with penalties, reaching an absurd $105,761.80 — all part of a man’s apparent ploy “to get revenge on his ex-girlfriend via the Chicago government.” And it didn’t exactly fail at that aim, either; she wound up paying quite a bit to put the matter behind her. [Dan Lewis, Now I Know]
British Columbia, Canada: “A man who sued a young girl and her grandparents after he was injured when he jogged into the back wheel of her bike has lost his case in B.C. Supreme Court.” The jogger “also included the girl’s grandparents, Wendy and Patrick Marlow, in the lawsuit on the basis that they didn’t properly teach her to ride a bike safely. The judgment also clears them of liability.” [Maryse Zeidler, CBC]
A Florida appeals court has rejected a car-crash victim’s lawsuit against a retailer for allegedly lobbying county lawmakers for bad roadway design [Eugene Volokh]
San Francisco Board of Supervisors bans most delivery robots [Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar (“Experts believe this to be only a temporary measure, largely because the hearing concluded with the disassembly and replacement of the existing carbon-based supervisors by gleaming new legibots.”)] Earlier here (sponsor concerned to save delivery jobs).
- Clean Water Act’s citizen-suit procedure can “be a huge money maker” for private groups: “Policing for profit in private environmental enforcement” [Jonathan Wood]
- “Chicago Alderman Tells Property Owners to ‘Come Back to Me on Your Knees’ or Face Zoning Changes” [Eric Boehm, Reason]
- Wetlands: “Farmer faces $2.8 million fine after plowing field” [Damon Arthur, Redding Record-Searchlight]
- Urban bike lanes are green religious monuments, writes Arnold Kling, a biker himself;
- Climate change shareholder disclosure: “Class action lawyers have become very clever at developing these cases for profit.” [Nina Chestney, Reuters]
- “Why full compensation for property owners might lead to more unlawful takings” [Ilya Somin]
Worries “that many delivery jobs would disappear” are cited among the reasons San Francisco Supervisor Norman Yee is sponsoring a ban on delivery robots in the city, prompting this response:
San Fran economics, in 3 steps!
Step 1: Pass $15 minimum wage.
Step 2: Robots take delivery jobs.
Step 3: Ban robots to save delivery jobs. https://t.co/Uj21cnvKuQ
— Michael Saltsman (@Mike_Saltsman) May 31, 2017
Commenters have several suggestions for Steps 4 and beyond, including (@railboss): “Complain there aren’t any decent restaurants anymore with reasonably priced food or that deliver.”