Vincent Carroll of Denver’s Rocky Mountain News has a good column on the incident (“Stick it to them“, Nov. 11). You know you’re in trouble when a “bad experience that your grandparents would have shrugged off after a day or two becomes the traumatic focus of your entire existence.” See Nov. 14.
Archive for November, 2005
Laws requiring employers to tolerate guns
The National Rifle Association, breaking with its usual pro-freedom stance, favors the enactment of state laws of this sort. But they’re a really, really bad idea. (Prof. Bainbridge, Nov. 15).
Celebrity endorsers of online gambling sites
Could still find themselves in some extremely hot legal water, reports the New York Times (Matt Richtel, “Celebrities Taking a Gamble”, Nov. 16). Christine Hurt comments (Nov. 16). See Apr. 21, 2004. More: Nick Gillespie at Reason “Hit and Run” (Nov. 16).
24,074 unique visitors
…to this site on Tuesday. Thank you, FARK.
Fieger blackmail allegations
Howard Bashman has full coverage, including links to transcripts, of Fieger’s alleged attempt to block an investigation into Fieger’s alleged campaign finance violations by revealing details of the attorney general’s extramarital affair (Nov. 10). Fieger allegedly spent $400,000 on a Michigan Supreme Court race without disclosing his spending. “Sandler, in statements to sheriff’s investigators, says Fieger warned he would pat down Sandler so he did not wear a listening device.”
Driver falls asleep: jury blames Ford to tune of $61M
In 1997, Melahn Parker fell asleep while driving a 1996 Ford Explorer at highway speeds; the SUV crashed, killing 17-year-old passenger Lance Crossman Hall, who was ejected because he was reclining in the front seat, thus preventing his seat-belt from restraining him. Parker was charged with careless driving, but a Miami jury viewed the accident as Ford’s fault, and awarded $61 million in damages yesterday, $60 million in pain and suffering. The plaintiff, Joan Hall-Edwards’s, Hall’s mother, has thus won a marvelous windfall in that her son was killed by a careless driver instead of by a means where she would have no deep pocket to seek lottery-style damages.
Ford will appeal. “This tragic accident occurred when the driver of the vehicle fell asleep at the wheel while traveling at highway speeds. Real-world experience and testing show that the Explorer is a safe vehicle, consistently performing as well as or better than other vehicles in its class,” Ford spokeswoman Karen Shaughnessy said.
Hall-Edwards’s attorney was Bruce Kaster, who complained that Ford blamed defective Firestone tires for what he called Explorer handling problems. This is a curious complaint, because Kaster calls himself “the nation’s foremost authority on tires and their defects,” has brought several lawsuits against Firestone, and has reserved the domain name “tirefailures.com” for his law firm. On his site, Kasten complains that Ford models don’t have the same features as the more expensive Volvo models made by Ford’s subsidiary. Is it really to be considered a “defect” if an inexpensive car has fewer safety features than a more expensive car? Are consumers not permitted to make the decision for themselves how safe a car to purchase?
No doubt there will be further details than what the AP has provided so far, and we’ll update as more becomes known. (Jennifer Kay, “Ford Ordered to Pay $61M in SUV Accident “, AP, Nov. 16).
Setting up the employer for a retaliation claim
Job applicants wouldn’t do that on purpose, would they? At least not unless they were following the advice of a EEOC staff lawyer interviewed for a Wall Street Journal article. According to McGuire Woods attorney Lou Michels, writing in the new-to-us blog Suits in the Workplace, “what the EEOC attorney appears to be proposing is simply outrageous” and “reeks of gamesmanship”. (Oct. 11).
Picking Texas judges
Tom Kirkendall has some thoughts on the state’s “utterly unsupportable system” of judicial selection (Nov. 14).
Coming up: Overlawyered hosts Blawg Review #33
Next Monday, November 21, this website will be hosting Blawg Review #33, the thirty-third weekly carnival of the best postings about legal matters from around the blogosphere. A different site hosts the roundup each week; last week’s Blawg Review #32 was hosted in honor of (U.S.) Veteran’s Day by JAG Central, which covers the world of military law.
You can help assemble the material for Blawg Review #33 by following the instructions at the Blawg Review site. If you’re a website proprietor, you should nominate your favorite post from the past week or so from your own site. And any reader can nominate a favorite recent post from any weblog on a legal topic (the weblog needn’t be one that specializes in legal issues). (Sorry, we can’t guarantee that all nominations will be used.) All submissions are due in by this Saturday night, but earlier submissions are greatly appreciated to reduce the last-minute editing duties.
R.I. paint case: defense moves for mistrial
According to the Providence Journal: “Lawyers for defendant lead-paint companies called for a mistrial [Tuesday], after the state asked a witness if any of the companies had ever paid any money to help clean up lead paints in Rhode Island. The question had been put to former state Health Director Patricia Nolan. It immediately drew objections from the defense, and she was not permitted to answer.” (Peter B. Lord, “No decision yet on request for lead-paint mistrial”, Nov. 15) (sub-only). Jane Genova continues to blog the trial with posts on Nolan’s earlier testimony here, here and here. See Nov. 1. Update Wed. afternoon: no mistrial, judge orders curative instructions to jury; see Genova blog.