Comments for Overlawyered Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Thu, 17 Apr 2014 17:10:24 +0000 hourly 1 Comment on No, as a matter of fact, it isn’t by Allan Thu, 17 Apr 2014 17:10:24 +0000 Walter, I am not sure that the article is talking about a legal duty. As it is firewalled, I cannot get to it. The snippet you linked to discusses the duty in terms of “should,” not must. I do think doctors should talk to patients about gun safety and I think the NRA and Surgeon General should promote this.

I would agree that we should not impose a duty on physicians to talk about gun safety that would give rise to a malpractice suit.

I wonder if one could successfully bring a malpractice suit if one has hypertension, one’s physician does not warn one not to eat salty foods, and one eats salty foods and suffers. I would think not. And I would think gun safety would fall into the same category.

Comment on Maryland vows eminent domain to seize “House of Cards” by Maryland backs off eminent domain to seize TV show - Overlawyered Thu, 17 Apr 2014 17:00:03 +0000 […] state legislature adjourned last week having abandoned a threat to seize the hit TV show “House of Cards” through the use of eminent domain, with negotiations […]

Comment on No, as a matter of fact, it isn’t by Walter Olson Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:52:18 +0000 Allan: “Duty” has a specific meaning that goes beyond “I am good with their doing it if they see fit.” Unless you believe that every allergist and dermatologist also has an obligation to bend his or her clients’ ears about car safety and looking both ways at street crossings. Perhaps you do believe that.

Comment on Even for search and rescue? by wfjag Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:42:40 +0000 Meanwhile, in Montana, where’s the FAA when you need it?

Watch a Congressional Candidate Shoot Down a ‘Government Drone’

Comment on No, as a matter of fact, it isn’t by Allan Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:35:47 +0000 IMHO, it is everybody’s responsibility to promote gun safety. And car safety. And other safety measures. I mean, I am all for measures to encourage kids to look both ways before crossing a street and not taking candy from strangers. So, if doctors do it, I am good with it.

As for the NRA, it seems they think it is ok for them to promote gun safety, but not for doctors…

Comment on No, as a matter of fact, it isn’t by wfjag Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:27:27 +0000 What a great new med mal cause of action — a doctor’s failure to warn a person who commits suicide that sticking a gun to the head could cause injury or death.

If this becomes a standard of care for the practice of preventive medicine, will the costs of NRA gun safety courses and dues be covered by the ACA?

Comment on No, as a matter of fact, it isn’t by Robert Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:17:28 +0000 Those safety rules that he Art Caplan enumerated, which he claimed that the “NRA doesn’t” promote, are in fact promoted by the NRA in their safety literature.


I hope the NRA sues Art Caplan for spreading lies about their programs. In fact, I’ll call them right now and offer to donate to the cause.

Comment on Medical roundup by Jim Collins Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:40:43 +0000 The article about the new medical billing codes had me laughing, until I remembered that I know somebody who had been sucked into a jet engine.

Comment on Even for search and rescue? by Jim Collins Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:55:20 +0000 Russell,
I wasn’t too worried about it then and I’m not now. I’ve dealt with the FAA for most of my adult life and I’m not surprised at their opinion on this.
I have to wonder how much of this is a desire to have control of anything that flies or is it pressure from some parts of the aviation industry? One of the mandates of the FAA is to promote the aviation industry. Some components of that industry are aerial surveying and aviation photography.
I find it interesting that the FAA chose to prosecute a person for making a movie with what it calls a “drone”. The only other way to make that movie would involve hiring a company that does aerial photography and paying for the use of their helicopter and personnel.
That would have cost tens of thousands of dollars, taken several days and would have required a permit from the FAA. Now it can be done in a few hours with equipment costing around a thousand dollars.

I also noticed that the word “drone” is used to describe the aircraft used to make the movie. The definition of “drone” when it is referred to aircraft is an aircraft that is autonomous, meaning controlled by itself. When I flew my helicopter across the pond it was a RPV, remotely piloted vehicle, not a drone.

I used to work for a utility company line crew. When I think about the time spent and the number of sprained ankles we had pulling cables down a heavily grown right of way, I wish that the FAA would make up it’s mind. I can see a business opportunity in flying messenger lines down a right of way with my R/C helicopter.

Comment on Cliven Bundy and the U.S. Constitution by Mannie Thu, 17 Apr 2014 11:57:16 +0000 It’s not so much that it is a solid legal cause. It is a solid emotional cause. The BLM has been driving ranchers off the land for decades. There is a general rage with the gummint, over its high handed interactions with, and violence to Citizens. There is a point at which many people will say “Enough is enough.” At that point, even an unjust cause will serve as casus beli.

Many of the pretexts that we rebelled against England were just that, pretexts. But they focused the rage of the Patriots, and that is what was necessary to achieve The End. If we had a Sam Adams and a Patrick Henry or two, agitating, things could come to a head, quickly.