- Liquor commissioner of New Hampshire nabbed on DWI rap, refuses breathalyzer test [WMUR]
- Slumber party liability waivers are something we’ve reported on before. But home trampoline disclaimers? [Free-Range Kids]
- Website’s terms and conditions include giving up your immortal soul [Popehat]
- Scottish jury says charges “not proven” against lawyers in case of monetary demand for return of stolen Leonardo da Vinci painting [Guardian, earlier]
- If you’re going to shake down food makers with false claims of contaminants in their wares, it’s best to vary your story patterns [Tacoma News-Tribune, Seattle Times]
- “My task is simple: spew foundationless tripe that turns itself into a pre-trial settlement demand.” [The Namby Pamby, a lawyer blog I really should have linked before now] More: Daniel Fisher, Forbes.
- Why plaintiffs lawyers aren’t so thrilled about recent Toyota revelations: most are invested in blaming electronics, not stuck pedals or mats [WSJ Law Blog]
- Duck hunters sue guide over disappointing trip [Fred Hartman, Fort Bend, Texas, Herald]
Filed under: alcohol, finger in the chili, New Hampshire, Texas, Toyota
4 Comments
You should link Namby Pamby. I have been reading the blog for about 3 months and find it to be very funny.
Member of the public, having bought stolen goods, demanding money for its return – guilty
Lawyer, having bought stolen goods, demanding money for its return – not guilty (or at least ‘not proven’)
I do like the bit at the end where the article mensions one of Lawyers facing being struck off for using clients money to buy the painting.
I understand that Toyota’s $16 million dollar payment was rational if it dampens adverse publicity. But the payment will be viewed by many as vindication for the hysteria generated by the Naderites. I would be interested in Ted Frank’s or Walter Olson’s take on the matter.
You guys are making me blush. Stop it.
Ok. Kidding, you can keep doing it.
(Thanks for the link!)