November 2nd, 2009

Blawg Review #236 (The Bogeyman Cometh)

(For centuries a wanderer has traveled about during Halloween week to see what lawyers are discussing on their blogs, and presented it in Blawg Review.)

The Bogeyman was pissed. And when The Bogeyman gets pissed, it’s probably wise to listen.

“Law bloggers are trying to steal my thunder,” he hissed, “It used to be that I had dibs on scaring the bejesus out of people. Now only 40% believe that my coterie of demons inhabits this earth. And I blame the lawyers. What are you guys trying to do to me?”

So as I stepped from my home to trick-or-treat with Little Man and Sweet Pea, he said “I’m coming along to show you what I mean.” Oh, great.

We stopped at the house of Canadian law professor Sharon Sutherland who told us, while she tossed twizzlers into my kids’ bags and blasted Thriller into the street, that there were more than 200 mentions of zombies in case law over the last 50 years, with most occurring in the last decade.

“See what I mean?” said The Bogeyman, “I’m supposed to control all the zombies. I mean, I can still invade a few brains to alert the world to real Zombies, and rattle a few people on the street, but too many lawyers are grabbing my turf.”

“I mean, really, Zombie law firms! Isn’t society overusing my minions?

He was on a roll while my kids were chattering happily, looking to score some Nerds. Maybe Scott Greenfield could get the kids sugar-zonked, while transporting me somewhere pleasant away from zombies. But Greenfield was spooked. He saw a prosecutor, once imbued with power, who was fired and then blogged about it. And now he’d vanished into the ethers, leaving behind his unpleasant ghost.

My kids were unimpressed with this tale, despite the Ghostbusters soundtrack playing in the background. They wanted gore. And so did The Bogeyman.

So we stopped at Kevin Underhill’s, because he had a fish knifed into his door, and this, oddly enough, got my kids excited. Was this some Godfatherish death warning to Halloween tricksters, I wondered? And what happened to the fish killer asked the kids? My kids scored some gummy fish and scampered away.

Animals are fun, said Little Man, but can we find some live ones next time? Well, we could always find people humiliating their pets. “Fun!” said the son. “There oughta be a law,” groused The Bogeyman as his eyes started to glow.

Next door was sweet, old Mother Jones; perhaps she could spook the kids? But Mother was too busy laughing while nibbling on a pop tort. It seems that the tort reformin‘, lawsuit hatinUS Chamber of Commerce had been punked when a group parodied them. And they not only threatened a suit of their own but were actually dumb enough to start one. My daughter looked up and asked, “Is this where the phrase ‘good for thee but not for me’ comes from?” Smart kid. Mother didn’t spook, but she did spoil, with a fistful of vegan candy. My kids pretended not to notice. They’re good that way.

Then they raced down the street to the little niche that Mark Herrmann and Jim Beck share. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Together they looked down at my happy little munchkins: “If you ever grow up to be drug company executives,” they thundered in unison, “Stay out of West Virginia! For the learned intermediary doctrine won’t apply!” I’d never seen my kids’ eyes grow so wide. I don’t know if it was fear or bewilderment, but they scampered away quickly, without even realizing the candy wrappers were completely filled with warning labels.

The little ‘uns had no interest in discussions of drug company law, nor hypocritical faux “reformers,” they wanted monsters, and not the monsters that inhabit law schools. So we went in search of something …monstery? The Bogeyman was salivating. Finally.

While the kids were distracted chewing on Twizzlers, I told The Bogeyman about Monster Energy Drink and their chuckleheaded lawyering that managed to pull two bone-headed moves, trying to crush the free speech of a website that gave them a negative review, and trying to stop a small Vermont brewery from making Vermonster Beer.

See? Monsters! The Bogeyman still wasn’t impressed — and if you’ve ever tried to impress The Bogeyman you’ll understand how difficult this task is — so we went next door to IP guru Ron Coleman.

“The End Days are here,” he said cryptically while Bad Moon Rising poured forth, and I saw The Bogeyman start to smile, making my stomach turn. Coleman explained to me, while tossing M&Ms at my kids, that “abusive DMCA takedown notices sent by copyright owners” will alter Google for the worse. “It’s over.” Dennis Kennedy, who snuck up behind us in the doorway with is own little troop, says he thinks that Google’s best days are behind it as the next generation of search arrives. As we walked away, Mr. B said that my neighbors had awfully skewed perspectives on what End Days really means.

And then came a cheery call to us from Eoin O’Dell, temporarily in the US, who was researching the law of haunted houses and whether there was a duty to disclose a haunting in a house sale. And if you don’t believe me, you can check his citation to a New York appellate court. But the only appeal for the children were the brightly colored sucking candies she brought with her from overseas.

The Bogeyman told me he was getting annoyed, but saw promise as we hit the walkway to Bruce Carton‘s place. Hanging from a tree was an effigy with all manner of injuries. He’s wearing a Mets jersey, representing a season to forget. As we rang the doorbell, my son questioned me on a conundrum: Yankees or Phillies? As Mets fans we hate both. But when Carton gets an earful of our discussion, he can’t wait to tell the story of the gorgeous tall buxom blonde — in desperate need of two World Series tickets and what she will do to get them. Baseball, I tell my kids, is all about scoring, and I get them the hell out of the house.

But the talk of sex has caught the happy ear of next door neighbor Kashmir Hill, with gravestones sticking up from her front lawn. She pointed toward one of them, with the name of the 66 year-old assistant district of attorney caught with the 18 year-old stripper. Caught, she adds, in a graveyard. Douglas Keene, visiting with Hill, chipped in with more while the kids happily tangled themselves up in the spider webby stuff that Hill hung from the trees: Keene whispered that it was now possible to look at someone’s Facebook account and determine their sexual orientation. The Bogeyman was going apoplectic. “Give me real villains,” he snarled. His left ear started to smoke.

“And if you can’t make me sick, at least try to amuse me.” So I showed him Adrian Dayton‘s idea of a funny Halloween costume, focusing on social media. And Ann Althouse with her werewolf. “You humans can’t even do humor right, though the CEO that dressed in six different Halloween costumes for his deposition was at least a good effort,” said The Bogeyman. “As was the guy who came to see the Utah Attorney General dressed in full SWAT gear. But you’re mostly pathetic. In some places, it could even be a felony to wear a Halloween mask. If you want costumes, look at this commercial one of my people did, though you should tell your more cowardly readers not to blast the volume if they’re sneaking a peak at work.”

When we walked up to the home of Jeralyn Merritt, she was outside talking about abuse with Ken from Popehat. Jeralyn pushed a deep dish of mini-chocolates toward my kids without breaking stride in the story she was telling of the six Gitmo Uighurs that had finally been freed and finally found a home, though it wasn’t their own. And Ken was talking about abuse elsewhere: when a southwestern hotelier demanded that his Spanish-speaking employees cease and desist their native language because he feared they are secretly mocking him behind his back. Maybe he deserved to be mocked?

My kids strolled into the house, and The Bogeyman pulled me aside. You call this Halloween? Where are the real goods? With my kids now safely out of sight, I took him around the corner…

We found Howard Wasserman at the next house, with its glowing jack-o-laterns out front and Black Magic Woman filling the air. He was starting a Suicide Pool, watching as “Birther” lawyer and nut job (and dentist!) Orly Taitz continued down a path that has already had her sanctioned and will likely to cost her her license when done. “That’s not real death,” growled The Bogeyman.

OK, I told him, I’ll give you a taste of the real deal.

Anne Reed greeted us ever so quietly where she sat on her front porch with a simple un-carved pumpkin. And she told us of the murder trial of a 4 year old girl, and the artwork created by a juror. She was sitting with Tom Kirkendall who told of the tragic car accident death of Houston trial lawyer John O’Quinn. Ashby Jones, who had just joined them, shared the story of real life monster Radovan Karadzic, the Serb accused of war crimes in Bosnia, whose war crimes trial was about to start at The Hague.

The four of them had an open laptop, and were looking at the site of Chicago Now. I think we found some of your friends living here, I whispered to The Bogeyman. The tatooed faces in these mug shots seem to scream out that evil was here.

The Bogeyman smiled and quieted down as he saw the fruits of some of his labors. He drifted off aways.

But Kevin Underhill had left his home to follow me, and now reappeared. He wanted to tell me, as if to taunt The Bogeyman back into my life, that he was most unimpressed. Those tats can be creatively covered up…just look what this guy is planning to do with his.”

With The Bogeyman’s blood thirst hopefully sated, despite Underhill’s efforts, I scooped up my kids and headed to the home of John Hochfelder. He had a roaring fire in a pit on the front patio to break the late October chill, and Phantom of the Opera played quietly in the background. The parents drank wine and beer as the kids roasted marsh mellows into a goopy mess that were then decorated with candies in a gross-out contest. While Hochfelder served the booze, he also talked to us about the problem a certain Halloween witch had when she got drunk and was then hit by two cars, one of which was the responding police.

Gideon — who had been talking to others about his beliefs on good and evil and the differences between those in the dock and those sitting in justice — shifted gears to join the drunk driving discussion. He noted a little dissent where Chief Justice Roberts argued that anytime police receive an anonymous tip that someone is driving drunk they should be able to pull them over and conduct an investigatory stop.

But stories of drunks don’t always have to end with death and destruction, and Jonathan Turley hoisted a tankard of suds to the cop that pulled a gun on a character in a haunted house. Hey, he said, no one got hurt. The Bogeyman, standing under a tree in the distance, started to glow again as his nostrils flared out almost to his ears.

Siouxsielaw sat with us by the fire — having just moved into the neighborhood as the planet’s first Gothic law blogger. Talk about your niche areas. But she wanted to return to Hochfelder’s witch case. It seems that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts has allowed a Halloween costume to be admissible in a sex discrimination lawsuit. Siouxsie, by the way, also has a Halloween waiver and has a trick or tort posting and a motto that “Good Lawyers Wear Black?” Is this blogger a keeper? Me thinks so, I told the crowd.

As the night wore down and I scooped up the kids to leave, I collared Bill Childs and thanked him for doing a round-up of the personal injury discussions of the past week, because I surely didn’t have the time to do so here. When he said that newcomers to this site really wouldn’t get a true taste of my blog by reading my account of this evening, I reminded him that they could simply go to the “greatest hits” page that I have.

And when Blawg Review #237 hits Chritsian Metcalfe’s property law blog next week, hopefully The Bogeyman will stay home.

Links to this post:

Five Years of Blawg Review
Five years; what a surprise! #1 Legal Underground; #2 Likelihood of Confusion; #3 Appellate Law & Practice; #4 Law & Entrepreneurship; #5 Conglomerate; #6 South Carolina Trial Law; #7 Jeremy Richey’s Blawg; #8 Crime & Federalism

posted by Editor @ April 11, 2010 12:06 AM

Nominations For Blawg Review Of The Year: 2009
Blawg Review is a weekly “blog carnival,” a round-up of links to recent posts from different weblogs on legal topics. Often the review itself is organized around a theme, though it need not be. We were honored with an invitation to host

posted by Patrick @ December 30, 2009 10:18 AM

Blawg Review is like a box of chocolates…
The anonymous and always-enigmatic Editor of Blawg Review (not pictured above) offers a “sampler” of each of the past year’s editions of the carnival of legal blogging in this week’s Blawg Review #244. For obvious reasons I was reminded

posted by Colin Samuels @ December 28, 2009 8:00 PM

Blawg Review #244
Christmas Sampler shared by chinbit on photobucket Blawg Review is the blog carnival for everyone interested in law. A peer-reviewed blog carnival, the host of each Blawg Review decides which of the submissions and recommended posts are

posted by Editor @ December 28, 2009 12:01 AM

If there’s no Blawg Review in Disneyland, can it really be the
One of the pleasures of living in California is the state’s sensible tax policy that one can go to Disneyland about as frequently as one wishes and one’s pocketbook permits. Fortunately, last week was one of those wondrous times when

posted by Colin Samuels @ November 10, 2009 11:00 PM

Not Just Another Content Scraper. Emery Ledger’s Content Scraper
The problem of running a blog that produces, to small small degree, original content about a topic of interest to many laypeople (in our case law) is that one gets so many sincere flatterers. Ordinary spammers are bad enough. though we

posted by Patrick @ November 06, 2009 4:15 PM

Blawg Review #236 – Halloween Edition by Eric Turkewitz
Eric Turkewitz writes a ‘mean’ Blawg Review… and I mean that in the Cowboy Western ‘mean an ornery’ sense…of the word I heard as a child when I was transfixed by Rawhide, Gunsmoke et al. From a Marathon themed Blawg Review,

posted by charonqc @ November 05, 2009 2:16 PM

Bonfire Night @blawgreview
Remember, remember the Fifth of November… quoting Scott Leviant’s Blawg Review #221. So I promised that I wouldn’t dwell on “that blawger,” the author of Charon QC and notorious host of several Blawg Reviews.

posted by Editor @ November 05, 2009 11:31 AM

Halloween Blawg Review
I don’t know if Eric Turkewitz remembers me suggesting he use this one of Hugh MacLeod’s Gaping Void cartoons on the back of a business card for his “blog card”. This week, Eric tries to find happiness hosting his third Blawg Review,

posted by Editor @ November 02, 2009 2:08 PM

Monday Blawg Reviewing
Eric Turkewitz does a bang-up job on a spooky Blawg Review #236 over at his New York Personal Injury Law Blog. Enjoy. You know, blawg reviews are hard. The one we did was exhausting. You have no idea how time-consuming it was for me to

posted by Ken @ November 02, 2009 11:03 AM

Blawg Review #236
Is on a Hallowe’en theme, at Eric Turkewitz’s.

posted by Walter Olson @ November 02, 2009 7:37 AM

Flickr Tweet, Wascally Wabbit
RT @infobunny Why does no one call me pumpkin? Blawg Review #236, hosted by Eric Turkewitz, is a real treat. Note to @Geeklawyer and friends, who celebrated Halloween at the #brightonpissup4, “pissed” also means “angry” to a Yank.
posted by Editor @ October 30, 2009 9:41 AM

 

October 30th, 2009

Monster Energy Drink’s Monstery Conduct – Just In Time For Halloween

Monster Energy Drink’s lawyers seem intent on living up to their product’s monster name. Since I consider frivolous legal conduct to be within my wheelhouse, and this evening being Halloween eve, I thought I would look at the monstery conduct of Hansen Natural, the billion dollar company that makes this brew.

Could this company really have issues in this scary season, or am I just trying to piggy-back a play on names today? You be the judge:

In one act of brilliance, the legal wizards thought it would be a fine idea to send a take down notice to a beverage reviewing website. The site is actually called BevReview.com, making it pretty clear at the outset what their focus is. They reviewed the product. And they trashed it:

The color of the drink was dark yellowish… I guess you could call it amber, but who really knows. Think apple juice with a somewhat red tint. As for the taste, well… it was odd. Think citrus + medicine. Yum! There wasn’t a lot of carbonation (which reminded me somewhat of how Vault is being positioned as a hybrid soda/energy drink). The aftertaste was somewhat bitter, rather acidic. Not really pleasant, to tell you the truth. I actually couldn’t quite place what the heck the flavor actually was. It starts out smooth, and then the aftertaste kicks in and ruins it. (Of course, this might also have to do with the fact that sucralose is listed as an ingredient.)

Overall, the taste was weird and I don’t think I’d want to drink this again.

No problem, right? Except that their chief legal eagle, Darlene R. Seymour tried to scare the crap out of this little web site by threatening them with a lawyer letter. Perhaps she missed the class on that First Amendment thingie. The web site posted the letter, apparently telling Hansen to take the proverbial long walk on the short pier.

And in another attempt at making its name synonymous with evil, the billion dollar company sent a cease and desist letter to the tiny Vermont Rock Art Brewery for trademark infringement for making Vermonster Beer. Hansen thought there might be some confusion in the marketplace, despite the fact that they don’t even make beer.

But that didn’t work out so well either, as the brewer fought back with a viral marketing campaign including a YouTube video hit. The owner went with the Web Defense under the assumption that the legal defense, while clearly winnable, would bankrupt his tiny brewery. So instead of waiting for the economic end game to hit him, he went after the giant.

In one of the great David v. Goliath battles of the web, which ended with a fast win for the brewery, the brewer turned the tables on the mega-monster when Hansen distributors started to boycott Monster Energy. Instead of punishing the brewer with legal fees, Hansen was now being punished with its products being pulled from shelves.

And others chirped in that, by the way, their stuff tastes like camel piss. Welcome to the web, Hansen.

So instead of pounding the brewer into salt, it was Hansen that got pounded. Just check some of these links out:

  • Corporate monster picks on ‘Vermonster’:

    Where are those lawsuit reform groups when you really need them? You know, such outfits as Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse that are always squawking about “frivolous” lawsuits and demanding new laws to prevent people from suing big corporations.

  • Some Kind of Monster: Vermonster vs. Monster:

    All of this got me thinking. I seem to remember a lot of monsters throughout history. These monsters have no problem with Rock Art’s Vermonster or Monster energy drink co-opting their name and hopefully when they call for a jury of their peers, some of them will sit on that jury.

  • A Corporate Monster vs. “the Vermonster”:

    Chance are that you’ve seen ads, letters-to-the-editor, op-ed pieces and other materials put out by outfits with such civic-sounding names on Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. By whatever name, the message is always the same, usually delivered in a sort of urgent, basso profundo voice saying something like this: “Bloodsucking lawyers are constantly filing frivolous lawsuits against beleaguered corporations.

  • MONSTER Mash: Analyzing MONSTER ENERGY v. THE VERMONSTER:

    I would predict an outcome in favor of Rock Art. The fact is, Hansen is far from the first to use or register a MONSTER-formative mark for beverages.

  • Why Monster’s Trademark Claims Against Vermonster Stink

    Hansen’s argument, however, is weak for several reasons. First, why would anyone believe that a product named “VERmonster” — a mark alluding to the state of Vermont — is affiliated with Monster energy drinks? Second, the term “monster” isn’t exactly distinct to Hansen’s energy drink. In fact, we correlate the term “monster” with so many things (e.g., job-searching websites, creatures in Loch Ness, etc.). Third, while some energy drinks have moved into the alcoholic beverage market, none of them have yet entered the beer market. For these reasons, it’s doubtful that Hansen has a viable argument that Rock Art’s “Vermonster” causes a “likelihood of confusion.”

And in a note to the shining legal talents that represent Hansen, you should note that my mockery of your product in the image shown here also falls within the ambit of First Amendment protection. (Both ass sweat and camel piss are, as far as I know, natural products, which you seem to tout in your drinks, so I figured you’d appreciate that. You might also like the trailer for Booty Sweat Energy Drink, but that would require an actual sense of humor.)

Perhaps you think my comments may lead to some confusion in the marketplace as to your actual ingredients. But that’s unlikely, since I don’t presume that readers of this blog are total morons.

I know that I shouldn’t have to explain that to you, and that is should be readily apparent to all lawyers (and in fact, everyone that made it out of high school), but you guys do seem to need a bit of help in that department.

 

October 28th, 2009

Blawg Review – Coming Attractions (I’m next week’s host)


Well, I’m hosting Blawg Review again, this coming Monday. So the floor is now open for suggestions on what to include in this weekly round-up of the legal blogosphere that travels from one blog to another on a week-to-week basis.

As with my 2007 marathon-themed Blawg Review (a long-running hit) and my 2008 Thanksgiving Blawg Review (which I loved writing but which some thought was a turkey), I will not be focusing on personal injury law. Because this is, after all, a round-up of posts from around the legal spectrum, not just my itty, bitty niche.

I’m still scratching my head for how to handle this particular review and what theme to use, so feel free to give me ideas. But you should note that the prior sentence was an outright lie and that I’ve already decided on a theme. It’s my blog, and I’m allowed to do that kind of thing. But send me the tip anyway in case I’m afflicted with the sudden onset of Alzheimers.

To be considered for inclusion you can send an email to [email protected] or go to the Blawg Review site (and read the guidelines) and use the template. Or you can hope that I find your blog on my own as I stumble my way across the interwebs.

Blog post submissions (feel free to submit from any blog, including your own) should be:

1. Interesting to read; and
2. Free of self-promotion and self-aggrandizement. If your post has a suggestion to call you (If you too have driven a car into a pool…) then save yourself the cost of the email as well as the potential humiliation.

Unfortunately, I’m following on the heels of some great reads:

Blawg Review #235 at Counsel to Counsel, focused on posts that dealt with how the practice of law has changed with the Great Recession (and a subject I hit back in August with 10 Tips for Laid Off Lawyers);

Blawg Review #234
at Settle it Now, focusing on a “200 year present” and conflict resolution that is so chock full of links and information it scares the hell out of me as I think about my own;

Blawg Review #233 at Popehat with its tribute to Joshua Norton I, Emperor of the United States of America and Protector of Mexico. What? You’ve never heard of him? Neither had I, but I now consider myself at expert as the review wove in the lessons of our revered 19th century emperor and the modern lessons he brought;

Blawg Review #232 at Solo Practice University, with its tribute to — what else? — teaching;

Blawg Review #231 at Legally Unbound with its focus on Sin City. And lawyers have plenty of issues when it comes to sin;

Blawg Review #230 at Unsilent Partners, which comes at us from two long time blogs (Charon QC and Infamy or Praise) on two continents with its takes on war and peace; and

Blawg Review #229 at Blawgletter with its homage to John Harvard. Yes, that Harvard.

I am so dead. So very, very dead.

 

October 26th, 2009

Medical Malpractice or General Negligence (Part 2)


When I last touched the often imperceptible dividing line between medical malpractice and general negligence, it was because the difference in the statute of limitations was crucial to survival of the case. In that matter, there was trauma to the leg that resulted in death as the patent’s leg slammed into a bed rail. With a statute of limitations of three years for general negligence, but two and one-half years for malpractice, it’s easy to see how this can create litigation. (See: Medical Malpractice (So You Think You Know What It Is?)) A divided First Department decision ensued with Justice Catterson doing a lengthy analysis of the difference in Friedman v. New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center.

The issue arose again last week, now in the Second Department, in Spiegel v. Goldfarb. This time the issue was the legal fee. You see, in New York, the legal fees are substantially lower in malpractice cases than in general liability, as a result of tort “reform” measures in the ’80s. These “reforms” resulted in de facto immunity for many medical professionals, and made it difficult for many victims to found counsel. In addition to a shorter limitations period, the legal fees were cut. Rather than a 1/3 fee, the malpractice legal fee (discussed further in one of my first posts on this blog) is:

30% of the first $250,000 of the sum recovered;
25% of the next $250,000 of the sum recovered;
20% of the next $500,000 of the sum recovered;
15% of the next $250,000 of the sum recovered;
10% of any amount over 1,250,000 of the sum recovered.

In Spiegel v. Goldfarb, the underlying case was a about a failure to diagnose endocarditis, an infection of the heart valves. One of those that settled was a lab. These are the magic words that make up the standard, but they don’t exactly give bright line definitions, which leads inevitably to litigation:

In distinguishing whether conduct may be deemed malpractice or negligence, the critical factor is the nature of the duty owed to the plaintiff that the defendant is alleged to have breached. A negligent act or omission by a health care provider that “constitutes medical treatment or bears a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a licensed physician constitutes [medical] malpractice.” More specifically, an alleged negligent act constitutes medical malpractice when it can be characterized as a “crucial element of diagnosis and treatment” and “an integral part of the process of rendering medical treatment to [the plaintiff].”

The fault for this, of course, is not with the appellate division. Because the difference is often impossible to define. Rather, the solution is doing away with this artificial difference.

Malpractice cases are both more expensive and more difficult to handle. There is no compelling reason that the statute of limitations should be shorter or legal fees lower. If anything, the statute should be longer and the fees should be greater. And that is because many acts of malpractice are not even known at the time they occur (unlike an auto accident) and due to the complexity of the litigation.

There are some occasions, of course, when the reduced legal fee benefits the litigants. Those cases arise when they can actually find a lawyer to take the matter. (Though the 10% legal fee at the top end is often used by insurers in an attempt to drive a wedge between the plaintiffs and their counsel, by creating an incentive to take a smaller settlement because the risk-reward of going forward has become so unfavorable.) For many potential litigants, there is simply no lawyer to be found.

How do I know there is no lawyer to be found? Because I get these types of calls all the time. After I’ve declined the case because of the economics involved, many of these callers tell me that they’ve heard this before from several others that they’ve tried.

Frankly, it’s time New York stopped crapping on the victims of malpractice — and that is what those “reforms” are” — and restore fairness to the law.

 

October 23rd, 2009

Move Over Pants Pearson, Here Comes the Hanes Underwear Lawsuit


Another victory for the tort “reform” movement. Albert Freed wanted to sue Hanes because of a claim that his underwear gaped open and hurt his penis (and he didn’t do anything about it). It’s notable that he represented himself, since apparently no lawyer would have been moronic enough to touch it. (Not the plaintiff–>>)

This spectacularly stupid lawsuit (coming to us by way of Above the Law, where there will no doubt be abundant commentary that is NSFW) had its origins in a two week vacation to Hawaii, and new briefs that the plaintiff’s wife bought for him. He testified that they gaped open at the fly, that this was apparent to him on the second day of the trip, that he got an abrasion, that he did nothing about it for two week, that he didn’t even look at himself, and that some topical ointment cleared the problem up in a day or two when he got home. He brought suit for defectively manufactured briefs.

Previously I’d written about Roy “Pants” Pearson and his $54 million case against a dry cleaner for his lost trousers. OK, pretty much everyone in the world had written about that one. But Freed can now take his place beside Pearson in the pantheon of public humiliation over ill-considered lawsuits. Pearson probably still has the lead here based on the fact that he is an attorney, but still, Freed has given him a run for his money.

Why did Freed do this? I’m going to take a shot at this here: He won the trip as a reward for selling $20,000 of diet products. Yet he weighed 280-290 pounds. Perhaps he thought he could sell anything to anyone.

Why do tort “reformers” like these kinds of nutty suits? Because the corporate-run movement is based on anecdotes and not empirical evidence. If the U.S. Chamber of Commerce trots out a few losers like this, then they think they can make headway into closing the courthouse doors to legitimate suits. It is rare suits like this that make news, not the legitimate suits that are “ordinary” by comparison and that make up the bulk of the cases in the courthouse.

On a final note, you really have to read footnote 3 to the opinion, about the lawyer sitting in the gallery “minding his own business” who was suddenly called as an expert witness, since he was the only male available that was watching the proceedings that was not involved.This was a “prominent” local defense lawyer who was “conscripted” into the proceedings to talk about “penile discomfort.” The court declined to name him, but acknowledged the lawyer was a “good sport” about it.
Opinion via ATL:/Freed-v-Hanes.pdf

Links to this post:

Handling a Products Liability Case on the Fly
I must confess I have never spent a lot of time thinking about men’s underwear. Thus, it never crossed my mind that a products liability case could arise from men’s underwear of any type. Women’s underwear are different.
posted by [email protected] (John Day) @ October 26, 2009 5:46 AM