Daniel Frank, the Official Brother of the Overlawyered.com Backup Blogger, notes that remakes of “Miracle on 34th Street” have shifted the critical plot driver from the original’s act of faith to an act of lawyerly conniving. (Dec. 8).
Archive for December, 2004
“Soldier Loses Claim That Army Tricked Him”
When I was nine, a friend of my grandfather’s gave me a stack of ancient “Sad Sack” comics, where a running plotline was Sarge using various shenanigans to persuade the protagonist to re-enlist. It never occurred to me that Sad Sack might sue the Army: that was too outlandish, even for Harvey Comics. A federal court seems to agree: “U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth said the Army recruiter may have stressed to David W. Qualls, 35, that he was enlisting for a one-year hitch, but the contract he signed spelled out that his duty could be extended against his wishes in time of national emergency or war.” (Carol D. Leonnig, Washington Post, Dec. 9). And, no, I don’t know whether Sad Sack and Beetle Bailey ever sued each other.
More Madison County forum shopping follies
Luke Lindau lives in a Chicago suburb and suffers from mesothelioma. He sued 59 different defendants for his personal injuries in Madison County; many defendants, expecting to be railroaded, don’t even bother to litigate asbestos cases once they’ve been sued in Madison County (Point of Law Oct. 5 and links therein), so he became a millionaire from the settlements–not bad for a retired 78-year-old who has already exceeded average life expectancy. However, Lindau made his way into Madison County by claiming that he was exposed to asbestos during the construction of Southern Illinois University Edwardsville in 1959-1962. Unfortunately for this theory, it was SIU-Carbondale that was being built then; ground wasn’t broken on the Edwardsville campus until 1963. So the two remaining deep pocket defendants actually insisted on protecting their rights and appealed the venue decision. The plaintiff settled–either to get money immediately or to avoid an adverse precedent for future plaintiffs, though his lawyer, Scott Hendler, has the chutzpah to complain about the “abuse of process” of the appeal. It’s not clear whether the two last settling defendants paid more than nuisance sums, as Hendler elides the issue in his discussion with the reporter. (Brian Brueggeman, “Man reaches $4 million deal in asbestos lawsuit”, Belleville News-Democrat, Dec. 8).
Dazed and Confused II
The Washington Post profiles plaintiffs Bobby Wooderson, Andy Slater and Richard Floyd (Oct. 12) in a newspaper article that will do more to damage their reputations than the movie ever did.
Did you guys really smoke that much dope back in high school in 1976?
Slater smiles slyly when he answers that question. “Well, I wouldn’t say it didn’t happen,” he says. “But I don’t think there was any more here than anywhere else.”
“Certainly those things happened at that time,” interrupts attorney T. Ernest Freeman, “but that aspect of the movie was really exaggerated, particularly with respect to our clients.”
(Peter Carlson, “Bummer, Man: Portrayed as Potheads In ‘Dazed,’ Trio Has A New Joint Venture: Suing the Filmmaker”, Dec. 8).
Wrapped and gift-ready
I’ve noticed that many readers buy copies of The Rule of Lawyers (and my earlier books) to give as presents to family members, friends, soon-to-be-graduates, doctors and so forth. Order for the holidays through Amazon at this link and you can choose from services such as gift wrapping and express delivery. You’ll also be supporting this site, which gets a commission on sales through our Amazon store. The store link also works (as do the commissions for us) if you’re shopping for items such as DVDs, toys, music and so forth.
Speaking to NCSL
I’m off to Savannah to address the National Conference of State Legislatures at its Fall Forum, returning in a day or two. Back Friday.
A machine built for complaining
Justifying government penalties for broadcasters, Federal Communications Commission head Michael Powell cited a surge in public complaints of on-air indecency — hundreds of thousands of complaints in all. “What Powell did not reveal — apparently because he was unaware — was the source of the complaints. According to a new FCC estimate obtained by Mediaweek, nearly all indecency complaints in 2003 — 99.8 percent — were filed by the Parents Television Council, an activist group.” (Todd Shields, “Activists Dominate Content Complaints”, MediaWeek, Dec. 6; Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine, Dec. 7).
Self-defense in the U.K.
Mark Steyn in the Telegraph:
These days, even as he or she is being clobbered, the more thoughtful British subject is usually keeping an eye (the one that hasn’t been poked out) on potential liability. Four years ago, Shirley Best, proprietor of the Rolander Fashion emporium, whose clients include Zara Phillips, was ironing some clothes when the proverbial two youths showed up. They pressed the hot iron into her flesh, burning her badly, and then stole her watch. “I was frightened to defend myself,” said Miss Best. “I thought if I did anything I would be arrested.” There speaks the modern British crime victim….
The right to protect your family does not derive from any home secretary or chief constable.
(“An Englishman’s Home Is His Dungeon”, Dec. 7). (& letter to the editor, Mar. 15).
“Truly delicious and addictive”
Is the manufacturer of Maple Cream Cookies setting itself up for legal trouble with that claim? (Jacob Sullum, “Everyday Acts of Resistance”, Reason Online, Dec. 3).
Update: Hooters trade dress suit
Hooters of America had sued WingHouse for copying its concept (Nov. 23). While restaurant chains are not permitted to copy the distinctive “trade dress” of competitors (Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana, 505 U.S. 763 (1992)), the point is to avoid confusion, and Hooters’ claim was mostly based on their attempt to prevent anyone else from selling chicken wings with a scantily-clad waitress. Judge Ann Conway “found that ‘no reasonable juror’ could confuse WingHouse girls, who are dressed in all-black shorts and tops, with Hooters girls, who wear orange shorts and white tops” and threw out Hooters’ suit. Because Hooters had previously agreed to settle such intellectual property disputes with WingHouse in 1997, WingHouse was awarded $1.2 million in a breach-of-contract counterclaim. (Michael Sasso, “Hooters’ Look Isn’t Exclusive, Judge Rules”, Tampa Tribune, Dec. 3; Richard Wilner, “Wing Man Bests Hooters”, New York Post, Dec. 4; “Hooters Can’t Stop Restaurant From Copying Waitress Uniforms”, Bloomberg News, Dec. 3).