House Democrats have introduced legislation that would hold third-party banks liable for packaging and reselling mortgages that the borrower decides to sue on. Back in April, I wrote in the Wall Street Journal why this earmark for trial lawyers would be disastrous to the economy and make the subprime crisis far worse than it is now.
Archive for October, 2007
Broken Heart? Sue!
Thanks to Walter Olson for welcoming me back after a short hiatus from my last guest blogging stint. I often see stories worth sharing, this one in particular [excerpt below, full story here.]
A group of well-heeled women who paid up to $1,500 to snag a man through one of the nation’s priciest and fast-growing online dating services — It’s Just Lunch — has filed a civil lawsuit in Manhattan federal court, claiming the lunchtime setups were not what they bargained for.
This reminds me of this hilarious YouTube clip which is strikingly on point in this instance. Overlawyered indeed. And, $1,500 for a date? That’s about as out-of-touch as $27K for wedding flowers (with accompanying lawsuit.) Well, these “well-heeled” women expected George Clooney but (apparently) got Gilbert Gottfried instead. Maybe, simply, their hopes were just too high. Especially if they were prepared to fork over $1,500 for a date. Caveat emptor, I’m afraid.
“Your old junk could come back to haunt you”
Disposing of a worn-out vehicle, appliance, computer, even maybe a house in the state of Oregon? Maybe you’d better worry that a subsequent user will get injured by or in or with it and blame the mishap on your negligent failure to perform proper maintenance. That theory is getting a plaintiff to trial past a motion to dismiss in a case where a crash victim is suing not only the owner of the truck that hit him, but also a former owner that had sold the truck about a year earlier. The Oregon Supreme Court, reversing a trial and appeals court, is allowing the case to go to trial. Lewis & Clark lawprof Jack Bogdanski writes:
How far does the rule of this case go? Would it cover tools that you unloaded at a garage sale last year? How about the house you sold last year, or five years ago? Surely, it would cover that used car you got rid of, although the court hinted that maybe you’d be off the hook if the dangerous condition was obvious when you sold it, or if you traded the car in at a dealership.
What can you do to protect yourself? I doubt that your insurance covers it — at least auto policies end when the vehicle is sold, and I’d be surprised if a standard homeowners policy wouldn’t work the same way. There’s no way to get a release in advance from everyone who might be hurt by breakdowns of your former stuff while it’s in the hands of future owners whom you don’t even know.
(Jack Bog’s Blog, Oct. 21; Bailey v. Lewis Farm, Inc., Oregon Supreme Court, Oct. 11). P.S. Corrected procedural posture of case following reader comment.
Annals of creative patent lawyering
Highly placed attorney with intellectual-property specialists Fish & Richardson accumulates his own portfolio of patents, quits the firm, begins suing Fish & Richardson clients, things get messy fast (Patent Troll Tracker, Oct. 21). Patent Troll Tracker (h/t Ambrogi) looks likely to become part of our regular blog rounds.
Republican presidential debate
Liability reform provided an early flashpoint last night, with Giuliani assailing Fred Thompson’s Senate voting record and Sen. Thompson offering a federalism defense. (Althouse, Oct. 21)(more; ritual disclaimer). More: the Giuliani site is hitting Thompson hard on the issue.
Sorry, doc, your personality is uninsurable
More malpractice insurers are requiring doctors to take personality tests or their equivalent: “Doctors who fare ‘poorly’ on the assessment [at Iowa-based United Medical Liability Insurance Co.] have to go through a coaching session, at no cost to them, on how to improve their communication skills if they want coverage.” (Amy Lynn Sorrel, “Medical liability insurers adding personality tests to application process”, American Medical News, Oct. 1)(via KevinMD). Related: Apr. 12.
Farmers market victims can sue Santa Monica
Reversing a lower court, a California appeals court “reinstated allegations that the city had failed to adequately shield marketgoers from motorist George Russell Weller, who was 86 when he crashed his car through barricades and into crowds of pedestrians at the popular open-air market”. (John Spano, “Farmers market crash victims can sue Santa Monica, court rules”, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 17; Terence Lyons, “City Back In Farmers’ Market Lawsuits”, Santa Monica Mirror, Oct. 18-24). Earlier: Jul. 14, 2004.
October 21 roundup
- Some suits are too silly even for Florida: teen steals OxyContin, dies from OD, family sues Eckerd. [On Point]
- Jack Goldsmith’s four questions for AG nominee Mukasey. [NY Times/AEI; see also Ornstein]
- You may already be Pacman Jones’s co-defendant. [TortsProf]
- A contrarian opinion on Judge Sam Kent. [Beldar]
- Chris Dodd goes to bat for trial lawyers suing telephone companies that dared to comply with a government request to assist in terrorism investigations. [Slate]
- Suit: TJ Maxx catches pervert taking surreptitious upskirt photos; female victim sues store for waiting to gather conclusive evidence. Convicted pervert, serving 2-4 years, not sued. [AP/Fox News]
- Op-ed: Kellogg’s “wimped out” by not calling bluff of frivolous obesity lawsuit. [The Bulletin]
- DC puts the “dysfunctional” into “district”: fire department; Department of Youth Rehabilitative Services [Washington Post]
- Not that the TSA boondoggle is any better. [Cafe Hayek]
Guestblogging opening
Ted and I both have onerous deadlines to meet over the next two weeks, so we’ve got an opening for a guestblogger or two who might like to drop by for a week’s stint. Those who’ve guested before are welcome to consider a return engagement, too. Contact editor – [at] – this domain name.
Don’t link, criticize, use our name, refer to us, view our source code…
Just by browsing the website of a company called Inventor-Link, visitors supposedly consent to abide by the terms of a “user agreement” which “strictly” prohibits them from using not only any of the site’s content but even its name without express permission. “Furthermore, we strictly prohibit any links and or other unauthorized references to our web site without our permission.” The company is invoking these terms in a cease and desist letter “in an attempt to stop criticism of the company that appears on InventorEd.org, a website that provides information about invention promotion businesses and scams.” Inventor-Link’s law firm? None other than Dozier Internet Law, criticized in this space and many others last week over its claim that its nastygrams are themselves the subject of copyright and cannot be posted on the web. And the Dozier firm’s own website has a user agreement that purports to prohibit “linking to its website, using the firm’s name ‘in any manner’ without permission,” and, weirdest of all, even looking at its source code by clicking on your browser’s “view source code” command. (Greg Beck, Consumer Law & Policy, Oct. 17). More: Boing Boing, TechDirt (including comment that reads, in its entirety, “You are not allowed to read this comment”), Slashdot.