Lawyers labored so hard to produce this marvel, only to find the judge dismissing it as “verbose and disordered”. [California Civil Justice]
Archive for May, 2009
Real estate “nondisclosure of tragedy” claims
Seldom do the fact situations get this bad: not for the squeamish [Ask MetaFilter]
NY Times on libel tourism
The Times covers the problem of the British courts’ open door to international libel plaintiffs, and in a follow-on editorial sums up the contrasting view that prevails in America:
If authors believe they are too vulnerable, they may be discouraged from taking on difficult and important topics, like terrorism financing, or from writing about wealthy and litigious people. That would not only be bad for writers, it would be bad for everyone.
On the radio
I was a guest today on three radio shows to discuss the Sonia Sotomayor nomination: Air Talk with Larry Mantle (KPCC, Southern California public radio), Vicki McKenna (WISN Milwaukee), and Portland, Oregon-based Lars Larson. Tomorrow morning I’ll be a guest on Preston Scott’s program in Tallahassee, Florida, at about 8:05 a.m.
Did Sotomayor “save baseball”?
I’ve been added to the contributors at NRO’s Bench Memos discussing the Sotomayor nomination, and my first post skeptically looks at the talking point that she “saved baseball” in 1995.
Pull over, sir, we’re checking those socks for lead
More on CPSIA’s costs: “Even though there is no evidence that his company’s hosiery contains lead, his company will be forced to pay more than $500,000 on lead testing over the next year,” said David McCubbin of Oklahoma’s McCubbin Hosiery. And so long, giraffe teethers:
Suzanne Lang, owner of Starbright Baby Teething Giraffes in Boalsburg, Pa., created 36 patterns of giraffes last year. To test each of these items for lead and phthalates would cost up to $81,000, she said. She only grossed $4,500 last year.
Unless the law is changed, “thousands of small businesses and crafters will be put out of business in this already tough economic climate,” Lang said.
Last month the office of Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a co-sponsor of the measure, “said the bill is doing exactly what it is meant to do“.
May 26 roundup
- U.K.: Disciplinary complaints against lawyers may be thrown open to public and press [Times Online]
- U.S. Chamber adds three new stories to its “Faces of Lawsuit Abuse” series, among them the 7-year-old sued over a ski accident, and the family-owned California restaurant sued for putting a mirror two inches too high. [Chamber mag, Yankee Philip]
- Real estate agent couple: producers of CSI show defamed us in pre-final script [Los Angeles Times]
- Idea of “suburban general store” walkable from homes would require zoning law fix in many localities [Metropolis]
- Gov. Schwarzenegger these days is scourge of violent entertainment, at least when in videogame form [Elizabeth Jacobson, OpenMarket]
- Critique of federal hate crimes bill [Gail Heriot for the Federalist Society]
- Many prosecutors resist potentially exculpatory DNA test matches [NYT, Greenfield, Balko/Reason “Hit and Run”]
- Blogger “Evil HR Lady” is unmasked! (and names some of her favorite health blogs) [linking to Blogs.com]
“How to keep your parody or gripe site safe from legal bullies”
I think the more correct word would be safer with an r. [Electronic Frontier Foundation via BoingBoing]
Lawsuits against theme parks, and fee-shifting
Disney, Universal and Busch Entertainment weren’t eager to discuss the details of their legal defense but that didn’t stop the Orlando Sentinel from developing a searchable database of 477 state and federal cases filed against the three companies over the years 2004-08. Most cases were slip-falls, very few went to trial as opposed to settling, and in general the companies seemed to enjoy a fair bit of success both at satisfying patrons before their discontents reached the stage of lawsuits and at defending against the suits if brought.
It seems the companies are also willing to utilize provisions of Florida law that go further in the direction of “loser-pays” than do the laws of many other states:
Plaintiffs who lose sometimes end up footing the theme parks’ legal bills. The theme-park companies can, and do, go after unsuccessful plaintiffs, seeking reimbursement for their legal expenses. Under Florida law, anyone who sues anyone else over a personal injury faces this possibility. If the defendant offers a settlement but the plaintiff rejects it and then loses the case (or, in some circumstances, even if the plaintiff wins the case), the defendant can demand the plaintiff pay the defendant’s legal bills.
Reports of other successful defendants pressing their rights under such provisions in Florida or elsewhere are not exactly common, leaving the question of whether 1) the theme parks are making more aggressive use of the Florida rules than other defendants, 2) plaintiffs who go to trial against theme parks are atypical in some way, or 3) other defendants use the fee-shift provisions too, but we just don’t hear about it much.