This time it’s securities regulation, rather than sexual harassment law, that’s at odds with privacy: “In an attempt to crack down on insider trading, the directors of companies quoted on Spain’s stock exchange will have to come clean, on a twice-yearly basis, about anyone with whom they are having an ‘affectionate relationship’. … Company directors must also provide information about their wives or husbands and family, but it is the idea of a ‘lovers’ register’ — in which bosses could have to admit to having affairs or out themselves as gay — which has sparked reactions ranging from disbelief to fury among businessmen.” (Tony Jefferies, The Scotsman, May 12; Giles Tremlett, “Bosses told: list assets — including lovers”, The Guardian (UK), May 11; Amaya Iribar, “When love is a conflict of interest”, El Pais/INA Daily, May 16).
“Please disregard this mail if you received it without this disclaimer”
Ernie the Attorney has more (May 11) on boilerplate legal disclaimers, including the gem quoted above, which calls to mind for him the country song lyric, “if the phone don’t ring you’ll know it’s me”. (via Blawg Review #6)(see May 9).
Philly judges bearing checks
Just business as usual in Philadelphia:
Candidates for judge paraded before a gaggle of ward leaders assembled by consultant Pete Truman last Friday at the Airport Sheraton.
They entered one at a time. Each candidate handed each ward leader an envelope. Each envelope contained a check, $1,000 or $2,000, depending on the size of the ward.
If the ward leader planned to support the candidate in Tuesday’s Democratic primary, the check was accepted. If not, it was returned.
(Gar Joseph, “Like sheep being led to slaughter”, Philadelphia Daily News, May 13). And various Philadelphia political figures convicted of crimes have emerged after serving their sentences as practitioners of a largely unregulated trade, serving as campaign consultants to judges (Tom Ferrick Jr., “Judicial process isn’t all negative”, Philadelphia Inquirer, May 13).
Hospital infections, a real crime
How is Britain’s new Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, addressing public alarm about “superbug” infections in hospitals? In part by floating the idea of criminally prosecuting hospital personnel after infections break out. And of course prosecutors will never for a moment consider bringing such charges without strong evidence of culpable mens rea on the part of the hospital personnel. Right? (Andrew Sparrow, “Warning to hospitals over MRSA”, Daily Telegraph, May 16). Hat tip and thanks for the link: Michelle Malkin, May 16.
Auto laminated glass
Report from London
Ted (who reports that he’s having trouble posting directly while away) writes as follows:
I’m less than twelve hours into my first trip to London, and one can see right up front how badly the compensation culture has stunted the US compared to the UK. My ride from the airport was in a Mini Mayfair, which is even smaller than the small Mini Cooper, but one can also drive around the city in something called a “Smart Car,” an even teenier two-seater akin to the one Sam Lowry drove in Brazil. Any manufacturer trying to sell a car like that in the US would risk getting socked with punitive damages the first time the car ended up a loser in a collision with an SUV; after all, the disingenuous plaintiff’s attorney would say, the manufacturer was clearly more concerned with profits than with safety by daring to sell a small car. (Never mind the environmental differences, or the fact that the availability of a cheap SmartCar could vastly improve the lives of many working poor.)
The escalators in the Underground move about 60% faster than the ones in the DC Metro. I’m looking forward to studying whether London has a worse safety record with its escalators. I would hypothesize that, aside from the King’s Cross fire, they do not: people are just more careful, because (1) the escalators are plainly dangerous, rather than giving the illusion of safety that a slow escalator does; and (2) Brits know that if they hurt themselves, they can’t blame someone else, much less potentially collect millions (Feb. 13). It’s just so nice to be treated like an adult.
I wouldn’t trade the American way for the British way, but we could learn a thing or two.
Wendy’s case: the digital evidence
San Jose police say the finger that Anna Ayala says she found in a bowl of Wendy’s chili (Apr. 27, Apr. 22, etc.) has now been identified; it belonged to a co-worker of her husband, James Plascencia, who lost it in the tailgate of a truck in an on-the-job accident. Authorities believe it then fell into the possession of Mr. Plascencia. (Dan Reed, Linda Goldston and Chuck Carroll, “The jig is up”, San Jose Mercury News, May 14; “Worker: Finger found in chili severed in tailgate”, AP/CNN, May 15).
Claim: beer label a hate crime
The Lost Coast Brewery in Humboldt, Calif. says it will take off the shelves its Indica India Pale Ale, whose label currently depicts the Indian elephant-god Ganesh “holding a beer in one of his four hands, and another in his trunk”. Although brewery co-owner Barbara Groom said her Hindu friends don’t mind the label, a California man named Brij Dhir sued the brewery, along with other defendants such as the Safeway supermarket chain, claiming that it is offensive and intimidates Hindus from practicing their religion. “Dhir seeks at least $25,000 and his lawsuit mentions that $1 billion would be appropriate to compensate Hindus around the world.” “It’s a hate crime”, Dhir told the Contra Costa Times. (“Brewery pulls label showing Hindu god”, RealBeer.com, May 9). (& welcome visitors from Blog Mela, the periodic tour of India-related blogs, hosted this time by Shanti Mangala, and from Sepia Mutiny). And: reader Rich B. from Baltimore is reminded of the recent post (Mar. 17) on the theme of how we’re lucky we don’t have blasphemy laws the way Europe does, and asks: why make a law when you can just sue about it?
“An army of busybodies”
“History may record that what offended them [American voters in 1994, when Congress changed hands] wasn’t liberalism but busybodyism — the endless, frenetic search by elected officials for ever-new ways to make the country more fabulous. Bush and his Republicans are close to proving that busybodyism can become a creature of the right as well as the left.” (Andrew Ferguson, “Operation Overreach”, Weekly Standard, May 16)(via Sullivan).
Laminated glass in car windows
Belatedly following up on the Mar. 7 report about the $31 million verdict against Ford Motor in Zavala County, Tex., on attorney Mikal Watts’s theory (as we put it then) “that the [ejection] injuries were Ford’s fault because it should have used laminated instead of conventional glass in the side windows as a sort of substitute restraint system,” law student Shane Murphy (George Mason U.) had the following comment:
Laminated glass, which is two layers of plate glass with plastic laminate in between, is used on automotive windshields. It has been used for decades to keep objects from easily getting through the windshield and entering the vehicle, not the other way around. In fact, I have seen more than one hapless unbelted occupant of a vehicle propelled fully through a laminated windshield.
Safety glass, which is designed to shatter into very small pieces, is used on side windows in cars. This type of glass is easy to shatter should you need to make a hasty exit from the vehicle, and that’s a key reason it’s put there. It also shatters into small pieces with very little “sharding,” reducing the opportunity for serious injury from broken glass.
Laminated glass requires a special saw to get through. With 12 years of experience, it still takes me five minutes to saw through a car windshield. If your car is on fire you’d prefer safety glass for this reason alone. Laminated glass also causes serious head and facial injuries to those who do full face-plants against the windshield despite seat belt warnings. It will have the same effect in a side window if an occupant is unbelted.
Some automakers are putting laminated glass in the side windows of high-end cars, but this trend should be viewed with great caution. This type of glass does prevent people from “popping a window” to escape from a vehicle in an emergency situation. Two examples of emergencies of this type are vehicle crashes with resulting fires and accidents where a vehicle ends up partially submerged in a body of water. In both cases, the electrical system will likely short out and will prevent easy exit since nearly all cars now have power windows.
I really cannot believe this theory about auto glass even got past the laugh test, never mind into the jury room. Automotive glass should not be used to keep people in the vehicle. Using automotive glass as a backup safety feature would do more harm than good. Seat belts are to keep you in the vehicle, not windows. In fact, I much prefer glass that breaks easily.
More: reader Brian Poldrack of Houston, Texas writes in to say: