The case of Hess Kennedy, repeatedly covered in this space, got attention in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month after “a Florida Circuit Court judge entered an order to wind down the firm and approved a process for consumers to apply to get their money back.” (Eleanor Laise, WSJ, Oct. 14). David Giacalone has a few links (Oct. 29, scroll), as well as a more extensive post.
“Balanced the extremely hot cup of coffee on her thigh”
Not a great thing to do when pulling away from a Starbucks window and negotiating a turn onto the roadway. Jordan Triplett, 23, wants $250,000 in the Knoxville, Tenn. suit. (Starbucks Gossip via Obscure Store).
Aw, nuts!
Or so the defendant might say about the $185K verdict in this case (reduced by 50% due to the plaintiff’s comparative fault). She slipped and fell at Texas Roadhouse allegedly due to peanut shells and whatnot on the hardwood floor. Allegedly, restaurant patrons were encouraged to discard shells on the floor, which, according to my experience with a similar establishment in a different state, highlights the casual western theme.
From a claims and loss control perspective encouraging patrons to throw debris onto hardwood floors just seems like a bad idea because I doubt whatever “atmosphere” is created thereby increases revenue enough to offset the costs of defending this or similar claims, and sometimes paying the verdict. (“Jury’s $185K Award More Than Peanuts for Restaurant”, On Point News, Oct. 27).
Anonymous school-bullying snitchline
The innovation might itself prove to be quite an effective weapon for use in tormenting hapless victims (Feral Child, Oct. 14; Ki Mae Heussner, “Calling Out Bullies Incognito: New Site Lets Students Report Bullying, Harassment Anonymously”, ABC News, Oct. 16; more on snitchlines here, here, and here).
October 29 roundup
- District court tosses $5.2 million punitive damage award against TASER in closely watched case [CalPunitives, Feral Child]
- You mean demanding that opponent submit to a “PET brain scan” is vexatious? [The Briefcase, Stemple v. Dunina, Ohio]
- Election’s implications for federal courts [NLJ, NYT, Steven Calabresi @ WSJ]
- Don’t even think of using “the cash machine legal clinic” as your slogan if Louisiana implements tough new lawyer-ad rules [New Orleans City Business]
- Our long national slide toward “election by litigation” [Hillyer, D.C. Examiner] Plus: America’s Most Irresponsible Public Figure® RFK Jr. emerges as “election law huckster” [Weigel, Reason “Hit and Run”]
- While privacy laws ratchet ever tighter on private actors, publicly available court documents blare out Social Security numbers and other sensitive data [Ambrogi]
- Which is the worse deal, using your own bank’s ATM or patronizing one of those awful payday-loan outfits? No peeking [Coyote]
- “DMCA: Ten Years of Unintended Consequences” [EFF]
“Common-sense justice in Alaska”
Manhattan Institute fellow Marie Gryphon, in National Review, on the state’s loser-pays rule:
Alaska’s unique rule is a product of its history. When the United States purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867, the icy wilderness had so few inhabitants that the U.S. neglected to establish immediately any civil law there at all. Congress instituted a civil legal system for Alaska in 1884 through an Act that borrowed from Oregon’s civil code and applied it to the new territory virtually wholesale. At that time, an Oregon statute allowed the prevailing party in a civil suit to recover attorney’s fees from the loser. While Oregon unwisely dumped its loser-pays rule eventually, Alaska embraced loser pays and stuck with it. …
The Alaska Judicial Council conducted a review of Alaska’s loser-pays rule in 1989 and found that, while the law could not deter filings by irrational plaintiffs, it did reduce the number of low-merit lawsuits in Alaskan courts. The Council also found that a majority of Alaskan attorneys liked the system and believed that it functioned well.
(cross-posted from Point of Law).
Microblog 2008-10-28
- ’98 master tobacco settlement: not just bootleggers and Baptists, but also “televangelists.” [Morriss, Regulation, h/t Ted] #
- Slants and biases in Associated Press reporting aren’t new, but they’ve become impossible to ignore [WaPo] #
- Unplanned result of bailout: lenders back off from deals to sell distressed real estate at cut price [Coyote] #
- GM needs to tear up contracts with its unions, retirees, and dealers, which means it needs bankruptcy [Bainbridge] #
- No kidding: gorgeous photography of slime molds [English Russia] #
- Blog primer on credit default swaps and other financial derivatives [Derivative Dribble] #
- Wouldn’t it be more helpful to save the epithet “socialist” for times when it’s really, you know, accurate? [Ron Coleman] #
- State of New York staring into fiscal chasm, years of $10 billion+ deficits [NYPost] #
Why stores have surveillance cameras, Vol. 2
Hello, and thanks again to Walter Olson for welcoming me back to help fill in this week. His prior post reminded me of this surveillance tape I’ve kept after all these years simply for comic relief.
The tape shows one customer casually stroll through the door without incident all the while another intending customer in quite the hurry tries to run in–he thought–through an open door. Instead, it was the plate glass adjacent to the door. He smacks into it bowing the glass and then storms into the store while the other customers gawk at him. The original clip was without sound but I couldn’t resist jazzing it up with Gonna Fly Now from Rocky.
Here’s the Overlawyered part: he made a claim against the store owner; and, the claim was paid as a compromise. Part of the reason why is visible on the video—can you see it?
Even palimony has limits
“If any practical legal principle can be extracted from the gnarled facts of Bayne v. Johnson v. Johnson, it is probably this: You can’t get palimony if you cohabit with a married man and his wealthy, elderly wife and then leave him because he won’t leave her.” (Michael Booth, “When Palimony’s at Stake, Three’s a Crowd”, New Jersey Law Journal, Oct. 28).
“Scandal in Louisiana’s criminal courts”
“[Jerrold] Peterson said he was instructed to write up and file the denials [of pro se appeals by indigent convicts] without ever showing the appeals to the judges. Peterson handled about 2,400 such cases in the 13 years he was in charge of them.” (Radley Balko, Reason “Hit and Run”, Oct. 28). Under the court’s rules, “every criminal writ application is supposed to be reviewed by three judges”. Peterson committed suicide and his farewell note called attention to the scheme. (James Gill, New Orleans Times-Picayune, Oct. 10).