“U-Haul International Inc. is forbidding its stores to rent trailers to customers who plan to tow with the Ford Explorer, saying it no longer can afford to defend product liability lawsuits linked to the best-selling SUV. … U-Haul — North America?s largest trailer rental company with more than 17,000 outlets — implemented the policy Dec. 22, saying the ban was not related to safety. ‘U-Haul has chosen not to rent behind this tow vehicle based on our history of excessive costs in defending lawsuits involving Ford Explorer towing combinations,’ the company told The Detroit News. … U-Haul has no ban on rentals to Mercury Mountaineer owners, although the vehicle is mechanically a carbon copy of the Explorer.” (Eric Mayne, “U-Haul rejects Explorers”, Detroit News, Jan. 8)(& letter to the editor, Mar. 18).
Archive for January, 2004
Another record traffic day
Yesterday set a new record for visitor traffic at this site, with 10,798 unique visitors (up from the 4,000-5,000 we get on a typical weekday) and something like 24,000 pages served. All we can say is that a whole lot of people read Walter Williams’s column.
Web accessibility: still waiting for a case
In October 2002 a federal judge ruled against a claim that Southwest Airlines had violated federal law by failing to make its web site fully accessible to disabled internet users; the judge said a Web site isn’t a “place of public accommodation” covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act because it isn’t a “place” at all. In large part because of that ruling, there hasn’t been the rush that many of us expected to file ADA complaints against online publications and e-commerce providers. But the National Council on Disability, a federal agency, put out a position paper last summer (Jul. 10) aimed at renewing the push to get ADA applied to the Web. And disability rights activists, who are conceding nothing, hope to re-litigate the issue. “‘The Southwest Airlines ruling has set back the process of trying to get Internet sites covered by the ADA,’ said Curtis Chong, who heads the computer science division of the National Federation of the Blind. ‘But one of these days we’ll find a better place to file a better suit and maybe try and get it taken care of.'” If that ever happens, all hell is likely to break out in the online world. (Mark Thompson, “Courts Yet to Make Definitive Ruling on Online Access for the Disabled”, Online Journalism Review, Dec. 10). In its update the magazine quotes at considerable length what I told a Congressional panel in Feb. 2000 (and even runs my picture). Update Feb. 8, 2006: NFB sues retailer Target under California state law.
Judge dismisses ethics case against Gary
Well, that was quick: “A judge Wednesday dismissed ethics complaints against prominent attorney Willie Gary and his partner. Circuit Judge Brian Lambert didn’t offer a reason for throwing out the case against Gary and Madison McClellan on the second day of a three-day hearing, although he had been considering several motions for dismissal, including one arguing there was a lack of evidence.” (see Jan. 5 and Apr. 1-2, 2002). “Judge dismisses ethics case against Willie Gary”, AP/Palm Beach Post, Jan. 7). (Note: this is AP’s corrected account, replacing an earlier version which affirmatively attributed the dismissal to lack of evidence.). More on the dismissal from Law.com: Harris Meyer, “Florida Judge Dismisses Ethics Case Against Willie Gary”, Miami Daily Business Review, Jan. 8. Update Sept. 5, 2005: underlying case and related litigation settle for sum upwards of $120 million.
In related matters, Evan Schaeffer, a plaintiff’s attorney practicing in fabled Madison County, Ill., links to our coverage of Gary and also recommends (as “antidote”) a Jonathan Harr New Yorker profile (PDF) which takes a rather more favorable view than we do of the Stuart, Fla.-based lawyer’s successes. And the St. Petersburg Times analyzes Gary’s recent $18 million win against Gannett in a “false light” defamation case (see Dec. 23; Mar. 30, 2001). The interesting thing about the “false light” doctrine is that it lets a publication be held liable for defamation even if all of the individual facts it printed were correct. (Stephen Nohlgren, “State: Case’s verdict shows truth no certain shield for media”, Jan. 4).
“Attack dog attorney”
Curmudgeonly Clerk, traveling along on a South Texas highway, sees a billboard for a law firm emblazoned with the words “Abogado Perro” –“Dog Lawyer” in Spanish — along with a picture of a snarling Doberman Pinscher. Doesn’t sound as if it was meant to solicit dog-bite cases, either. One of his commenters says a Dallas lawyer has a shark on the top of his building. (Jan. 5)
Welcome Walter Williams readers
The “Winnebago cruise control” litigation urban legend (see here and here) has claimed its latest victim in the person of syndicated columnist and George Mason U. economist Walter Williams (“Some things I wonder about”, TownHall, Dec. 31, see final item). Now, in a follow-up column (“An urban legend”, Jan. 7), Williams generously points readers to this site as a source of many real-life stories little less outrageous than the fictitious Winnebago story. To find details on each story, follow the links: Minn. hockey fan served too much alcohol; Ohio carpet installers ignore warning label; Indiana robber sues convenience store clerk who shot him as he fled holdup scene; boozy Galveston ramp roll-off; and the Stella Liebeck hot coffee spill case (we think, however, that it may have been our colleague Ted Frank, rather than Prof. David (not Richard!) Bernstein, who contributed the point about clothing). For more such cases, see our personal responsibility archives, older and newer series. We wonder how many readers directed Williams’s attention to the falsity of the other, unrelated urban legend that was showcased in his Dec. 31 column, namely his use of bogus (and long-since-refuted) numbers on life expectancy for gays. We could have helped him out on that one, too.
By reader acclaim: Addicted by cable TV
Parody, or just the next logical step? Timothy Dumouchel of West Bend, Wis. says he plans to sue cable TV provider Charter “because his cable connection remained intact four years after he tried to get it canceled. The result was that he and his family got free cable from August of 1999 to Dec. 23, 2003. ‘I believe that the reason I smoke and drink every day and my wife is overweight is because we watched TV every day for the last four years,’ Dumouchel stated in a written complaint against the company, included in a Fond du Lac police report.” (Lee Reinsch, “Man says he’s addicted to cable; wants to sue Charter”, Fond du Lac Reporter, Jan. 7) Update Jan. 13: he says he won’t sue.
Fishing lure “harmful if swallowed”, and more wacky warning labels
The warning against ingesting the five-inch fishing lure, which sports three steel hooks, is just one of the winners in Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch’s Seventh Annual Wacky Warning Labels awards. Another: “a 12-inch-high storage rack for compact disks which warns: ‘Do not use as a ladder.'” (more on warning labels; and see Dec. 9)
A libel lawyer, R.I.P.
Once they’re dead, they can’t sue dept.: U.K.’s Guardian runs a rather rough obituary notice of Peter Carter-Ruck, an attorney who specialized in suing publications under Britain’s famously pro-plaintiff libel laws. The fun starts in the very first paragraph: Carter-Ruck “did for freedom of speech what the Boston Strangler did for door-to-door salesmen,” says a former colleague. According to this not exactly fraternal source, the late attorney’s “technique involved writing menacing letters to encourage socialites to sue for ‘imagined slights'” and he was once heard saying, of his lucrative practice, “I like to bill the clients as the tears are flowing.” (David Hooper, “The Carter-Ruck chill”, The Guardian, Dec. 23; Mark Oliver, “Carter-Ruck: a ‘chancer out for money'”, Dec. 23). The Telegraph printed a less hostile, and outstandingly colorful, account of Carter-Ruck’s life (Dec. 22) as well as a piece conveying reactions to the Guardian obit (Joshua Rozenberg, “Carter-Ruck’s partner puts case for the defence”, Dec. 24)
Medical Economics on fen-phen
Cover story explores the allegations against two cardiologists who assisted plaintiff’s firms in filing fen-phen cases (see Nov. 30, Sept. 25, Sept. 21), and includes responses/explanations from the doctors themselves. Also check out the sidebar item recounting the experience of a fen-phen user who got hustled through one law firm’s “hotel room echo” operation and was told she had serious heart damage, but had a devil of a time trying to extract details or a copy of the echo report from the lawyers’ cardiologist. Finally she consulted a different cardiologist who did an echocardiogram and told her not to worry, her heart was fine (Berkeley Rice, “Do these doctors give medicine a black eye?”, Medical Economics, Dec. 19) (via LitiGator)