April 22 roundup

  • Liquor commissioner of New Hampshire nabbed on DWI rap, refuses breathalyzer test [WMUR]
  • Slumber party liability waivers are something we’ve reported on before. But home trampoline disclaimers? [Free-Range Kids]
  • Website’s terms and conditions include giving up your immortal soul [Popehat]
  • Scottish jury says charges “not proven” against lawyers in case of monetary demand for return of stolen Leonardo da Vinci painting [Guardian, earlier]
  • If you’re going to shake down food makers with false claims of contaminants in their wares, it’s best to vary your story patterns [Tacoma News-Tribune, Seattle Times]
  • “My task is simple: spew foundationless tripe that turns itself into a pre-trial settlement demand.” [The Namby Pamby, a lawyer blog I really should have linked before now] More: Daniel Fisher, Forbes.
  • Why plaintiffs lawyers aren’t so thrilled about recent Toyota revelations: most are invested in blaming electronics, not stuck pedals or mats [WSJ Law Blog]
  • Duck hunters sue guide over disappointing trip [Fred Hartman, Fort Bend, Texas, Herald]


  • You should link Namby Pamby. I have been reading the blog for about 3 months and find it to be very funny.

  • Member of the public, having bought stolen goods, demanding money for its return – guilty
    Lawyer, having bought stolen goods, demanding money for its return – not guilty (or at least ‘not proven’)

    I do like the bit at the end where the article mensions one of Lawyers facing being struck off for using clients money to buy the painting.

  • I understand that Toyota’s $16 million dollar payment was rational if it dampens adverse publicity. But the payment will be viewed by many as vindication for the hysteria generated by the Naderites. I would be interested in Ted Frank’s or Walter Olson’s take on the matter.

  • You guys are making me blush. Stop it.

    Ok. Kidding, you can keep doing it.

    (Thanks for the link!)