“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Below is the summary of an unpublished opinion recently issued by the Michigan Appeals Court.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…
Tide turning against drug-pricing suits? Glaxo SmithKline beats back Kentucky case [Longstreth, AmLaw Daily] Court in Australia deems litigation funding pact improper as "unregistered managed investment scheme" [New Lawyer] Should docs be careful what they ask for? Michelle Mello... […]
An "uproar" has broken out over the state employee pension fund's prospective hiring of lawyers to file securities suits. "At least six firms from around the country have been courting the board of the Missouri State Employees Retirement System, or... […]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has introduced H.R. 4115, the Open Access to Courts Act of 2009, to restore notice pleadings, i.e., the status quo ante Twombly and Iqbal. Nadler's news release announced the bill, "Nadler, Johnson, and Conyers Introduce Bill... […]
The NYT reports that more companies are challenging claims made in competitors’ ads. Companies that were once content to fight in grocery-store aisles and on television commercials are now choosing a different route — filing lawsuits and other formal grievances challenging their competitors’ claims. Longtime foes like Pantene and Dove, Science Diet and […]
The Washington Post covers the disclosure of e-mails from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit — e-mails that appear to have been subject to an FOI request and that were either hacked by an outsider or stolen and released by an insider. In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s [...] […]
Like Ilya, I’ve been reading Sarah Palin’s book and following her media appearances. It’s difficult to say anything original about a polarizing figure such as Palin. And no matter what you say, around half of the VC readership will be convinced you are a complete idiot (which half depending on which side you [...] […]
I got tired of hauling so many books around on plane flights, and decided to try downloading some Kindle books to my Ipod Touch. I don’t yet have a Kindle, although apparently if I am very, very good ... I know that Glenn Reynolds prefers the Ipod to read Kindle over the Kindle, but then [...] […]
Any thoughts on what the rule should be here? My sense is that numbers written using digits are much easier to quickly absorb, so I tend to write them that way whenever they refer to something that people might want to use in calculations or comparisons. I’d say, for instance, that “These books [...] […]
{ 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.