Intellectual Property Parody: Don’t Copy My Parental Nagging!

Thanks to Professor Laura Heymann, College of William & Mary-Marshall-Wythe School of Law, for sending along her funny parody of intellectual property law in the form of a cease and desist letter sent from one neighbor to another complaining about infringement of the offended neighbor’s parenting directive to “Eat your frisee salad.”

Laura’s satirization of overly aggressive assertions of intellectual property rights–all too common these days–brought back memories of my Harmless Error column in the ABA Journal, The© Controversy, in which the heirs of a Homo erectus Peking Man cave dweller sought to compel me to cease and desist in using the word “the.”

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

Facebook Friend Suggestion Results in Bigamy Charges

Facebook’s computer algorithms do an amazing–if scary–job of connecting the dots by ferreting out people relevant to one’s life and recommending them as friends. A Washington man and his wife, er, wives, recently learned there are no degrees of separation in a Facebook-dominated world.

The man’s current wife found out he was still married to someone else when she clicked on a Facebook friend suggestion and saw a picture of her husband at his wedding to her new potential Facebook buddy.  This led to felony bigamy charges against the husband.  Wild stuff.

Justia has the story.

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

Warning: Waive Your Legal Rights to Enjoy This Hot Sauce

waiver to consume hot sauceWhat kind of a consumer would voluntarily ingest a hot sauce so dangerous they must first sign a disclaimer/waiver acknowledging ”serious injury can be caused if applied to skin, eyes or and exposed body parts,” and waiving their legal rights in the event of injury, while also certifying they are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of signing? (Click on thumbnail to expand.)

Answer: The only answers coming readily to mind are an unreasonable consumer or one with an asbestos-lined stomach. If this product–a hot sauce manufactured by a burrito company and called, among other names, Smack My Ass and Call Me Sally–is dangerous enough to require a disclaimer before consumption, should it be marketed at all?

The sauce is reportedly 700 times hotter than tobasco sauce and 300 times hotter than a jalapeno.  Looking forward to trying it before my next emergency colon surgery.

But believe it or not, there are much hotter sauces available! The heat of hot sauces is measured in Scoville units. Smack My Ass and Call Me Sally rates at 1.5 million Scoville units.  The hottest sauce, according to a site that tracks these things, is Blair’s 16 Million Reserve, which rates 16 million Scoville units, or 3200 times hotter than a jalapeno.

Is there any other consumable product for which buyers must sign a disclaimer/waiver?

The waiver of rights may or may not be valid depending on the accuracy of the risk information in the disclaimer. If hot sauces of this nature were determined to be “unreasonably dangerous,” the waiver would not be upheld. Every product carries a warranty of merchantability that the product is fit for the ordinary purposes for which such products are used; here, human consumption.

But since several different brands of super-hot sauces exist, maybe they really aren’t dangerous. Maybe the disclaimer is even part of a marketing plan, since boasting the hottest of hot sauces appears to be a selling point.

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

French Artist Specializes in Humorous Legal Paintings

humorous legal paintingsThanks to French artist, Cassou, for introducing herself to Lawhaha.com and sending along a sample of one of her paintings.

She said the world of justice inspired her to “create a judicial series of humorous paintings with tender irony” that she exhibits in courthouses throughout Europe, including, recently, in Antwerp, Bruges, Ghent, Breda, Middelburg, and Maastricht.  This year her work will be displayed at courthouses of The Hague and in Amsterdam.

The pictured painting is called “le juge, un singe?” (the judge, a monkey?).  She explains it this way: “The ape has the reputation of being a caricature of human being, a buffoon. The painting expresses the fear of a citizen that the judge be airy, unconcerned, carefree, thoughtless. But, after all, the ape symbolises wisdom and agility as well.”

the artist CassouShe adds that she is always looking for new hospitable courthouses and would be delighted to exhibit her work in America.  So if you’re a judge or otherwise work in a courthouse that might be interested in exhibiting her art, as we say in the South, give her a holler.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

Some Baby Names May Be Illegal

This article from Time Newsfeed about how some governments make certain baby names illegal is reminiscent of one of our Hall of Fame Strange Judicial Opinions: “Hello, My Name Is … Oh, Never Mind.”

Meanwhile, the article warns that the following baby names have been declared illegal in New Zealand:

“Yeah Detroit”

Twins named “89”

“Sex Fruit”

Good news though! New Zealand will still allow boys to be named “Number 16 Bus Shelter.”

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

Lawhaha.com Cited in the Wall Street Journal

Nathan Koppel of the Wall Street Journal wrote an interesting front-page article about judges who use humor in their opinions, quoting McClurg and citing to Lawhaha.com.

Koppel explored the ongoing debate of whether and to what extent judges should use their written products as avenues for amusement.

What do you think?

Meanwhile, in the article, U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alex Kozinski, a Lawhaha.com Hall of Famer, opined that Canadian judges are too boring and staid. Koppel quoted Kozinski saying: “I like my Canadian colleagues, but, boy, when it comes to reading their opinions, it’s like wading through molasses.”

But that’s not always true.  Koppel cited one example of Canadian judicial humor and we have a couple other good ones here and here.

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

The Santa Claus Lawsuits

Old Saint NickTwo of the most popular Harmless Error columns, Santa Suit (Children of the world sue Santa Claus) and Santa Strikes Back (Santa files his own suit), are featured here for your holiday pleasure.

Caroline Kennedy selected Santa Suit for inclusion in her anthology, A Family Christmas, where it appears alongside works by the likes of Mark Twain, Robert Frost, and Shakespeare.

 

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

McClurg Interviewed in National Jurist Article

The National Jurist, the Magazine for Law Students, interviewed McClurg for an article in the September 2011 issue called The First Year: One Wild Ride, offering tips and insights about that crazy first year of law school.  Check it out here.

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

Best Law Review Article Title

It’s publish or perish in the law professor business, and most of that publishing occurs in law review articles.

Law professors strive mightily to make their law review articles stand out by coming up with clever titles for them. The trick is coming up with a title that is attention-getting, but also descriptive.  This, of course, requires use of the ubiquitous colon, which appears in the vast majority of law review titles. Some law professors look down on colons in law review titles (yes, this is part of the important stuff we actually spend time thinking and talking about) and eschew them, but the result is often a title that doesn’t give a clue what the article is about.

Here’s a top candidate for the best law review article title:

Erik S. Jaffe, “She’s Got Bette Davis['s] Eyes”: Assessing the Nonconsensual Removal of Cadaver Organs Under the Takings and Due Process Clauses, 90 Columbia Law Review 528 (1990).

Oldsters will recall that “She’s Got Bette Davis Eyes” was a smash hit for Kim Carnes in 1981. Originally written by Jackie DeShannon and Donna Weiss in 1974, Carnes took the song to number one on the Billboard charts where it held the top spot for nine weeks.

— Erik S. Jaffe, “She’s Got Bette Davis['s] Eyes”: Assessing the Nonconsensual Removal of Cadaver Organs Under the Takings and Due Process Clauses, 90 Columbia Law Review 528 (1990)

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

Justice Scalia Nineteen Times Funnier Than Justice Ginsburg

study shows Scalia is funniest supreme court justice

Justice Ruth Baeder Ginsburg - Not that funny according to study.

Boston University Law Professor Jay D. Wexler conducted a study of the relative funniness of U.S. Supreme Court Justices. His results were published in The Green Bag and reported in the New York Times.

Wexler’s methodology was to count and tabulate the insertions of “[Laughter]” in transcripts of oral arguments during the 2004 term, when argument transcripts began including the Justices’ names. The results include the conclusion that Justice Antonin Scalia is the Chief Comedian on the High Court, nineteen times funnier than Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Scalia, the study showed, is good for at least one laugh per oral argument. On the other hand, Justice Clarence Thomas, who rarely speaks during oral arguments, received no laughs.

As the New York Times article pointed out, the baseline for laughter in the solemn Supreme Court is fairly low. It’s not likely the same comments would generate guffaws on Comedy Central.

Here are some Supreme Court rib-ticklers quoted in the New York Times article:

[After a lightbulb exploded in the courtroom:]“It’s a trick they play on new chief justices all the time,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who joined the court that month, said of the explosion.

“[Laughter.]”

“Happy Halloween,” Justice Scalia retorted.

“[Laughter.]”

And then, the kicker. “We’re even more in the dark now than before,” Chief Justice Roberts said.

“[Laughter.]”

On the other hand, in a January argument in a statute-of-limitations case, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy made an amusing observation about the absurdity of modern life.

“Recently I lost my luggage,” Justice Kennedy said. “I had to go to the lost and found at the airline, and the lady said has my plane landed yet.”

“[Laughter.]”

That’s gold. Let’s see a sitcom based on the madcap lives of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.

— Adam Liptak, So, Guy Walks Up to the Bar, and Scalia Says …, N.Y. Times, Dec. 31, 2005.

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

Palsgraf Curse?

Palsgraf curse

Cardozo wrote the famous majority opinion in Palsgraf.

Several lawhaha visitors sent in Mark Fass’s article in the New York Law Journal about an alleged curse on the family of Helen Palsgraf, the most famous torts plaintiff in history. Every lawyer remembers Mrs. P from law school. To test this theory, visit an elderly, dying lawyer in a coma and shout “Palsgraf!” Immediately, he will recite: “A man carrying a box wrapped in newspaper boarded a train at the Long Island Railroad Station … cough, cough … ack.”

The box contained fireworks. When it was dislodged by employees of the Long Island Railroad trying to help the man on the train, the fireworks exploded, allegedly knocking a scale onto Mrs. P. Mrs. P’s saga led to the legendary, and incredibly confusing, opinions by Judge Benjamin Cardozo (that’s Cardozo in the picture–handsome fellow he was) and Judge William Andrews studied by students year in and year out at law schools great and small.

Now Fass reports that Mrs. P’s accident began a curse on the Palsgraf family, at least that’s what some of her descendants believe. One descendant fell off a ladder in 1965 and sued the manufacturer, but never made it to trial because the ladder was stolen. Another lost her thumb when a ping-pong table collapsed. A lawsuit led to a small settlement. Another descendent tripped while jogging over a broken curb, but was discouraged by lawyers from filing suit.

The most intriguing Palsfraf mishap reported by Fass involves a descendant who lost control of his truck on an icy hill in 1968. The truck slid towards the edge of cliff. Guess what saved the life of Mrs. P’s closest living relative? The truck’s wheels got caught on a track of … you guessed it, the Long Island Railroad. (Cue Twilight Zone theme.)

— Mark Fass, Palsgraf Railroad Injury Proximate Cause of Family Curse?, New York Law Journal, Dec. 10, 2004.

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

Mrs. Palsgraf is Alive, in the U.S. Supreme Court

PalsgrafAs a Torts prof, I loved this tidbit sent in by Elise Hendrick. Good old Mrs. Palsgraf. You can try, but you can’t keep her down.

Elise was listening to oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Exxon Co. USA v. Sofec, 116 S.Ct. 1813 (1996), and came across the following exchange between George Playdon, counsel for Sofec, and Justice Scalia. The two were engaged in a colloquy about the maritime supervening cause doctrine:

Scalia: I’m not sure that you need a “doctrine of supervening cause.” Is a doctrine of supervening cause anything other than Palsgraf? When you say, you know, that the negligence … the causality … had long since terminated. Once you say you’re out of the scope of the risk, what do you need a doctrine of supervening cause for? And isn’t that basically your case?

Playdon (chuckling): I smile—I never envisioned thirty years ago that I’d have the opportunity …

Scalia: Of arguing Palsgraf!

Playdon (stammering, laughing): Obviously, Palsgraf is a foreseeability doctrine, just like Hadley v. Baxendale is a foreseeability problem.

Elise speculates that this may have been the first time the implausible case of Mrs. P has been mentioned in court since Palsgraf was decided in 1928.

— Thanks to Elise Hendrick.

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email
Andrew J. McClurg
Andrew J. McClurg is a scholar and teacher in the areas of tort law, products liability, legal education, privacy law and firearms policy. He currently holds the Herbert Herff Chair of Excellence in Law at the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law.
Learn more...

Tortland
Tortman! Andrew J McClurg
Tortland collects interesting tort cases, warning labels, and photos of potential torts. Play "Spot the Tort" with Tortman.

Strange Judicial Opinions
The world’s largest collection of oddball and off-the-wall judicial opinions and orders.

Legal Oddities
From the simply curious to the downright bizarre, a collection of amusing law-related artifacts.

Law School Stories
For all its terror and tedium, law school can be a hilarious place. Everyone has a funny law school story. What’s your story?

Harmless Error
McClurg's twisted legal humor column ran for more than four years in the American Bar Association Journal.

Spot the Tort
Have fun and make the world a safer place. Send in pictures of dangerous conditions you stumble upon (figuratively only, we hope) out there in Tortland.

Unusual Warning Labels
Check out this new feature and help it grow. Next time you come across an odd product warning, take a picture of it and send it along.

Weird Patents
Think it’s really hard to get a patent? Think again.

Legal Mythbusters
Weird or funny legal stories that lack documentation annoy us. Help set the record straight about bogus or distorted legal legends.

Legal Education
Collecting any and all amusing tidbits related to legal education.