Bad ideas from the U.S. hit Canada ten years later dept.: two Canadian provinces are seeking to replicate the success of state attorneys general in the U.S. and scoop up large amounts of money from tobacco companies through lawsuits without the bother of raising taxes. British Columbia’s legislature followed the lead of several U.S. states (Florida, Maryland and Vermont) and enacted an explicitly retroactive “we win, you lose” statute undercutting tobacco companies’ defenses against cost recoupment. Now Manitoba has joined in, its decision announced by Theresa Oswald, who bears the scary title of Healthy Living Minister. (“Manitoba to back B.C. in tobacco case”, CBC, Feb. 25)(B.C. law).
Delivery-room camera bans
Back in the news again, with the president of the AMA saying malpractice-suit fears are the reason obstetricians veto videotaping (AP/WTSP, Apr. 5). See Oct. 18, 2000.
Finger pointing
“The woman who claims she bit into a human finger while eating chili at a Wendy’s restaurant has a history of filing lawsuits – including a claim against another fast-food restaurant in Nevada.” (Ken Ritter, “Woman who claimed to find finger at Wendy’s has litigious history”, AP/San Diego Union-Tribune, Apr. 8)(via Malkin)
Upcoming events: Chicago, Orlando
Tomorrow (Friday, Apr. 8) I’m scheduled to participate in a panel discussion on medical malpractice at Chicago’s Union League Club, sponsored by various units of the University of Illinois (law school, medical school, Institute for Government and Public Affairs). And on Apr. 20 I’ll be giving a luncheon speech in Orlando to the Federalist Society Lawyers chapter there, on the themes of my most recent book The Rule of Lawyers. (Updated Apr. 9 to add Illinois web link and remove mention of a third appearance now likely to be canceled).
To book either Ted or me for speaking engagements, by the way, just send us email at the addresses indicated in the right-hand column.
Microsoft vs. eBay reseller
A Kent State student resold unopened Microsoft software at a profit, the giant company sued him, and things just spiraled from there. The two sides have settled now, though. (Denise Grollmus, “Kill Bill”, Cleveland Scene, Mar. 30).
Gun roundup
Legislation is once again moving through Congress to pre-empt lawsuits which seek to saddle the manufacturers and lawful sellers of guns with the costs of crime. At the request of supporters of H.R. 800, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, I wrote a letter to the House Judiciary Committee explaining why such a bill is warranted now more than ever (longtime readers may recall that I testified on the Hill two years ago in favor of the measure). The new letter is here. (More: Mar. 15 hearings; chairman’s opening statement.)
Also, the Illinois legislature has soundly defeated efforts, backed by Chicago Mayor Daley and pro-gun-litigation groups, to alter state law so as to encourage lawsuits against gun dealers (“More Daley-backed gun bills go down in Senate committee”, AP/KWQC, Mar. 15; “House rejects measure to let victims sue gun dealers”, AP/KWQC, Apr. 6). (Update Apr. 16: backers revive measures, but they are defeated on floor of Ill. Senate). And David Hardy of the extremely promising-looking new blawg Arms and the Law finds that when law reviews present a viewpoint one-sidedly hostile to the right of individual gun ownership, it’s sometimes owing to the careful spadework of a generous outfit called the Joyce Foundation (Apr. 3)(further controversy on last point: here and here).
Melton Mowbray
The concept of appellation controlee, along with an accompanying high-stakes lawsuit, hits the world of traditional British pork pies. (Raffi Melkonian, Crescat Sententia, Aug. 5, 2004).
S.F. to regulate bloggers?
A good burger is hard to find
…complains the LA Times’ David Shaw, who is surprised to find that most restaurants won’t serve him a hamburger cooked rare, or even medium-rare. With a little research, he finds that nothing in California law prohibits serving a burger rare if a customer asks for it, but he’s bound to be disappointed when he discovers that that’s not the cause: the chefs aren’t obeying a bureaucrat’s nanny-state directive, but orders from corporate headquarters to avoid lawsuits from customers who exercise their choice and complain later.
Earlier burger coverage: Sep. 30 and links therein.
Domain name nastygrams
I find these letters depressing. These are the kind of letters that cause people to hate lawyers.
Notice of the problem and the trademark holders’ intent to file a claim are required by the [Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act], but the tone of these letters is not. Instead of nicely explaining what the law is, what the goal is and how appreciative the trademark holder would be if the domain name holder was courteous enough to transfer the name as requested, these letters bombard the recipients with legal jargon and serious threats without context or explanation. …
When I have a client on either side of the cybersquatting scenario, I urge starting with the polite request approach. Usually, I can succeed that way through some polite explanation of the law over the phone and a little patience. That approach also costs my clients less that either court or arbitration would since both of those require filing fees and lengthy legal briefs. More importantly, solving disputes through discussion makes me feel good and helps me prove that, at least occasionally, lawyers can act like human beings and make someone’s day instead of ruining it.
(Judith Silver, Cybersquatting Ain’t What It Used To Be).