• Don’t kvetch about Krugman Nobel, it’s for his work in economics not his politics [Cowen, MargRev] #
• “Law Grad Cited for Frivolous Suits is Source of Obama Muslim Rumors” [ABA Journal] #
• Garrison Keillor reads a poem on product warnings [Point of Law] #
• Last will and testament, handwritten on a shopping list [Giacalone] #
• Fast, fast relief from troublesome teens, just drop ‘em in Nebraska [Houston Chronicle] #
• Michael Arrington: “suing someone to get them to return your calls is not exactly a sign of brilliance” [TechCrunch via Blawg Review #181 at Mediation Channel] #

In the wacky warning genre, that one’s been around a while, but it can still get a discussion going (Wegman’s, What If via Megan McArdle).

Readers turned it into more of a general funny-sign contest, but some of the entries hint at a legally driven tendency to overwarn. Among the most disturbing messages is the one on #53, “Toilets and urinals flushed with reclaimed water. Do not drink.” (Scroll to “As if you would anyway“).

P.S. From comments, Jane T.: “Yesterday I noticed that a commercial for a drug that is prescribed to reduce the size of enlarged prostates issued a warning (in the ad) that women should not take it for various reasons none of which were that women do not have prostates.”

(Post bumped with 12:20 AM update adding coverage of state Labor Department’s suggestion for new warnings.)

Roller-coaster enthusiast and torts professor Bill Childs is stealing our thunder in his coverage of the recent Georgia Batman roller coaster decapitation of Asia LeeShawn Ferguson IV, so there’s no point in rewriting his excellent post instead of quoting it:

Continue Reading »

Pulitzer-prize winning columnist Leonard Pitts Jr.:

Anna from Estonia mak[es] it a point to show visiting friends a sight they could never see in the old country. They laugh, they point, they whip out cameras and take pictures. Of the Everglades? No. Of Mount Rushmore or Lady Liberty? No.

Anna said they take pictures of the idiot signs. These she said, crack her friends up. “Caution: Coffee is hot.” Apparently, elsewhere in the world, you don’t need a sign to know this.

More on the deservedly infamous McDonald’s coffee case. Similar discussion: March 2.

Inconceivably beyond my frame of reference as an American: self-operated rides in a Denmark amusement park (as part of a larger travelogue on a very strange park, Bon Bon Land). Instructions are provided on signs: customers seat themselves, and the next person on line is supposed to press the appropriate button at the appropriate time to send a customer hurtling down a zip line.

It fascinates me how other cultures tolerate risk and reject idiot-proofing so much differently than the US. I wonder which way the causal arrow goes with the general litigiousness of American culture: are we litigious because we’re risk-averse, or are we risk-averse because we’re litigious? If the former, perhaps the European example actually reflects the moral hazard of social insurance. (Of course, other photos on the travelogue pages demonstrate other important differences between Denmark and the US.)

Related: Subcontinental Drift on zoos in Southeast Asia.

Update: Amusement-park-loving torts prof Bill Childs comments, which is appropriate, because the post was originally just going to be an email to Childs and a handful of other people before I realized there was no reason not to just expand it into a post.

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.)

I’ve got a short piece in The American, the recently launched American Enterprise Institute magazine, about the problem of overzealous warning labels, taking as my point of departure Bob Dorigo Jones’s new book Remove Child Before Folding. Alert readers will notice that the piece is based on my Times Online column of a few weeks ago, adapted with about three paragraphs’ worth of new and added material, mostly on how liability law helps worsen the problem. (Walter Olson, “Warning: This Column Might Give You Something to Think About”, The American, Mar. 6).

For more coverage of Remove Child Before Folding, see Jan. 6, Jan. 26, etc. Reason magazine editor Nick Gillespie, incidentally, reviewed the book in the New York Post here.

David Rossmiller blogs:

My experiences growing up in NoDak and later working as a crime reporter may not be typical, and perhaps the people I came to know were by some measures outside, shall we say, the social mainstream, but my first thought when I saw these purportedly wacky, useless warning labels was this: “I can see someone doing that!” Personally I’ve seen folks do much more ridiculous things many times.

The issue is whether people doing “ridiculous things” should have a cause of action for their own failure of common sense, or whether we require manufacturers to treat all of their adult customers like infants on pain of liability.

Such overwarnings have real social costs: as numerous studies have documented, if one’s personal watercraft manual says “Never use a lit match or open flame to check fuel level,” one’s going to be less likely to slog through the whole thing and find the warnings that aren’t so obvious. In many cases, the “failure-to-warn” is really just a Trojan horse to force the deep pocket to become a social insurer. In the Vioxx litigation, Mark Lanier has accused Merck of making too many warnings, and thus “hiding” its warning of VIGOR cardiovascular data. This effectively holds a manufacturer strictly liable for failing to anticipate with perfect foresight what risks will accompany which consumers, and tailoring its warnings on that micro-level—and if anyone regrets taking the risk later, they can always complain that the warning was legally insufficient for failing to be scary enough.

The wacky warning awards are often entertaining fluff, to be sure; the marginal harm from a “Do not iron” warning on a lottery ticket is infinitesimal, and is probably there as an anti-fraud device rather than as a product-safety mechanism. But ATLA, abetted by sympathetic law professors and credulous or disingenuous journalists, has engaged in a mass campaign to make equally silly warning cases—such as the McDonald’s coffee case, where Stella Liebeck complained that the warning on her cup of coffee wasn’t “big enough” to adequately warn her not to spill her coffee in her lap and sit in the puddle for ninety seconds—aspirational, rather than outliers. The wacky warnings are the canaries in that coal mine.

What I find so amusing about Dahlia Lithwick’s suggestion of a lengthy warning for Christmas parties isn’t so much the warning itself (others have done that funnier, not to mention the real-life examples), but that Lithwick doesn’t recognize that she’s part of the culture that encourages such ludicrous warnings: in 2003, Lithwick pooh-poohed as “extreme” the need for legislative intervention to prevent courts from going after food providers in obesity lawsuits because, after all, Big Food could survive by “posting warnings.”

P.J. O’Rourke writes, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that chair manufacturers feel compelled to tell Americans this”. Later, after a call to a law office about the dangerous folding chair, “The receptionist told me that John Edwards would be over within the hour; meanwhile I might want to start pricing yachts.” Just a satire, folks (”From the editor’s chair”, Weekly Standard, Jul. 31).

On May 2, Bill Childs’ blog covered the litigation over Wolfgang Puck self-heating latte cans, a bad business idea gone worse when the cans never quite worked right. A June 17 commenter, however, perhaps demonstrates why some people need lessons in natural selection rather than attorneys (all misspellings in original, emphasis added):

When will there be a class action suit against WP Gourmet Lattes? In this microwave society and Campbell Soup’s TV ads on microwavable soup in a can, WP’s self-heating can was negligent in it’s small, hidden warning against heating in a microwave (which causes a severe explosion in a matter of seconds). Our microwave was destroyed, our kitchen covered in dried latte and most important, my wife required 7 stiches above her eye.

Some skepticism is warranted; on the Internet, noone knows if you’re a dog, or an especially subtle prankster. I almost hate to publicize this: there’s some chance it’s fake, and if it’s real, it’s likely that this post will help Mr. Edwards find a lawyer who thinks Wolfgang Puck should be held liable when people put a self-heating can in the microwave because its warnings against it weren’t sufficiently idiot-proof.

Columnist Beth Quinn, inspired by Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch’s annual “Wacky Warnings” contest (Jan. 6), is offering her own version.

Elsewhere, it appears that trial-lawyer front-group Center for Justice & Democracy, which held its “First Annual Zany Immunity Awards” in late 2004, has chosen not to repeat the exercise, perhaps because of the fact that we exposed that the immunity laws in question weren’t so zany.

Eric Koppisch of Colorado Springs writes Gregg Easterbrook to note that Milky Way brand chocolate milk declares “Warning: Contains milk.”