UK roundup

Sainsbury’s, the British grocery chain, says it will have to go back on a plan to sell Christmas puddings with “lucky sixpences” inside because of health and safety regs under which they are regarded as a choking hazard; instead it will attach the coins to “collectors’ cards” and suggest that customers place them under the plate or placemat of a lucky family member. “[G]ood luck charms have been added to Christmas puddings for more than 500 years.” (David Derbyshire, “Unlucky sixpences miss out on Christmas”, Daily Telegraph, Oct. 18). For an analogous U.S. story involving the New Orleans specialty, “king cake”, see Feb. 1-3, 2002. The police force in Derbyshire, England, has tested its dogs to see whether their barking is in compliance with the Control of Noise at Work Regulations being introduced next April; the canines’ level of noisiness barely passed muster under the new standard, and modifications such as earplugs for police may needed when use of the dogs in anti-crime work combines with another source of noise such as that of a crowd. (Nick Britten, “Police take the lead on barking regulations”, Daily Telegraph, Oct. 27). For more on British and EU noise regulations, see Nov. 10, 2005 (kids’ playing); Sept. 2, 2005 (Army tanks); Jan. 12, 2004 (orchestras); Mar. 8-10, 2002 (bagpipes); Dec. 22-25, 2000 (military brass bands and gunfire during infantry training). In Worcester, England, teenager Natasha Hughes, who is accused of grievous bodily harm directed at another woman and was charged with violating her bail conditions, will not have to wear an electronic monitoring anklet after she successfully argued that the device violated her fashion sense and looked bad with skirts. (Nick Britten, “You can’t tag me. . . I like to wear skirts”, Daily Telegraph, Nov. 11). For a similar argument made in this country, see Dec. 4, 2000 (exotic dancer). And the following exchange was heard on the floor of the House of Lords this Wednesday:

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware of the case that I read about recently in which there were three main suspects for a crime: a rich lawyer, a poor lawyer and a tooth fairy? Needless to say, the rich lawyer was arrested because the other two were figments of the imagination.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it does the House no credit to do anti-lawyer jokes.

(Hansard, Nov. 16). Reader Bob Clarke, of Birmingham, U.K. who called this exchange to our attention, writes: “I don’t think that my learned Lord should drop his day job and start being a stand-up comedian. He made the same joke in 2000“.

Batch of reader letters

After too long a hiatus, we’ve resumed our separate letters to the editor feature. Among topics this time: a teacher writes to protest our 2001 coverage of her lawsuit over a parent’s injurious handshake; reflections on the recent $22.6 million settlement of a claim that “toxic mold” from wet building lumber had caused a child’s autism; a reader doesn’t agree that the “happy hour” antitrust case against taverns in Madison, Wis. was lacking in merit; and this site gets used as instructional material in a class on liability issues in law enforcement. More good letters remain in the pipeline.

Dunkin’ Donuts coffee also scalds

Litigation-reform opponents regularly criticize the mention of the McDonald’s coffee-case lawsuit on the phony grounds that the McDonald’s coffee was unusually hot, and thus “defective.” A search of this website can find many other lawsuits over hot coffee causing third-degree burns, and you can now add Dunkin’ Donuts to the mix. Sharon Shea was holding a tray of two cups of coffee that allegedly “toppled over” and received second- and third-degree burns on her left leg and ankle. The 60-year-old is suing Dunkin’ Donuts for $10 or $15 million in New York state court in Staten Island. (Jotham Sederstrom, “$15M suit for burns from java”, New York Daily News, Nov. 18; Hasani Gittens, “$10M suit for java jolt, NY Post, Nov. 17) (hat-tip: Roth).

Fieger blackmail allegations

Howard Bashman has full coverage, including links to transcripts, of Fieger’s alleged attempt to block an investigation into Fieger’s alleged campaign finance violations by revealing details of the attorney general’s extramarital affair (Nov. 10). Fieger allegedly spent $400,000 on a Michigan Supreme Court race without disclosing his spending. “Sandler, in statements to sheriff’s investigators, says Fieger warned he would pat down Sandler so he did not wear a listening device.”

Driver falls asleep: jury blames Ford to tune of $61M

In 1997, Melahn Parker fell asleep while driving a 1996 Ford Explorer at highway speeds; the SUV crashed, killing 17-year-old passenger Lance Crossman Hall, who was ejected because he was reclining in the front seat, thus preventing his seat-belt from restraining him. Parker was charged with careless driving, but a Miami jury viewed the accident as Ford’s fault, and awarded $61 million in damages yesterday, $60 million in pain and suffering. The plaintiff, Joan Hall-Edwards’s, Hall’s mother, has thus won a marvelous windfall in that her son was killed by a careless driver instead of by a means where she would have no deep pocket to seek lottery-style damages.

Ford will appeal. “This tragic accident occurred when the driver of the vehicle fell asleep at the wheel while traveling at highway speeds. Real-world experience and testing show that the Explorer is a safe vehicle, consistently performing as well as or better than other vehicles in its class,” Ford spokeswoman Karen Shaughnessy said.

Hall-Edwards’s attorney was Bruce Kaster, who complained that Ford blamed defective Firestone tires for what he called Explorer handling problems. This is a curious complaint, because Kaster calls himself “the nation’s foremost authority on tires and their defects,” has brought several lawsuits against Firestone, and has reserved the domain name “tirefailures.com” for his law firm. On his site, Kasten complains that Ford models don’t have the same features as the more expensive Volvo models made by Ford’s subsidiary. Is it really to be considered a “defect” if an inexpensive car has fewer safety features than a more expensive car? Are consumers not permitted to make the decision for themselves how safe a car to purchase?

No doubt there will be further details than what the AP has provided so far, and we’ll update as more becomes known. (Jennifer Kay, “Ford Ordered to Pay $61M in SUV Accident “, AP, Nov. 16).