Our free periodic newsletter went out to subscribers this afternoon. Each issue summarizes a few weeks’ worth of postings in terse yet wry style. To join the list, change your address, etc., visit this page (requires Google registration).
Archive for July, 2005
Court-picking
Law profs Richard Epstein (Chicago) and Stephen Presser (Northwestern) are exchanging views on the Supreme Court vacancy as the latest Featured Discussion on Point of Law.
“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).
Gun bill passes
Merck Vioxx trial
Ted has some more hard-hitting commentary on the latest developments today at Point of Law, adding to what he wrote here Jul. 15 (and see Jim Copland, PoL, Jul. 18 for many more links). Further coverage: Aug. 19 ($253 million jury verdict).
More boilerplate in lawyers’ emails
Whistleblower fees
They’re such a great deal for the public, you know:
An Oakland, Calif., attorney who blasted the University of California Regents for wasting taxpayer money during a seven-year lawsuit is asking for $5.4 million in fees and costs — 2 1/2 times what his client got.
Patricia Gillette of Heller Ehrman, representing the UC Regents, described attorney Gary Gwilliam’s request as “outrageous”: “Gary likes to talk about how much taxpayers’ dollars are being wasted by the lab, and then he has the audacity to ask for $5.4 million in his plaintiff’s case”. (Warren Lutz, The Recorder, Jul. 21).
“Richard Branson claims to own all uses of ‘Virgin'”
Boing Boing (Jul. 27) and Chilling Effects (Jul. 10) have details. See Amanda Cantrell, “Branson trademark suit sparks debate”, CNN/Money, Jun. 29. Update: Jan. 3, 2006.
“Doc: $2 mil. verdict proves my point”
As one might expect, spinal surgery does have a risk of spinal injury, including paralysis. Joliet neurosurgeon Thomas R. Hurley, president-elect of the shrinking Illinois State Neurosurgical Society, has an impressive safety record, performing well over 1000 spinal surgeries, with only one resulting in paralysis. Nevertheless, a Cook County jury decided that anything less than perfection was negligence, and awarded $2.3 million in damages to the family of the late factory worker Richard McCorry. McCorry was already wheelchair-bound from back pain when he had the surgery that paralyzed him. “As a result of the Tuesday verdict, Hurley’s annual medical malpractice insurance rates could jump from $245,000 a year to $300,000 or more, he said. … ‘Maybe I’ll go to another state where insurance will be $75,000.'” (Abdon M. Pallasch, Chicago Sun-Times, Jul. 28) (via ICJL). The press accounts mention the plaintiff’s attorney’s complaint that the case took ten years to try, but don’t mention that that was because the plaintiff changed his theory in 1999 and then chose to spend two and a half years trying to retroactively amend his complaint to add a new theory of liability against the deep-pocket non-profit hospital. McCorry v. Gooneratne (Ill. App. 2002); McCorry v. Evangelical Hospitals Corp. (Ill. App. 2002).
More on the Grand Theft Auto lawsuit
A reader asks about yesterday’s post:
- Shouldn’t the 85-year-old grandmother &/or the 14-year-old’s parents (where are the 14-year-old’s parents, please?) be hauled into court and charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor? If this was a grandfather, he likely would be in court on charges ….
- Has anyone asked the 14-year-old how, where, or from whom he got the extra scenes for the game??
- Said grandmother is now lead plaintiff in class-action lawsuit against game’s maker and others, claiming . . . what?
- How soon will this lawsuit be thrown out; how soon will it be declared “frivolous,” and how soon will the lawyers and the legal firm who filed this suit be either disbarred or sanctioned (or should they be punished at all)?
- There’s no reason to charge anyone with delinquency of a minor. One can question the grandmother’s or parents’ wisdom, but they’re allowed to expose their kids to R-rated material. The distributors of the modification to the game might have trouble if they aren’t screening for age, but no one seems to seek to go after the shallow pocket.
- The complaint makes no effort to claim that the kid ever had or accessed the extra scenes. I suspect the lawyers will claim that they don’t need to prove that to collect damages. They’re alleging the grandmother was deceived, that the defendants engaged in false advertising, that she wouldn’t have purchased a game if she had known about the hidden sex scenes, and that disgorgement of profits is appropriate—and not that the grandmother or the grandson was actually harmed in any way. I’ve made the nine-page complaint available on the Documents in the News page on the AEI Liability Project web site.
- One hopes the lawsuit will be thrown out eventually, but the Pelman decision (Jan. 27) means that the lawsuit almost certainly won’t be held frivolous or result in sanctions or in anyone being disbarred. But that says more about Pelman and the sorry state of the law than the value of this lawsuit. See Michael Greve’s discussion of the issue in “‘Harm-Less’ Lawsuits?”