Readers may recall the landmark case in which laptop maker Toshiba agreed to a notional $2 billion settlement (and a very crisp and real $147 million in plaintiff’s legal fees) to resolve charges that its laptops could under certain extreme conditions result in loss of user data, although no real-world customer appeared to have experienced the problem. Copycat lawsuits followed against other laptop makers, the supposed glitch being by no means unique to Toshiba, and at last report (May 11, 2001 and Aug. 14, 2004) Compaq had enjoyed much success in beating suits of this sort filed by Texas lawyers.

Apparently its luck didn’t hold up forever, though, because in May Judge Tom Lucas of the Cleveland County, Oklahoma District Court approved a nominal $640 million settlement of laptop glitch claims against Compaq and its parent, Hewlett-Packard, with $40 million in attorneys’ fees to various attorneys, including Reaud, Morgan & Quinn, the Beaumont, Texas firm of Wayne Reaud. (Tom Blakey, “Local court OKs $640M class settlement in computer lawsuit”, Norman Transcript, May 16)(settlement website).

According to a paper by Anthony Caso for the Washington Legal Foundation (PDF), the change in fortunes owed much to some successful forum-shopping. It seems plaintiffs in the first rounds had attempted to form a nationwide class action on the premise that the consumer law of Texas, Compaq’s home state, could properly be applied to the claims of customers in all 50 states. The Texas courts, however, wound up rejecting that premise.

…instead of taking no for an answer from the Texas Supreme Court – the final arbiter of Texas law, the class action attorneys convinced an Oklahoma court to rule that the case should be a nationwide class action, and that class action status could be premised on the idea that Texas consumer law applied to all of the claims. Ignoring the ruling of the Texas Supreme Court, the Oklahoma courts agreed with this argument and certified the case as a nationwide class action.

Unfortunately for all of us, the United States Supreme Court declined to review the case.

And the $40 million in fees? Reaud & co. would have nothing but the best talent in to bless the fees, per the Norman Transcript account:

Testimony at the April 29 hearing in Cleveland County District Court included that of Arthur R. Miller, a renowned legal scholar and commentator on civil litigation, copyright and privacy laws. Miller, a professor to the faculty of the New York University School of Law and the NYU School of Continuing and Professional Studies, estimated the coupon redemption rate would be as high as 30 percent — more than double the average redemption rate in settlement cases.

And if actual coupon redemptions come in far below a 30 percent rate — not that we’re necessarily ever going to find out — Prof. Miller’s reputation will suffer, right?

More: Beck & Herrmann call attention to an automotive class action case (Masquat v. DaimlerChrysler, alleging defect in rack and pinion steering systems) that also took advantage of Oklahoma’s willingness to apply manufacturer’s-home-state law to fuel nationwide class actions. They write that because of that distinctive handling of choice of law, “class action plaintiffs’ counsel now gravitate to Oklahoma as moths to light.”

As Michael Krauss notes, an AP story today rehashes the details of last week’s Flax v. Chrysler case, though it falsely treats Paul Sheridan as a credible witness and doesn’t acknowledge most of Chrysler’s arguments.

It’s worth noting the Jim Butler firm’s description of the case:

The evidence showed the impact was minor. Though Stockell was speeding at the time, the minivan was also moving forward and the change in velocity (Delta V) was only 17 to 20 mph.

To repeat: the plaintiffs’ attorney said that a Delta-V of 17-20 mph is “minor.” I suppose in the astronomical sense that a Delta-V of 17-20 mph wouldn’t escape earth orbit, but it seems fairly major for someone in a heavy minivan. For those of you at home who want to experience what a “minor” Delta-V collision of “only” 17-20 mph feels like, drive into a reinforced brick wall at 17-20 mph with your airbag turned off, but be sure to wear your seat-belt to reduce the chance that you go through your windshield. Another way you can have a Delta-V of 20 mph is if you are dropped about 12-15 feet onto a concrete surface. I sure hope that the trial judge didn’t let Butler lie about physics to the jury like that, but I fear I know the answer.

Perhaps we spoke too soon when we commended the Tennessee appellate court for getting it partially right. As we stated in November 2004:

In 2001, Louis Stockell, driving his pickup at 70 mph, twice the speed limit, rear-ended a Chrysler minivan. Physics being what they are, the front passenger seat in the van collapsed backwards and the passenger’s head struck and fatally injured 8-month old Joshua Flax. The rest of the family walked away from the horrific accident. Plaintiffs’ attorney Jim Butler argued that Chrysler, which already designed its seats above federal standards, should be punished for not making the seats stronger — never mind that a stronger and stiffer seat would result in more injuries from other kinds of crashes because it wouldn’t absorb any energy from the crash. (Rear-end collisions are responsible for only 3% of auto fatalities.) Apparently car companies are expected to anticipate which type of crash a particular vehicle will encounter, and design accordingly. The $105M verdict includes $98M in punitives.

We had more details of trial shenanigans in December 2004 and noted the reduction of the punitives by the trial court to a still unreasonable $20 million in June 2005. In December 2006, the intermediate appellate court threw out the punitive damages and the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, leaving a $5 million compensatory damages verdict to be split between Chrysler and the driver responsible for the accident. An injustice, but at least a smaller injustice.

However, today, a 3-2 vote of the Tennessee Supreme Court made it a larger injustice again, reinstating $13,367,345 of punitive damages over a good-faith dispute over appropriate seatback design, giving no credit to evidence that the design in the Caravan was safer than the plaintiffs’ proposed design, and effectively disregarding Tennessee statutory law that compliance with federal standards creates a presumption against punitive damages. The Court did not mention Exxon Shipping’s suggestion that punitive damages greater than a 1:1 ratio were possibly constitutionally inappropriate where compensatory damages were substantial and the defendant’s actions were not intentional or done for profit. The Court unanimously affirmed the elimination of the NIED claim; one justice would have thrown out the compensatory damages, as well, because of the volume of inadmissible and improperly prejudicial evidence admitted. (Flax v. Daimler Chrysler (Tenn. Jul. 24, 2008); id. (Wade, J., concurring); id. (Clark, J., partially dissenting); id. (Koch, J., partially dissenting); E. Thomas Wood, “High court upholds $18.4M damage award in DaimlerChrysler case”, Nashville Post, Jul. 24; Kristin M. Hall, AP/Chicago Tribune, Jul. 24). The majority decision relied heavily on the expert testimony of Paul Sheridan, an MBA non-engineer and professional anti-Chrysler witness whom a federal court called “wholly unqualified” to testify on seat back design.

A very belated update to our earlier posts of 2004 and 2005. As we stated in November 2004:

In 2001, Louis Stockell, driving his pickup at 70 mph, twice the speed limit, rear-ended a Chrysler minivan. Physics being what they are, the front passenger seat in the van collapsed backwards and the passenger’s head struck and fatally injured 8-month old Joshua Flax. The rest of the family walked away from the horrific accident. Plaintiffs’ attorney Jim Butler argued that Chrysler, which already designed its seats above federal standards, should be punished for not making the seats stronger — never mind that a stronger and stiffer seat would result in more injuries from other kinds of crashes because it wouldn’t absorb any energy from the crash. (Rear-end collisions are responsible for only 3% of auto fatalities.) Apparently car companies are expected to anticipate which type of crash a particular vehicle will encounter, and design accordingly. The $105M verdict includes $98M in punitives.

We had more details of trial shenanigans in December 2004 and noted the reduction of the punitives by the trial court to a still unreasonable $20 million in June 2005. And now the rest of the story:

Continue Reading »

• Easterbrook: “One who misuses litigation to obtain money to which he is not entitled is hardly in a position to insist that the court now proceed to address his legitimate claims, if any there are…. Plaintiffs have behaved like a pack of weasels and can’t expect any part of their tale be believed.” [Ridge Chrysler v. Daimler Chrysler via Decision of the Day]
• Retail stores and their lawyers find sending scare letters with implausible threats of litigation against accused shoplifters mildly profitable. [WSJ]
• Kentucky exploring ways to reform mass-tort litigation in wake of fen-phen scandal. [Mass Tort Prof; Torts Prof; AP/Herald-Dispatch; earlier: Frank @ American]
• After Posner opinion, expert should be looking for other lines of work. [Kirkendall; Emerald Investments v. Allmerica Financial Life Insurance & Annuity]
• Judge reduces jury verdict in Premarin & Prempro case to “only” $58 million. And I still haven’t seen anyone explain why it makes sense for a judge to decide damages awards were “the result of passion and prejudice,” but uphold a liability finding from the same impassioned and prejudiced jury. Wyeth will appeal. [W$J via Burch; AP/Business Week]
• Judge lets lawyers get to private MySpace and Facebook postings. [OnPoint; also Feb. 19]
• Nanny staters’ implausible case for regulating salt. [Sara Wexler @ American; earlier: Nov. 2002]
• Doctor: usually it’s cheaper to pay than to go to court. [GNIF BrainBlogger]
• Trial lawyers in Colorado move to eviscerate non-economic damages cap in malpractice cases [Rocky Mountain News]
• Bonin: don’t regulate free speech on the Internet in the name of “campaign finance” [Philadelphia Inquirer]
• “Executives face greater risks—but investors are no safer.” [City Journal]
• Professors discuss adverse ripple effects from law school affirmative action without mentioning affirmative action. Paging Richard Sander. Note also the absence of “disparate impact” from the discussion. [PrawfsBlawg; Blackprof]
• ATL commenters debate my American piece on Edwards. [Above the Law]

When you dial 911 from some new Verizon Wireless phones, it seems the phone itself emits an audible alarm. The telecom provider says it installed the feature to comply with federal law requiring that phone services be made “accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities”. Unfortunately, it has a disconcerting effect on users like a nondisabled Austin, Texas woman who dialed 911 because she feared she was about to have a close encounter with vandals on a vacant property she owned. The FCC says it does not require specific ways of meeting the accessibility mandate and that other methods besides audible tones might be found. (Clara Tuma, “Verizon customer calls phone alarm ‘dangerous’”, KVUE, Nov. 9). Reader L.S. writes that the story reminds him of the “Neckbelts” article in The Onion. We noted some years ago that strobe-light-equipped fire alarms, being pressed on government standards-writers as a way to alert deaf persons to emergencies, might prove dangerous to persons with photosensitive epilepsy, many of whom risk being sent into seizures by brightly flashing lights.

Reader Eric Bainter writes:

The shenanigans of the NC prosecutor Mike Nifong got me to thinking about misbehaving attorneys in general; me being from the San Antonio area, this led me to wonder “whatever happened to those attorneys in the fraudulent suit against Chrysler?” (covered on Overlawyered May 23 and Jun. 26, 2000; Mar. 17 and Jul. 10, 2003; Aug. 1, 2006). During a fit of insomnia I decided to find out.

I started by checking the coverage on your site which most recently had noted, in the post from August of last year, that the Texas bar had still not yet gotten around to dealing with Andrew Toscano, one of the lawyers implicated in the affair. I searched the Texas Bar website, and found this was not quite true - Toscano got his discipline, such as it is, the day before your entry. I have copied and pasted beneath (after the jump) the entries for all three lawyers. Robert Kugle, the central figure in the fraud, got disbarred in 2003. The other two, Toscano and Robert L. Wilson III, only relatively recently got their punishments - two year suspensions - and if I understand the term “fully probated” correctly, their “suspensions” are “suspended” and they can still practice law. Each was fined $2500 in attorney’s fees and court costs - I assume this goes to the Texas Bar. No mention of the $1 million in sanctions from Judge Peeples.

I also found this article from Law.com that sheds some light on the “suspensions”.

I searched on the Internet for the current whereabouts of Toscano and Wilson. Andrew E. Toscano apparently now practices with a firm called “Gene Toscano, Inc.” I don’t know whether that is a relative of his, or Andrew’s middle name happens to be “Eugene” and he has decided to practice under that. No website for that firm that I can find.

Robert L. “Trey” Wilson III apparently practiced environmental law for a while after leaving Kugle’s firm (or maybe Kugle’s firm left him?) — the San Antonio bar featured him in its newsletter last December. I also found a now-defunct profile/bio page within the website of the attorney Louis Rosenberg, who does environmental law in San Antonio, but I do not notice any current mention of Wilson’s name on Rosenberg’s home page — he is not in Attorney Profiles, for example. If “Trey” worked there, I suspect he no longer does.

My temporary bout of insomnia seems over now. Best wishes,

Eric Bainter

[details of Texas bar discipline follow after the jump]

Continue Reading »

Slate’s Emily Bazelon doesn’t read the owners’ manual for her car, does something the owners’ manual explicitly says not to do—recline a seat in a moving car—and hurts herself. Bazelon blames… the automaker and NHTSA for not doing more to warn her, and serves as a mouthpiece for plaintiffs’ lawyers who specialize in such arguments, lionizing one who won a $59 million verdict against Toyota for his client’s own foolhardiness.

The NHTSA official Bazelon talks to points out that she’s taking one safety issue out of context; Bazelon pooh-poohs it because, after all, it happened to her and some other people, too! But Bazelon ignores that there are several dozen other dangerous problems addressed in the owners’ manual, many of which would kill or injure far more passengers than reclined drivers’ seats. One cannot just look at the idea of putting a single additional sticker on the dashboard: the car would have to be literally wallpapered with additional warnings to cover every warning of a matter at least as hazardous as car-seat reclining, at which point we’re back to the problem of owners ignoring warnings. Bazelon simply fails to address this reality.

But, hey, I’ll join Bazelon in telling you: don’t recline your car seat in a moving vehicle. (Long-time Overlawyered readers already know this from two separate posts.) Also, don’t drive with your windows open, your doors unlocked, or your seatbelt unfastened. Reattach your gas cap after filling the tank. Look behind you and ensure the path is clear before going in reverse. Keep your eyes on the road. Don’t pass a car in a no-pass zone or drive twice the speed-limit. Sit up straight, especially in a front seat with airbags. Don’t have loose heavy objects (including unbelted passengers) in the passenger compartment of the car. Don’t permit children to play with power windows; don’t leave children unattended in a car that is on; don’t leave the car on when you’re not in it; don’t try to jump into a moving vehicle. Don’t leave your shoes loose while driving. Be careful when shifting gears. Do not violently swerve an SUV, especially if there are unbelted passengers. Always be aware of the danger of pedal misapplication. Don’t fall asleep while driving. Don’t drive recklessly, and if you do, don’t leave the road. Use your parking brake when you park. Replace a tire after repeatedly patching it; don’t drive on bald tires in the rain; and replace your ten-year old tires before you have to drive on a spare. Make sure your floor mat isn’t interfering with the pedals. Don’t drive into the back of a truck at 60 mph without braking. Et cetera.

(And welcome, Instapundit readers. Check out our vast selection of automobile and personal responsibility articles.)

Our thanks to Steve Hantler of Chrysler for some provocative posts which stirred considerable reader interest. His post on global warming litigation drew links from (among others) Prof. Bainbridge and New York magazine’s “Intelligencer”.

Next up in this summer’s series of weekly guest bloggers is something new for us: a prominent voice from the business community. Steven Hantler, Assistant General Counsel for Government and Regulation at DaimlerChrysler, directs the automaker’s class-action, consumer-litigation and litigation-communications functions; outside the company he’s known as a tireless advocate for lawsuit reform, on which he’s become a veteran of state legislative initiatives and electoral battles. While new to blogging (so far as I’m aware), he’s the author of numerous articles in law reviews and more popular outlets, most recently in the magazine Directorship where he rated and assessed the fairness of each of the fifty states’ court systems from a litigation defense point of view (PDF). He’s also closely associated with the American Justice Partnership, which has links to many of his writings and speeches.

Also, and entirely unrelated to the above, check back tomorrow afternoon, Tuesday, for an announcement which may be of interest to some readers, especially those of a political bent.

• Reversing course, Rhode Island attorney general drops rape charge based on 32-year-old “repressed memory”, thus disappointing some advocates [Volokh; Jul. 10]


• Massachusetts disciplinary panel files misconduct charges against Judge Ernest Murphy over the “bring me a check and keep quiet” surrender-Dorothy letter he sent to Boston Herald publisher during his (successful) libel suit [Ambrogi; Dec. 23, 2005, May 11, 2007, etc.]


• California jury rejects tippling speeder’s lawsuit against landowner, automaker, town, etc. in the case we headlined “Shouldn’t Have Put Its Berm Where He Wanted To Skid” [Dec. 24, 2005; Douglas Domel v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., City of Santa Clarita, and Does 1 to 50, inclusive (PC030045Y), L.A. Superior Court, L.A. Daily Journal, no free link]


• Nominal damages only against German teens accused of scaring ostrich into impotence [UPI/ScienceDaily; Mar. 6]


• Dubious bill authorizing lawsuits against OPEC may be headed to President’s desk [W$J/CattleNetwork; Jun. 8]


• Jury convicts press baron Conrad Black on four counts, acquits on nine [Telegraph; Kirkendall, Bainbridge, Ribstein; Mar. 19, Jun. 5]


• Michigan Supreme Court reinstates reprimand against Geoffrey Fieger over abusive language [NLJ; Jul. 3, Aug. 2, 2006, etc.]

You might recall the $55 million verdict in Los Angeles, where Chrysler was held 75% liable for an accident where a defective automatic transmission in a 1992 Dodge Dakota, a failure of the truck owner to respond to multiple product recalls, and a truck driver’s failure to (1) turn off the ignition before exiting a vehicle; (2) engage a parking brake; and (3) not attempt to jump into a moving vehicle resulted in the tragic death of a young longshoreman with a wife and children. Plaintiffs’ attorneys Stephen Cassidy and Scott Nealey took issue with our post. The lengthy exchange begins in the comments section and update to our post and continues over email. Let’s just say I wasn’t persuaded, but judge for yourself.

Continue Reading »

In April 2004, 38 year-old Richard Mraz got out of his employer’s 1992 Dodge Dakota while it was still running. He didn’t set the parking brake, and the vehicle started moving when it shifted itself from park into reverse. Mraz tried to jump into the moving vehicle, and suffered fatal head injuries for his trouble.

Chrysler admitted the vehicle had a defect that caused the automatic transmission to shift from park to reverse in rare circumstances. Thing is, they admitted it when they sent twelve separate recall notices to the Dakota owner, Mraz’s employer, who ignored them all. But, Mraz’s lawyers said, Chrysler spent time in internal discussions deciding whether to recall the vehicle before actually doing so, so they should be punished, pointing to an internal memo debating the question as a “smoking gun.”

A Los Angeles County jury agreed, finding $5.2 million in compensatory damages for the longshoreman’s death, and attributed 75% to DaimlerChrysler (10% for Mraz’s multiple safety errors, and 15% for his employers’ ignoring the recall notices), and issuing $50 million in punitive damages, all to Chrysler. Most press accounts failed to mention the recall notices or Mraz’s negligence, just regurgitating the plaintiff’s lawyer’s account. (David Shepardson, “DCX loses suit in Dodge owner’s death”, Detroit News, Mar. 8). More on California auto product liability cases.

Interestingly, at least one law firm has already purchased the Google search term “Richard Mraz.”

Continue Reading »

Mary Brzyski worked for Skidmore Inc., in East Aurora, NY, where she drove a company car that was leased from Chrysler. In 2003, Brzyski loaned the car to her 19-year-old son, Andrew, who rear-ended Jason Lapp’s car, severely injuring him. Longtime readers know what happened next. Irrational New York law (Jul. 14, 2003, Apr. 2, 2004, Feb. 2, 2005) holds the lessor liable, even when, as here, they are three transactions away and never anticipated that a 19-year-old would be driving the car. Skidmore and Chrysler have settled for $8.2 million. (”$8.2 million settlement accepted in crash suit”, Buffalo News, Dec. 15). Congress has stepped in to the breach (Aug. 4, 2005), at least until the litigation lobby undoes that reform.

Jim Copland writes that the $500 per car figure comes from Murray Mackay’s article, “Liability, Safety, and Innovation in the Automotive Industry” in The Liability Maze (p.199):

“In researching this paper, I persistently asked manufacturers what the cost and consequences of the rise in liability have been. In simple financial terms the answers have varied by a factor of ten, ranging from $50 to $500 per car sold.” The variance may suggest that the $500 figure is on the high side; but Mackay indicates that the costs seem to be much higher for domestic manufacturers than for importers, which may be why Chrysler sticks to the higher number. Steve Hantler, DaimlerChrysler’s assistant general counsel, tells me that the $500 estimate, being 15 years out of date, is itself probably low; he suggests that today’s liability cost is closer to $1000 per car.

Justinian Lane was kind enough to email me a link to the full Chrysler CEO Tom LaSorda speech at the Chicago Economic Club. Read the whole thing.

Some follow-up observations about the Ford Bronco $31 million verdict post.

1. South Carolina is one of the few states that has the pure form of the doctrine of “joint and several liability”, under which any deep-pocket defendant is 100% liable even if they’re only found 1% at fault. Thirty-seven states have enacted some limits on this, but South Carolina has not. Such a legal system creates incentives to find the deepest pocket and attach a shred of fault to them so that they are held entirely responsible for the consequences of others.

2. I’ve read several plaintiffs’ briefs arguing for upholding similar verdicts, as well as submissions made to NHTSA arguing that certain vehicles are “too prone” to roll over. They essentially come down to requests to ban SUVs: every SUV faces accusations of being “too prone to roll over.”

SUVs are designed to have high clearance to traverse rugged terrain. This raises the center of gravity and affects the handling: it’s a known tradeoff of the laws of physics. There are a wide variety of tests of varying degrees of scientific merit one can use to suggest a vehicle is “too prone” to roll over, and plaintiffs have the benefit of cherry-picking which tests to apply to which vehicles. You’ll find lots of lawyers complaining that the Bronco II allegedly responded poorly in “J-turn tests”, where the steering wheel is turned 330 degrees in one third of a second and held there for another 4.67 seconds. Ford designed the Explorer to pass the J-turn test to take away this claim, and the trial lawyers started using different methodologies to claim that the Explorer was too prone to roll over.

Empirically, however, the Bronco doesn’t roll over more than several other SUVs on the market, which is why NHTSA, in both the Bush I and Clinton administrations, refused to recall the Bronco when the plaintiffs’ bar asked it to. When I say Ford was held liable for producing an SUV, I’m not spinning: it was because it was held liable for producing an SUV.

Moreover, a vehicle should be viewed in totality: an auto that is more likely to roll over may be safer in other particulars that more than compensate for that increased propensity. So I question the premise. One can’t change the rollover propensity without creating a different vehicle entirely. The vehicle should be viewed holistically, and holistically, the Bronco is a safe car when used as designed.

Perhaps we as a society would be better off taking the nanny-state step of banning SUVs, forbidding people from wildnerness driving because too many drivers don’t know how to drive SUVs in highway conditions, but that’s a decision that not only would end the American auto industry, but should be made other than by a 12-person jury of laypeople. This vehicle rolled over because the driver drove off the road.

3. The ultimate cost is borne not by Ford, but by the rest of us: lawsuits like this add $500 to the price of every American car. You and I can’t go to the car manufacturer and get a cheaper car by promising not to be as stupid a driver as this one was. So careful drivers are subsidizing careless ones.

4. It’s unlikely that the $500 applies equally to expensive and cheap cars, but not in the manner you think: (1) the less expensive car is more likely to be driven longer and more often and with more carpooling passengers; (2) less likely to have expensive top-of-the-line safety features that haven’t yet become standard and thus more likely to be sued over the lack of those features; and (3) more likely to be sold in such a volume that trial lawyers have put together a cheap package targeting the vehicle for lawsuit in the hopes of achieving economies of scale by targeting a lot of potential plaintiffs. (There will never be a mass tort for a Rolls Royce, for example—not enough of them are sold.) Note that the plaintiffs’ bar puts profits before people: they look at the costs and benefits of bringing suit, and target the most profitable vehicles to sue over, rather than the most dangerous ones, which is why the Ford Pinto is notorious and the VW Beetle (whose designers were so inconsiderate to write their memos in German instead of cheap-to-analyze English), which killed people at a much higher rate, is remembered with fond nostalgia.

So average liability is, if anything, higher for cheap cars than expensive cars; the $500 figure (which comes directly from the president of Chrysler) is probably higher for cheap cars and lower for expensive cars, and perhaps close to zero for the Rolls.

• Tennie Pierce takes his dog-food settlement to the LA City Council (Nov. 22). I repeat my offer to LA politicians: I’ll eat dog food for a lot less than $2.7 million plus severance pay. [LA Times]
• Bogus $20 million asbestos verdict in NY; Chrysler had previously won 14 consecutive asbestos trials in a row; jury found Chrysler 10% liable, which made it responsible for 80% of the damages under New York law. Studies show no relationship between automotive products and asbestos illnesses. [Point of Law; Bloomberg; AP]
• “Madison County Gets $17.6 Million Windfall Despite Philip Morris’ Escape From $10 Billion Judgment.” Earlier: Jun. 20 and links therein. [Alton Telegraph via Products Liability Prof Blog]
• How tenant-friendly courts hurt tenants. [Point of Law]
• Murnane on Justice Bob Thomas libel verdict. [Illinois Justice Blog]
• One year ago on Overlawyered: $60.9 million cerebral palsy verdict. Arbitrary bench verdict arbitrarily reduced to $40.5 million; case on appeal to Eleventh Circuit. [West's Medical Malpractice Law Report]
• One year ago on Point of Law: Ray Harron, asbestos doctor and Connecticut decision against freedom of contract.
• The unpersuasive case for judicial activism. [Whelan @ Weekly Standard]
• Federalist Society Convention podcasts beginning to be posted. [Federalist Society]
• Are African-Americans “lagging” at major law firms, and if so, why? [Point of Law; New York Times; Lat; Sander]
• Nice PETA expose video. [Penn & Teller @ Google Video]

In asbestos; Chrysler; Connecticut; Germany; Illinois; libel slander and defamation; Madison County; roundups; Tennie Pierce

Note for future reference: never, never get a vanity license plate reading “NV” (as Californian Nick Vautier did, innocently picking his own initials). Or plates reading XXX, MISSING or NOPLATE. “NV was meter maid code for ‘not visible.’ … Los Angeles, for example, accused him of illegally parking a blue Ford, a silver Hyundai, a blue Chrysler and a blue Chevy truck, all with the same license plate.” (”California: Innocent Man Stuck With 100 Parking Tickets”, TheNewspaper.com, Sept. 17 (via Nobody’s Business); Steve Harvey, “Vanity Plates Backfire on Mr. ‘Not Visible’”, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 17).