Volkswagen key class action

Two readers have written to alert us to this settlement (PDF), including frequent commenter Todd Rogers:

I received notice in the mail [this month] that I’m party to a class action suit against VW USA. I drive a Passat with a “Smart Key.” According to the suit, VW has been naughty because they did not make the key duplication apparatus available enough to locksmiths, third party key duplicators, and the like, in the event that I (we) want to make another key. What would my settlement be? I’m the benefactor of “greater communication” from VW USA.

What do you know…owners of Mercedes Benz suffered the same injury and it was the same firm, Lurie & Weiss, who helped make them whole, as well. Who’s next?

Objections and requests for exclusion must by filed by the end of August, and a fairness hearing is scheduled for Sept. 22 in the courtroom of the Hon. Audrey B. Collins in federal court in Los Angeles.

Problems with access to Overlawyered

We continue to hear reports, scattered and so far unexplained, from readers around the world who get an “unavailable” or “forbidden” message when they call up https://www.overlawyered.com in their browser. Thus some readers in Australia have no problem with access to the site, while others have reported that they are blocked; and we got a similarly inconsistent report the other day from New Zealand.

The Australian lawyer who writes the interesting blog Stumblng Tumblr writes to say that

I have outflanked the problem. I only regret that it took me so long to think of it. I use Bloglines and it permits me to choose how much of a feed I want to see in Bloglines itself. It finally occurred to me to change the setting for Overlawyered to show the full post in Bloglines in every case, rather than just a summary. That means that I don’t have to go to your site. I just read it all in Bloglines.

I’m very happy to be able to read Overlawyered again!

Med-mal: Massachusetts adopts “loss of a chance” doctrine

In a key victory for plaintiffs and their lawyers, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has for the first time adopted the “loss of a chance” doctrine, which allows plaintiffs to recover money without having to show that it was more likely than not that the charged medical negligence made the difference in their recovery or survival. (Denise Lavoie, “Doctor held liable for a ‘loss of chance'”, AP/Boston Globe, Jul. 24). When Medical Economics surveyed the field two years ago, they found that about half the states had accepted the more liberal doctrine, which runs counter to the Anglo-American “more likely than not” prerequisite for establishing causation. More on the inexact and contradictory standards used in such cases here.

Readers of this site will not be the least surprised to learn that American courts have shown little or no interest in extending the “loss of a chance” doctrine for the benefit of plaintiffs in legal malpractice cases filed against attorneys whose inattention might have (but probably didn’t) deprive their clients of a favorable outcome in court proceedings.

California trans fats: Terminator Nanny

Governor Schwarzenegger has signed into law the first statewide ban on the use of the maligned ingredient by restaurants and food service facilities. (Samantha Sondag, “Gov. signs nation’s first statewide ban on trans fats in restaurants”, San Francisco Chronicle, Jul. 25).

P.S. Speaking of the nanny state in California, Los Angeles is moving to ban new fast food restaurants from poorer sections of South Central L.A. on the explicitly paternalistic grounds that it knows better than local residents what they should be eating. Prof. Bainbridge has more.

Granite kitchen countertops

Apparently a few of the ones with exotic striations have enough radioactive mineral content that you might have to worry if you spent many of your waking hours strapped to them as to a hospital gurney. (Staying even a few inches away should be enough to lower the risk to pretty much zero, which is fortunate given that the posture most of us use while chopping celery does not involved prolonged whole-body contact.) Nonetheless, per a New York Times account yesterday that does little to discourage reader alarmism, “Personal injury lawyers are already advertising on the Web for clients who think they may have been injured by countertops.” (Kate Murphy, “What’s Lurking In Your Countertop?”, Jul. 24).

Let me be the first to predict that if such litigation has any future, it will not be in recovering large sums for the unprovable (because almost certainly nonexistent) toxic effects, but in $20,000 claims against insurers and contractors for rip-out and replacement*, which, in the usual circular fashion, will be stimulated by alarmist accounts like the one in the Times. And the predominant injury risk from a chunk of hewn granite will continue to be, as it has always been, being in the way when it drops.

*I’m not sure why people choose a countertop material that will dull their knives and chip their china, to say nothing of being cold and ungrateful to the touch. But that’s another topic.

P.S. The EPA has a statement (scroll).

$150,000 heartbalm award in Georgia

Wayne Gibbs and RoseMary Shell were engaged to be married.  Gibbs gave Shell an expensive engagement ring, and $30,000 to pay off her debts, but discovered that her financial situation was considerably more precarious, and broke off the engagement.  (Shell also alleges that Gibbs was cheating on her.)  Shell sued, and a jury awarded $150,000. (“Hall Co. jury awards jilted bride $150,000”, WDUN, Jul. 23; ABC News, Jul. 23).

Of course, if the two married, and Gibbs filed for a no-fault divorce a couple of days later, Shell would have no cause of action.  One of many reasons that breach of promise to marry suits are especially absurd in twenty-first century America.

Is patent gridlock keeping drugs off the market?

Readers know I’m sympathetic to the idea of patent reform, but I have to agree with Derek Lowe’s skepticism as he tears a hole in the Michael Heller story told to the WSJ Law Blog about an alleged Alzheimer’s drug that will “earn billions” but can’t be tested because of patent gridlock.  A must read as he eviscerates the law and science behind that statement, and read the follow-up as well.  As Lowe points out,

the safe harbor provisions of the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act, as reaffirmed in the 2005 Merck v. Integra decision by the Supreme Court [protects] from infringement [claims] in the use of a patented compound for purposes of submitting regulatory filings. And the language of the ruling makes it look like it’s intended to cover all sorts of patented technologies as well.

July 25 roundup

Prosecutors Gone Wild

[A] large deal of the gleeful Spitzerfreude on Wall Street arose from of the poetic justice of Spitzer’s undoing at the hands of the same extra-judicial tactics he regularly used against Wall Street firms and corporate executives when he was attorney general of New York. The real scandal of Spitzer’s career was not so much the former Girls Gone Wild model as the prosecutors gone wild.

My retrospective of Eliot Spitzer as both archetype and victim of overaggressive prosecutors in the July/August American Spectator is now on line at the AEI website.