On Lock Sam, a beloved 105-year-old Chinese restaurant in Stockton, Calif., has closed rather than fight a suit filed by a wheelchair-using visitor who says he was humiliated and soiled himself after finding himself unable to use the restaurant’s bathroom. The restaurant owners said 32 employees would be laid off. The customer, Charles Hager, hired Oakland attorney Paul Rein to file a lawsuit demanding triple damages plus attorney fees under state discrimination law. (Jason Williams, “One last trip to On Lock Sam”, Stockton Record, Aug. 18; Michael Fitzgerald and Bruce Spence, “Eatery to close after 105 years”, Jul. 30; Michael Fitzgerald, “Talk before filing that lawsuit”, Jul. 30). The closing prompted an outpouring of discussion, much of it critical of the lawsuit, by Stockton residents (letters, Stockton Record, Aug. 9) including longtime patrons of the restaurant who themselves use wheelchairs or are otherwise disabled (Aug. 18 story, see comments of Fred Hess and Mary Gildner).
“Doctors avoid close contact; fear threat of impropriety”
“The B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons says some doctors are reluctant to perform breast and genital examinations because they are worried patients will accuse them of impropriety. ‘Unfortunately, the fear of becoming the subject of a patient complaint has caused some to become reluctant to perform necessary breast and genital examinations, to the obvious detriment of the patient,’ the college says in its annual report.” Some evidence indicates that rates of invasive cervical cancer may be markedly higher among women from ethnic groups with a high cultural aversion to pelvic exams. “Although less than 25 per cent of complaints result in formal disciplinary proceedings and penalties, the college has observed the mere threat of an accusation has meant ‘a significant number of women in this province are not receiving proactive preventative screening for breast and gynecological diseases.'” (Pamela Fayerman, CanWest/Calgary Herald, Aug. 27).
Farewell
I just wanted to give my thanks to Mr. Olson for letting me post a few things here about the law, both within and without the usual range of this blog. If you’d like to read more of my posts, you’ll find me at Crescat Sententia.
Tobacco: AGs push Hollywood self-censorship
“In a stunning, courageous admission that they no longer have any serious work left to do, attorneys general in two dozen states recently sent a letter to the Motion Picture Association of America asking that Hollywood minimize smoking in movies so youngsters won’t be gulled into lighting up.” (Nick Gillespie, “Tinselectomy”, Reason, Aug. 29). Check out Gillespie’s list of other destructive behaviors that Hollywood glamorizes, especially the last item. Supposedly the self-censorship will be voluntary: “We’re not saying any law has been broken,” said Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a rather remarkable admission since there is precisely zero reason for any filmmaker to pay attention to this particular grouping of law enforcement functionaries other than the fear that they could cause some sort of legal trouble in the future unless placated. (“States Ask Hollywood to Cut Film Smoking “, AP/Fox News, Aug. 27).
Other News
Howard Bashman, the other great source for law-related news on the web, is back and blogging.
“Entrepreneur” mag wins a trademark fight
“A federal judge recently ruled that the owner of Entrepreneur Magazine, a small-business publication with about 2 million readers nationwide, has … ‘exclusive right to use the mark in commerce.’ … So you can call yourself an entrepreneur, but if you want to include the word in the name of your business — particularly one in publishing — look out.” This summer, the court “awarded Entrepreneur Media a permanent injunction and $669,656 in damages” against Scott Smith, who ran a public relations firm called Entrepreneur PR. The court accepted the media company’s contention that Smith intentionally infringed on the trademark, “attempting to affiliate his firm with the magazine and feed off its popularity.” (Christine Van Dusen, “‘Entrepreneur’ a trademarked word, court rules”, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Aug. 20; article and court opinion at magazine site; Janet Attard, “Business Information and Ideas To Go”, BusinessKnowHow.com, undated; Smith’s response; Scott Allen, “What’s in a Name?”, About.com, undated; Steve Strauss, “Playing the Name Game”, USA Today, Jul. 10, 2002 (earlier 9th Circuit ruling favorable to Smith); Peter I. Hupalo, “Entrepreneur: The Soap Opera Continues”, Thinking Like an Entrepreneur, undated). Scott is now appealing (“What’s in a Name?”, FreshInc., Aug. 14). On Nov. 1, 2001 we covered the magazine’s efforts to enforce its trademark against a different (and unrelated) defendant, the proprietors of the website Entrepreneurs.com.
Update: Calif. local govts. settle with gun dealers
Another portion of the municipal gun-suit campaign is ending with a whimper, not a bang: San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s office has announced a tentative settlement of litigation by California local governments against several gun dealers and distributors. If the deal is approved by the 12 governments and a San Diego judge, the dealers and distributors would change certain business practices and pay the plaintiff governments $70,000 — far less than the $2 million the governments are estimated to have racked up thus far in legal expenses, even though the suits have been touted in the past as a moneymaking proposition. “Earlier this year, San Diego Superior Court Judge Vincent DiFiglia granted summary judgment in favor of about 20 manufacturers and trade associations, including big-name companies such as Beretta and Smith & Wesson, Clements said. The plaintiff jurisdictions have appealed that decision. But the five dealers and distributors were to face a trial.”
Children and the Law
This is a trifle off-topic, but a pair of posts by Amanda Butler highlight some intriguing issues about the way the law treats children, an issue I touched on briefly in a previous post on voting ages. Here is one post on Patrick Kennedy, sentenced to death for raping a child, and here is another, about a decision by the Missouri Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to execute murderers under the age of 18.
News from Far Off
Down Under, Victoria’s Attorney General has come out in favor of a pretty far-reaching set of legal reforms designed to protect consumers:
While it is appropriate that justice is blind, that does not mean the Bracks Government is blind to the needs of the Victorian public.
A streetcar named excessive
New Orleans: “The city’s public transit system should pay $51.4 million to the family of an 11-year-old girl whose arm was crushed beneath the wheels of a streetcar after she fell out of a window five years ago, a jury has decided.” A lawyer for the regional transit authority argued in vain that if the girl’s parents had been supervising her adequately she would not have fallen out of the streetcar window in the first place. (“Girl wins $51.4 million for streetcar accident”, AP/New Orleans Times-Picayune, Aug. 29). Ernest Svenson (Ernie the Attorney) writes to add that the printed edition of the newspaper contains the following passage, absent from the currently online version: “After the verdict was rendered a partylike atmosphere prevailed in the hallways outside Judge C. Hunter King’s courtroom, where jurors posed for photographs with [winning lawyer Johnnie] Cochran and the judge.” And he (Svenson) adds: “Which is nice, because that sort of thing is guaranteed to enhance public perception of our judicial system.” Addendum: the fuller version of the newspaper story is now online. Update Sept. 15: more about Judge King. Further update Oct. 25: Judge King removed from bench.