Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
-
Point of Law- "Right and Left Join Forces on Criminal Justice"Adam Liptak's article brings front-page New York Times attention to a welcome trend that's been building for years now. Commentary: Adler/Volokh.... […]Walter Olson
- House/Senate divide on state med-mal limitsThe Texas Medical Association, unlike some physician groups, refuses to support the health care bill on Capitol Hill. One of its particular concerns: TMA wants the legislation to explicitly protect the state's caps on non-economic damages in malpractice lawsuits. The... […]Walter Olson
- "Selling Lawsuits, Buying Trouble"The Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform has published a substantial new study (PDF) of the dangers of third-party litigation financing. The authors are John Beisner, Jessica Miller and Gary Rubin of Skadden Arps. Executive summary: "Third-party litigation financing" is a... […]Walter Olson
- State of play on Alien Tort litigationLee G. Dunst of Gibson Dunn, writing in the New York Law Journal (PDF), reviews recent cases and concludes that the courts are tending to dismiss most actions filed under the Alien Tort Claims Act (also known as the Alien... […]Walter Olson
- Higher punitives for wealthier malefactorsIra Stoll at Future of Capitalism has some doubts about that new $300 million tobacco verdict.... […]Walter Olson
- "Right and Left Join Forces on Criminal Justice"
- Volokh
- So . . . Where Are The (Argued) Supreme Court Opinions?As Thanksgiving draws near, I began wondering where the argued Supreme Court opinions are. Sure, we’ve had three per curiam summary reversals, but usually by this point in November, we’ve had at least an opinion or two released in an argued case. The next hand-down opportunity comes on November 30, and if we get an [...] […]John Elwood
- “Climategate” and the Social Validation of KnowledgeRecent evidence that prominent climate scientists have tried to intimidate academic journals into not publishing papers submitted by “climate change” skeptics have caused a major brouhaha in the ongoing political battle over global warming. At least some of the scientists in question certainly seem to have put ideology above the search for truth. The [. […]Ilya Somin
- New York Court of Appeals Upholds Atlantic Yards CondemnationsThe New York Court of Appeals has issued its opinion in Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, an important property rights case. The 6–1 decision upholds the condemnation of numerous properties in the Atlantic Yards area for the purpose of transferring them to powerful developer Bruce Ratner, who plans to use most of [...] […]Ilya Somin
- Originalism and the Sixth Amendment Right “to have the Assistance of Counsel”The briefs filed in McDonald v. City of Chicago have raised a lot of questions here about the role of originalism versus stare decisis in constitutional interpretation. Some have argued that stare decisis must give way to correctness on these issues as a matter of constitutional purity: We should always follow the original public [...] […]Orin Kerr
- DOJ Files Brief Supporting Super-En-Banc in CDTYesterday the Justice Department filed its Brief in Support of Rehearing En Banc By the Full Court in United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, the blockbuster computer search and seizure case I have blogged a lot about. From the introduction: The en banc panel’s decision announced sweeping new rules for warrants to search computers that [...] […]Orin Kerr
- So . . . Where Are The (Argued) Supreme Court Opinions?
Media Bloggers Association
CPSIA
{ 5 comments }
“The court also concluded the beverage could not be considered a “simple” product and given this fact, the dangerous quality of the product could not be within the realm of common knowledge so as to say the dangers were open and obvious.”
OK, the court has now ruled that the knowledge that a can of carbonated liquid might spw when you open it is now “within the realm of common knowledge”.
Is there ANYTHING LEFT “within the realm of common knowledge”? ANYTHING AT ALL?!?!?
Gravity, maybe? Oh, no, we’ve got rulings against that on already…
I’m intrigued by the summary in the POL post, and have a couple of questions for the legal experts out there. What does the one word sentence, “Reversed” refer to? The trial court verdict?
Also, what is the rule for finding something a “simple” product? It sounds like being judged a simple product would have saved Coke some grief. I’m wondering what is not simple about sugar water?
This website should be called “new lows” for the precendents that are being highlighted. What is the endgame in this act of selling and buying? Signed contracts for every pack of gum, bottle of milk, and bag of potato chips? Or is it implied already? The best reason for not starting my own business is the cost of lawsuit protection.
Or is it even possible? I already feel queasy about buying a home in the current state of torts. Help!
Admitting that she somehow injured herself with a can of soda should be nearly as embarassing as the DEA officer who shot himself in the foot.
Embarassing personal acts that result in self injury should be object lessons to those who shoot themselves in the foot or eye. Now everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame and a chance at free money.
Court rules Coke should have warning label regarding product fizz
This in from PointofLaw (via Overlawyered):
Below is the summary of an unpublished opinion recently issued by the Michigan Appeals Court. The decision allows a case to go forward against The Coca-Cola Company based upon spray exiting a can of Diet Coke…
Comments on this entry are closed.