Oshawa, Canada: “A lawsuit launched by a woman who drunkenly jumped from a moving car during an argument with her partner could make drivers liable for intoxicated passengers who cause themselves harm.” [DurhamRegion.com, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail]
June 1 roundup
- Some California attorneys hoping to restart lucrative construction-defect litigation [Frith, Cal Civil Justice]
- Jury awards Seattle bus passenger $1.3 million for stair mishap [KOMO, Seattle Times]
- “Louisiana Bill Would Outlaw Insulting an Under-17-Year-Old By E-Mail” [Volokh, earlier] Update: bill watered down before passage, but still bad news for speech;
- “Attorney Fee Fight Gets Ugly in World Trade Center Litigation” [Turkewitz and more]
- Preventive detention law shows why we need to confine Congress [Sullum, Greenfield]
- Mass Fifth Circuit recusals in Comer v. Murphy Oil global warming case [Wood/PoL, Jackson] More: Shapiro, Cato, Wood/ShopFloor (a strategy to provoke recusals?)
- “By some estimates, circa 40 percent of cases in the Central African court system are witchcraft prosecutions” [Graeme Wood, The Atlantic]
- Lawyers who sued Facebook over “Beacon” to get $2.3 million in fees, class $0.00 [Balasubramani, SpamNotes]
“Venting Online, Consumers Can Find Themselves in Court”
The Times’s Dan Frosch takes note of litigation aimed at silencing online critics, including the much-discussed T&J Towing and Route 6 Hyundai cases.
By reader acclaim: sues Google over map instruction
Lauren Rosenberg of Los Angeles “is suing Google because Google Maps issued directions that told her to walk down a rural highway. She started walking down the highway — which had no sidewalk or pedestrian paths — and was struck by a car.” [Sarah Jacobsson, PC World; Seth Weintraub, Fortune (“If Google told you to jump off a cliff, would you?”); Lowering the Bar; BoingBoing, Search Engine Land]
Public accommodation laws
David Bernstein at the Volokh Conspiracy recalls a 2006 lawsuit over whether neo-Nazis had a right to wear swastika pins in a Southern California restaurant against its management’s wishes, and extensive reader discussion ensues.
“Claim: 5-year-old broke arm after fall from monkey bars”
Huntington Beach, Calif.: “The parents of a 5-year-old girl have filed a claim against the city after the girl fell off the monkey bars, breaking her arm and chipping her tooth.” [Deepa Bharath, Orange County Register] More: J-Walk.
“Woman left sleeping on plane sues airline”
The latest lawsuit from Geoffrey Fieger raises the question whether the sort of mildly embarrassing episode you might once have dined out on for a few weeks now qualifies as something you should be able to retire on. Kevin Underhill wonders too.
“Woman sues strip club after her 16-year-old daughter is hired as dancer”
The girl, described as a chronic runaway, got herself a job at the Emperors Gentleman’s Club in Tampa, and now mom wants damages. [WTSP.com]
Informants rejoice
It seems the Senate-passed financial reform bill includes whistleblower bounties and other legal goodies. [Whistleblower Law Blog] On tax informants, see our post of Wednesday.
Bonus: Amy Kolz at American Lawyer (“Serial whistle-blower Joseph Piacentile makes millions helping the government uncover fraud. That’s how the False Claims Act is supposed to work. Or is it?”). And David Walk at Drug and Device Law assails as “dumb,” credulous, and based upon a biased sample a New England Journal of Medicine feature on whistleblowing in the pharmaceutical industry:
The New England Journal of Medicine bills itself as “the world’s most influential medical journal,” and it unquestionably publishes groundbreaking articles about medicine. But all too often in recent years the NEJM has strayed from what it knows — medicine – into what it doesn’t – law and public policy, particularly tort policy. No longer content with editorials encouraging litigation against anyone but doctors, the NEJM now publishes public policy advocacy pieces dressed up as scientific studies, with the implicit suggestion that those studies should get the benefit of the NEJM’s good name in public policy debates.
Federal regulation vs. local slaughterhouses
I’ve got a new post up at Cato at Liberty about a regulatory squeeze I’ve covered in this space before, and which could work out to the sorrow of “locavores” and others interested in alternatives to supermarket fare.