- Car dealers sue Tesla for selling direct to customers [NPR via @petewarden]
- Had the measure been “fatalities per 100,000 miles driven above urban speeds” this story might have been a good bit less “amazing” [Fair Warning]
- No GOPers want to take away anyone’s contraception? Maybe Sen.-elect Cruz means no elected GOP officials [my new Secular Right post]
- Trial lawyers, FDA, New York Times continue hot on trail of caffeinated energy drinks [Jacob Sullum, Abnormal Use, earlier]
- Lawsuit aims to strike down SEC’s resource extraction disclosure rules [Prof. Bainbridge]
- Quebec language muscle: “After series of fire-bombings, Second Cup coffee shops added the words ‘les cafes’ to signs” [Canadian Press]
- The CPSIA effect, cont’d: more makers of kids’ apparel drop out rather than cope with CPSC rules [Nancy Nord] More: Katherine Mangu-Ward, Reason.
Filed under: auto dealership protection laws, Canada, CPSC, CPSIA and apparel/needle trades, Securities and Exchange Commission
9 Comments
AFAIK, there’s just the one lawsuit over energy drinks. Seems pretty likely the drink contributed to her death by exacerbating her rate cardiovascular condition; the question is really over the extent to which caffeinated drink manufacturers have to warn against those types of consumers having complications from caffeine.
I was shocked to see the parents say no doctor had ever warned her of any dangers from consuming caffeine.
Gosh Mr. Kennerly, do you really believe energy drinks can cause heart attacks? I used to drink a lot of coffee at work and some years ago I was delighted to read a Framingham study showing no relationship between coffee drinking and heart problems. I had expected some small effect from the stimulative property of caffeine; but there was none at all.
Actually there is evidence that coffee is good for your heart: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19026304
Shocked?
Honestly, I have no specific recollection of any of my doctors warning me of dangers from caffeine.
“I was shocked to see the parents say no doctor had ever warned her of any dangers from consuming caffeine.”
Correct Max — it is clearly a med mal suit:
Man Dies While Engaged in Threesome; Family Sues Cardiologist and Wins $3 Million For Failure to Warn! (Jun 1, 2012),
http://www.oginski-law.com/news/man-dies-while-engaged-in-threesome-family-sues-cardiologist-and-wins-3-million-for-failure-to.cfm
.
Pas de grenouilles admis
“Had the measure been “fatalities per 100,000 miles driven above urban speeds” this story might have been a good bit less “amazing””
Here are fatalities per 100,000 miles driven from 2006 if anyone cares enough.
Would you dummies mind actually researching that energy drink case before you comment on it? The girl had a rare cardiovascular disease, and shouldn’t have been consuming caffeine at all. Maybe that doesn’t change your conclusion about her claims against the drink company (or potential claims against her doctors), but failing to even grapple with that fact just reveals that you don’t really care to think about the issue at all, it’s the same old “boo, all plaintiffs bad” knuckle-dragging.
Please look at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19026304 where coffee was found to help the heart. We should not expect Doctors to warn us of hazards that exist only in folklore.
It might just be an artifact of my sources, but I never heard of a case of a plaintiff being good with respect to medicine, and I am not a doctor or pills salesman. There is always the basic problem with suits against doctors: why would they wish their patient harm? But the main problem, in my opinion, is an inability of people to accept actuarial events. “God’s will” actually explains many events quite well. Blaming a heart problem on a commercial energy drink is a stretch at best, and more likely just a reach for cash..
Would you dummies mind actually researching that energy drink case before you comment on it?
Why do some of our lawyer commenters find it so difficult to respond in a civil manner? Do they think that by being rude they strengthen their argument?