Archive for 2010

Yes, tea is hot, too: Zeynep Inanli v. Starbucks

By popular demand, we note the existence of the case of Zeynep Inanli v. Starbucks Corp et al, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 105767-2010, where Ms. Inanli has alleged second-degree burns from tea that was “unreasonably hot, in containers which were not safe.”

You will recall that part of the trial lawyer defense of the McDonald’s hot coffee case are the factually false claims that (1) only McDonald’s sold beverages hot enough to cause burns and (2) after Stella Liebeck won her suit, hot-beverage vendors everywhere reduced their temperatures to a “safe” level. Of course, the Reuters account fails to indicate sufficient facts to determine whether Ms. Inanli’s scenario reflects injuries from a spill that was her own fault or the fault of Starbucks.

St. Louis: A much-sued museum talks back

The City Museum in St. Louis is not your usual assemblage of annotated exhibits: it’s a thrill-seeker’s delight, with a giant jungle gym and slides, described as a cross between “a playground and a theme park,” and a huge success that draws 700,000 visitors a year. It also has been sued numerous times by patrons who managed to get hurt on its determinedly non-soft surfaces, and unlike the great majority of defendants, it has chosen not to clam up when sued. As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch relates, the quirky museum used its Facebook page to call out by name some plaintiffs who have sued after taking (in its view) inadequate care for their own safety and, somewhat more acerbically, the lawyers who prosecute the suits. Its news release has more:

Just to give you a quick glimpse into what we go through at the City Museum, a couple of years ago our rock fell 4 feet. The next day we had over 12 people call and tell us they were injured when the rock fell. To investigate these claims, we reviewed the video of the rock falling and we posted the video clearly showing that there was no one next to the rock when it fell on our website. When this was brought to several of the caller’s attention they either hung up or changed their stories.

From a Wall Street Journal account (attorneys “take the fun out of life”):

A sign near the admission gate gives the names and phone numbers of law firms that have represented people who sued the museum, blaming them for a 9% surcharge recently added to the cost of a ticket.

More: Shield of Achilles (“naming and shaming”), Free-Range Kids (with reader comments).

May 3 roundup

  • Lawmakers in Georgia vote for bill to forbid forced micro-chipping after listening respectfully to “this happened to me” story [Popehat]
  • “Why does the Wall Street regulation overhaul give FTC authority over the Internet?” [Morrissey and WaPo via Gillespie]
  • “Woman alleges termination due to gender, not sleeping on the job” [SE Texas Record]
  • Writers’ Union of Canada surprisingly unfriendly toward writers’ freedom regarding fair use/fair dealing [BoingBoing]
  • Despite purported bar on strategic use, Senate bill to stay deportation of illegal aliens while workplace claims are pending would create incentive to come up with such claims [Fox, Employer’s Lawyer]
  • “California Magistrate Scoffs at Plaintiff’s MySpace Page, But Awards Damages Anyway” [Abnormal Use]
  • State of free speech in Britain: police confront man over political sign in window of his home, arrest preacher over anti-gay remarks [Mail and more, Telegraph via Steyn, related from Andrew Sullivan and MWW]
  • “Should Tort Law Be Tougher on Lawyers?” [Alex Long, TortsProf]

N.J.: Drunk drivers can sue bars that served them

In 1997 the New Jersey legislature enacted a law stating that a convicted drunk driver “shall have no cause of action for his or her injuries,” but a state appeals court decided that was no reason not to allow such a driver to sue the drinking establishment that allegedly should have cut him off earlier. An earlier appeals case had allowed such suits against “social hosts” such as party-givers. [AnnMarie McDonald/NJLRA, Henry Gottlieb/NJLJ]