I’m cutting down the title, since “Law Links” is a tad redundant when it comes to law blog.
Deutsche Telekom sent a “nastygram” to Engadget, requesting that Engadget cease to use to use the color magenta in a trademark-related way.
More on Scientologist intimidation techniques. There is some debate over whether these are actually lawyers, but they are using some well-known firms letterhead.
Posted in LawThe Siegel family, heirs of Superman’s creator, have been awarded the rights to Superman. Via Warren Ellis.
The music industry proposes a music tax on basically every consumer of bandwidth, applied at the ISP level. So if your ISP agrees, you have to pay. Some are calling it a “covenant not to sue” that amounts to extortion.
Where the law stands on virtual property.
Posted in LawI spend a lot of time defending lawyers, but let’s not forget that lawyers who’ve gone over to the dark side are a problem in society, case in point, this article. It is about a young woman with schizophrenia, whose parents are Scientologists. At one point, the staff psychiatrist backs away from the case, concerned because Scientologists are known for suing members of that profession they’ve declared their arch-nemesis.
Posted in LawWell, some are law links. Some are marginally related, in the “legal consequences” or “better get a lawyer” sense of the word.
First, there is apparently a ScotusWiki. The idea of community updated information appeals.
Abuse cases against doctor to be mediated. Questions of fairness aside, this is how mediation should be. Consciously agreed to by parties that are fully cognizant of the issue.
Bell Canada caught throttling ISP’s net connections. I know next to nothing about this kind of law when in the United States, and even less in Canada, but I’ve got to believe there are some heady legal repercussions to selling unlimited internet, then limiting it.
The new BMW M3 sedan is out, and they are quite highly in demand. One dealer put a M3 on eBay, and when the price didn’t reach a level they thought was appropriate, refused to sell it to the winner. The winner has unleashed the internet on the dealership, which doesn’t seem to understand that there a legal contract is formed when one places an auction on eBay.
Following salmonella contamination of the city water supply, at least one family files suit for damages associated with airlifting their child to a hospital.
Some time ago, the internet declared war on Scientology, organizing anonymous protests. Having identified one such protester through Facebook, they dispatch mustachioed men purporting to be lawyers to inform the protester’s parents that he was engaged in “terrorist activity.”
Posted in LawThe NY Times has an article on international resistance to punitive damages, Foreign Courts wary of U.S. Punitive Damages.
Countries like Germany and Italy are often unwilling to enforce U.S. judgments, on the rationale that
private lawsuits brought by injured people should have only one goal — compensation for a loss. Allowing separate awards meant to punish the defendant, foreign courts say, is a terrible idea.
There is some truth to the first part, private loss needs to be compensated first and foremost. But there is a clear reason why that judgment shouldn’t apply in U.S. courts, the regulatory environment of these countries.
Punishments [according to the Italian Supreme Court] should be meted out only by the criminal justice system, with its elaborate due process protections and disinterested prosecutors. It is not fair, they add, to give plaintiffs a windfall beyond what they have lost. And the ad hoc opinions of a jury, they say, are a poor substitute for the considered judgments of government safety regulators.
That’s the rub, other countries, especially European countries, put a high premium on government regulation. See, for example, the old joke that “In the United States, everything not forbidden is permitted, whereas in Germany, everything not permitted is forbidden.” I’d rather not get into a debate about the comparative value of the different approaches to societal organization, except to say that a heavy regulatory environment is contrary to American inclinations. Americans don’t like the idea of criminal prosecutions of corporations, it is difficult to pierce the corporate veil, and regulators are viewed with suspicion.
But if you don’t have the regulation, then you need some other system to protect people, and that system needs the ability to punish. In America, that’s the tort system. As a Canadian Judge put it, while upholding a punitive award, “It’s simply a different policy choice[.]“
Posted in Law, RamblingsTed Frank has scribbled out a screed entitled Lawsuit abuse kills puppies. Hear that world? Lawyers will kill your dogs!
Blogger Rogier von Bakel is furious (via Balko (h/t Slim)) at his local SPCA because they would rather put a dog to sleep than place it with his family with small children. See, they’re worried about getting sued if the dog bites one of the children. von Bakel can’t believe it: he’s even willing to sign a waiver!
His anger is misdirected. The SPCA didn’t kill his dog; trial lawyers did.
I should not be surprised, because the war against lawyers is not the product of logic or reason, or indeed even truth. Linking back to the start of this whole sad situation, this is the un-partisan version of the story. In long form.
First, it was not a puppy, it was a 100 pound St. Bernard. On one level, this is unimportant. What follows is not made better because the dog was older. But let’s call Frank on what he is doing, he is deliberately twisting the facts for maximum emotional effect. We all do it, but Frank twists past the breaking point. Oh, he never claims that this was a puppy, just that TRIAL LAWYERS KILL PUPPIES! Presumably in the dark of night.
Moving on, Rogier van Bakel tried to adopt a dog at a SPCA shelter. He’s basically is told that his application to adopt will be rejected, no matter what he says. Things go down hill from there.
“We will evaluate your application,” she insists, regaining her hauteur only to give the game away again: “Though frankly, your children didn’t seem that interested in the dog.”
What’s this now — she knows our kids better than we do? They should have stormed in shrieking with excitement and dying to hug anything on four legs? Should we tell her that when we asked our four-year-old to make a wish list recently, this sensitive kid with a big heart put “having a dog again” near the top? Nah. What’s the point? This is going nowhere, and maybe we should just skedaddle.
But now, a tall man wearing an SPCA shirt steps forward — we later learn that he is executive director Doug Radziewicz. “You should understand that we don’t know most of these dogs’ backgrounds,” he says. “It’s for everyone’s own good. We want to be sure that adoptions are successful, both from the point of view of the dog and the point of view of the family.”
I think about this for a moment. It sounds eminently reasonable and illogically fishy at the same time. Putting aside for now the disingenuousness of being told to fill out an application that is sure to be rejected, I tell him that two things bother me. Of course the SPCA doesn’t know the provenance of most of the animals it shelters. That’s a given. But to tell families with kids that they can’t adopt a dog whose history is the least bit murky — even a dog that the SPCA itself describes as friendly and affectionate — is, in my book, a disservice to both the families and the animals. And also, I say, I just don’t take kindly to people making unbidden decisions on my behalf, presuming to tell me what’s best for me, my wife, and my kids. Would he?
This goes on for a minute or two: Radziewicz, increasingly irate (as am I, frankly), painting a picture of adopted psycho dogs that sink their teeth into a child and asking how that would “look” for the SPCA; me trying to get him to respond to my two points. Then he cuts me off: “That’s the way we do it. You don’t like it?” His voice now booms with indignation. “Then you should LEAVE!”
Some more words are exchanged, tempers flare, von Bakel leaves. Later, the dog is put to sleep. von Baker is understandably annoyed, blogs, and points out a number of things he finds wrong with the whole situation. Among them, that he is the best judge of what his kids care about, how ridiculous it is to categorically declare all dogs of unknown background unsuitable for children, that his family have adopted dogs quite successfully on two separate prior occasions, how because they have adopted children he and his wife have had to under go much more in-depth examinations of character, and how he is even willing to sign a waiver relieving the SPCA of liability.
But it’s the last that Frank latches on to. Here comes the twisting:
Courts’ failure to recognize the right of parties to contract out of excessive liability means that the SPCA has to protect itself against attorneys, and can only do so if they avoid situations where they might be sued. With 20/20 hindsight, the would-be John Edwards will say to a jury: “The SPCA has placed other dogs that bit small children and has been sued for it, yet they continue to place dogs with small children!”, and demand punitive damages.
There is nothing, nothing at all, in the post that suggests the issue that prevented von Bakel from adopting was the fear of liability. In fact, von Bakel talks about a willingness to sign a waiver, but as far as I can determine that offer was never made, nor was the issue of liability ever discussed with the shelter at all.
Frank wants the issue to be liability, he wants you to think that it was the SPCA so fears lawsuits that they turn away loving families, even though nothing except his world view suggests that. It instead appears, from both posts, that this is a case of small-minded people being granted a little authority and running rampant with it. The implication of the article, and the clear statement of some of the comments, is that a decision had been made in some back room by controlling people.
That’s not all he wants. He also wants to gloss over some inconveniences, like the jury system. Look at the above statement, you get the clear mental image of slick-trial lawyers (handsome ones, like John Edwards, who gets a name-drop for some reason that surely can’t be damning the whole Democratic party by association) demanding punitive damages from juries and that’s it. Of course, for punitive damages to be awarded, the jury has to be convinced that the shelter behaved negligently and ignored their duty of care, and that they behave especially egregiously. Frank has the solution though, take the matter out of the jury’s hands, since we can’t trust ‘em. And we need to alter the whole legal system in the process:
The long-term solution is to insist on elected officials who will appoint judges who respect freedom of contract, and who will pass tort reform measures that put common-sense limits on the power of courts to interfere with every-day activity.
Apparently, convening a jury to determine whether negligence after the fact is “interfering” in day to day activity. Whereas having a legislature throw a blanket limit on juries ever deciding that conduct has gone beyond negligence to truly abhorrent behavior, which is what punitive damages are for, is just fine. I know I much rather would have a legislature make blanket decisions as opposed to people who are presented with all the facts of a case.
What is happening here is that Frank is revealing the contempt advocates of tort reform and mandatory arbitration have for Americans and American justice, respectively. Advocates of this sort feel that you can’t trust juries when they are made up of the average American. Maybe they are too easily swayed by emotion, maybe they are just too dumb, maybe they just hate businesses. Either way, tort reform is about reducing jury power. Of course, it is impossible to sell that to Americans, we believe in our jury system, and we don’t take kindly to being told we’re not smart enough. So tort reforms sell it as trial lawyers preying on the unsuspecting, leaping out to extort people, sometimes killing peoples pets, and conveniently leave out the whole trial aspect of the process.
Looking this over, I realize that this is by far the longest post I’ve ever put up. It is annoying enough to have read this kind of wrongheaded screed, but it gets worse when such screeds are based on clear manipulations of fact.
But who needs facts, when you can claim a lawyer killed a puppy.
Posted in Law, RamblingsAre ebooks property, or just a license to read?
Tips and Tricks from the ABA Techshow 2008.
Can a store stop you on your way out to check your receipt? Via the Consumerist. I personally find this to be a highly annoying practice, albeit not annoying enough to justify raising a fuss. But it is one of many factors that has resulted in my purchasing an Amazon Prime membership and shopping almost exclusively online.
Lastly, via How Appealing, a WSJ op-ed about the upcoming Wisconsin Supreme Court elections. Included not because I agree, but because the opinion takes two shots, one at lawyers for donating some $228,000 to race, presumalby for both side, and the other at the Judge in question for making decisions that benefit individuals and are pro-plaintiff. The juxtaposition is clear, that the liberal judge is being backed by the plaintiff’s bar, so the trial lawyers can continue to turn Wisconsin into a plaintiff’s mecca. Of course, the last time there was a pro-business candidate in the running, the Wisconsin business community donated nearly $300,000 to just one candidate. Oh, and $5,000,000 overall in the 2007 election. But surely it is okay for businesses to donate money to effect the legal system, just not those pesky lawyers.
Posted in LawForget that day in court (the Colorado Law Blog).
The Zen of a winning Litigator.
I’m on spring break, so this is all that I’ve got for you for a few more days. I am taking the time to decompress.
Posted in LawI need to come up with a more clever name for my links. But, until that happens . . .
Law School to Teach Practice of Law. Rarely have I seen a title that is both instantly accurate and evocative, as well as ironically funny.
Advice for Rookies on Their First Time in Court.
Could John Ritter have been saved? It is worth noting that had this happened to some poor guy making $50K, there likely would never be any inquiry, much less litigation, on account of California’s med mal caps.
Posted in Law