Tenure for auto dealers

Worsening Detroit’s agonies: special laws at both state and federal levels expose automakers to lawsuits from dealerships that they try to cut loose as superfluous. Does GM want to reduce the number of Chevy dealerships in, say, Buffalo, to reflect its declining market share there or falling population? Then it’ll have to come up with millions to induce dealers to accept buyouts. The laws don’t inflict a comparable burden on automakers whose fortunes are on the upswing, such as Toyota and Honda. (Joann Muller, “Dealer Surplus”, Forbes, Oct. 16).

Canada: deported Russian spy sues for readmittance

“A former Russian undercover agent who lived under a false name in Toronto and spied for the Russian government is suing Canada’s immigration department for refusing to allow her to return here as a landed immigrant.” Elena Miller, nee Yelena Olshanskaya, thinks Ottawa should let bygones be bygones about her spy past: “I have dealt with the Canadian government in a co-operative, respectful and low-key manner, despite inquiries from the Canadian media and offers for a book/film,” she said. (Marina Jimenez, “Russian spy sues Ottawa for being left out in cold”, Globe and Mail (Toronto), Oct. 4).

New at Point of Law: foiling dishonest lawyers

Over at Point of Law, Boston attorney Peter Morin and I have collaborated on a new column about a simple way to discourage bad-apple lawyers from exploiting vulnerable clients.

…The simple fix is a rule that goes by the name “payee notification”. It would require insurance companies to notify a claimant when they forward a settlement check to claimant’s counsel. At a single stroke, the client is made aware of the timing and size of the settlement, taking away most of the leeway a dishonest lawyer has to withhold the client’s funds.

Several other states, including California, New York, and Connecticut, have already instituted payee-notification rules, and they have worked well. … So who would oppose it? Interesting that you should ask. …

Web-accessibility suits, revived

In San Francisco, federal judge Marilyn Hall Patel has allowed a lawsuit by the National Federation of the Blind to go forward against the Target Corp., charging that the retailer’s website, Target.com, is insufficiently “accessible” to blind users. Websites are considered accessible to blind users when they (e.g.) include summaries or transcripts for audio/video elements and alt-text for images, while avoiding designs that require users to rely on graphic elements for navigation. Disabled-rights groups had suffered a serious setback a few years ago in their legal campaign to enforce web accessibility, when a court ruled that Southwest Airlines was not liable for the inaccessibility of its online ticket reservation system to some handicapped users. However, Judge Patel (regarded as relatively liberal by the standards of the federal bench) distinguished that case on the grounds that the Target website had more of a “nexus” to physical Target stores than did the airline’s ticketing site. (“Target can be sued if Web site inaccessible to blind, judge says”, AP/Houston Chronicle, Sept. 7; Bob Egelko, “Ruling on Web site access for blind”, San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 8; Sheri Qualters, “Discrimination Case Opens Door to Internet ADA Claims”, National Law Journal/Law.com, Sept. 28; Slashdot thread). The ruling, in PDF format, is here (courtesy Howard Bashman, who also rounds up other links).

Longtime readers will recall that I’ve been much involved in the web-accessibility controversy over the years. Some links: my May 2000 column for Reason on the subject; various posts on this site, 1999-2002; my House testimony of Feb. 2000; Jan. 8, 2004. And this site’s earlier coverage of the Target case provoked one of the biggest comments discussions ever (Feb. 28, 2006).

Sued over blog posts

USA Today has a survey of cases filed against bloggers and commenters. A religious broadcaster and publisher has sued over a description of its president as “a shark” who comes from a “family of nincompoops.” And an ad agency that produced a tourism campaign for the state of Maine filed, but soon dropped, a suit against a critic who ridiculed the ads as a waste of money. (Laura Parker, “Courts are asked to crack down on bloggers, websites”, Oct. 3). More: Sacha Pfeiffer, “In court, blogs can come back to dog the writers”, Boston Globe, Sept. 28.

Stage-mom animal owners sue trainer

Hollywood Paws offers basic behavior training, and advanced training to respond to cameras. The trainers warn that training is not a sure route to television stardom, but they’re still facing a Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit from a dozen pet-owners complaining of broken dreams. What sort of stardom plaintiffs think they were legally entitled to is uncertain; for example, one of the plaintiffs’ dogs, Goliath the Rottweiler, had a scene on the Tyra Banks Show that was cut, and is now making $100/day on a low-budget movie. (Jessica Garrison, “No Bows, No Wows for Pooches Pursuing Fame”, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 3 (h/t F.R.).)

‘Tis better to have loft and lost…

Via Volokh (where commenters have a lot to say, and are about to start arguing about coffee), humorist and California judge William Bedsworth comments on the New Jersey college-student-falls-out-of-bed-loft case we covered August 16:

Tragically, “There were no warning labels on the bed, and it had never ‘cross[ed his] mind’ or ‘occurred to’ plaintiff that he could fall or that the bed was dangerous in any way. He testified that had he seen a warning, he would have been ‘aware of the hazard that was present’ and slept closer to the wall, as he had done after the accident.” Honest. Says so right in the opinion.

And he had an expert, George Widas, who testified that industry standards in the bed-making industry require that the manufacturer affix a warning “that says make sure that you protect yourself from this fall hazard.” According to Widas, the warning label should have had “black letters on an orange background” and included a warning that both identified the hazard and explained how to avoid it.

So the label should have said — in Day-Glo green letters on a phosphorescent-pink background -— “THIS IS A BED. USE ONLY WHILE AWAKE.” Or perhaps “IF YOUR IQ IS NOT THIS TALL, YOU CANNOT RIDE ON THIS BED.” Or how about an arrow pointing downward, with the legend “FALLING IN THIS DIRECTION COULD BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH. FALL ONLY UPWARD OR TO THE SIDE.” …

Oz: “Law firm’s brawl over $1m bonus”

Australia: “Leading plaintiff lawyer Peter Gordon from the firm Slater & Gordon was paid a $1 million bonus he was not entitled to from the profits of a massive class action over faulty breast implants. A disgruntled former partner has alleged the $1 million bonus was paid directly to Mr Gordon despite having been earmarked by the firm as ‘post-settlement expenses’.” The allegations filed in court by the former partner, Paul Mulvany, offer “a rare insight into the inner workings of Australia’s best known no-win, no-fee law firm”. However, the insight-window appears to have snapped shut with great rapidity: “one day after Slater & Gordon was informed The Australian had obtained the court documents, the matter was settled with neither side commenting on the sudden resolution of their dispute.” (Katherine Towers and Dan Box, The Australian, Sept. 15). P.S. Not all will agree with the opinion of the contestants in the brawl that the silicone implants at issue were “faulty”.