“Let’s see, where should we build the dangerous fireworks retail outlet?”
“How about right here next to these dangerous gasoline pumps?”
“Perfect!”
University of Memphis law student Ella Hernandez caught this funny juxtaposition on a Florida vacation. (Click on the pic to expand and fully appreciate.)
This picture has the makings of a classic Torts exam question. Just throw in some lightning and a school bus careening out of control.
Taken in downtown Memphis, with the Pyramid building in the background.
I guess one of those little yellow flags at the end might help (and may required by law), but that ladder still looks too long to be taking a ride in such a short truck.
Wonder what’s holding it down inside the truck. Whatever it is, leverage is working against it.
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.
Two 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.
In 2010, the University of Memphis law school changed locations, moving from the main university campus to the magnificent, beautifully restored ($42 million worth) U.S. Customs House downtown on the Mississippi River.
The building is incredible, but as with any new gigantic construction project, quite a few punch-list items remained. Immediately, students started spotting and reporting dangerous premises conditions, which were forwarded to the administration.
This particular condition comprised significant drop-offs without barriers on both sides of the main entry doors.
The administration must have agreed it was dangerous because the concrete planters were in place within two days.
Good fix! The drop-offs were not easily visible even in daylight as you can see in the second picture.
From Tom Walk, Wake Forest University College of Law, Date of event: circa 1980
One of my classmates was in a Marine Corps program and kept his hair in a buzz-cut. One day our Trusts professor called on him to recite a case. After about 30 seconds it was clear that the student had not read the case.
The prof stopped him and said “You are not prepared today, are you”? He responded “I’m sorry, Professor. I washed my hair last night and had to blow it dry.” The sheer ludicrousness of the answer left the professor just shaking his head as the rest of us rolled in the floor laughing.
Spot the Tort isn’t just for lawyers and law students. A layperson was shocked (not literally, fortunately) to find this high-voltage electrical danger smack in the middle of an Atlanta grocery store.
Note to store: Your hidden warning on the back will not protect you from tort liability with regard to your “business invitee” customers. A business invitor has a duty to make the premises reasonably safe for invitees. Sometimes a warning may suffice, but only it if allows customers to negotiate the premises safely.
A lot of negligence questions are murky with no reliable answers, but I feel comfortable predicting that a judge or jury would consider placing these exposed high voltage cables in a place where children often wander freely to constitute an unreasonable risk.
Ironically, getting close enough to read this warning actually increases the risk.
Glittery makeup is good stuff, for Halloween, your next glam band, or just for fun. And you can see how much fun this woman on the packaging is having with it. Go ahead and click on the image to expand it, so you can get the full realization of what an awesome opportunity this stuff presents to have a good time.
But wait, what’s that warning in small print on the back of the packaging?
Do not place glitter near the eye area.
Facebook is creating a quickly growing pile of novel legal issues in a variety of areas. Here’s one of the first to reach a state supreme court: Does a witness’ wishing a trial judge happy birthday on the judge’s Facebook page violate the rules on ex parte communications?
The plaintiff in Onnen v. Sioux Falls Independent School District # 49-5 worked as the registrar for Southeast Technical Institute in Sioux Falls—an entity of the Sioux Falls School District. Plaintiff was terminated from employment in August 2007 due to improprieties relating to the registrar’s duty to verify a student’s compliance with graduation requirements. Among other things, some 28 students had been improperly awarded degrees, while 40-50 students entitled to a diploma did not receive one. The plaintiff appealed the termination. The trial court affirmed the decision and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Among the issues raised on appeal, the plaintiff argued that a “major witness” for the School District had improperly engaged in an ex parte communication with the trial judge by wishing him “Happy Birthday” on the judge’s Facebook profile page. The court held that the trial judge was not required to disqualify himself and that an uninvited and unresponded-to happy birthday greeting on Facebook does not rise to the level of an improper ex parte communication.
I’m assuming the witness (who apparently was a distant relative of the judge) was a Facebook friend of the judge to be able to post a birthday greeting. If so, is that a problem? Some states have rules prohibiting judges from being on Facebook. Is that a free speech violation? An interesting legal question raised by social networking–one of first of what is going to be a long list.
— Onnen v. Sioux Falls Independent School District, Case No. 49-5, 2011 S.D. 85 (2011). Thanks to Professor Roger Baron.
The subject—heart attacks—is not funny, but U.S. Patent No. 6,457,474, issued October 1, 2002, and described as a method of alleviating chest pain, especially from angina pectoris, is amusing or at least interesting. What’s the amazing heart-attack fighting invention? Drinking lime juice.
But, wait, maybe I’m not being fair. Maybe I’m oversimplifying it. Let’s check out the official patent abstract and see:
A method of alleviating chest pain that stems from the heart, which method comprises: (a) noticing a pain in the chest; and shortly thereafter (b) taking an effective amount of lime juice into the body to alleviate the chest pain.
Nope. Guess not. It really is a patent on drinking lime juice. Here’s how the invention works:
In accordance with this invention, a person takes in lime juice after noticing the onset of the chest pain.
Don’t worry if you don’t understand it. It’s a very complex scientific procedure. But let’s at least clear up one other confusing point. What exactly is this secret ingredient? The patent explains:
“[L]ime juice” means lime juice or limeade or any combination that includes the juice of a lime ….
Pucker up because the inventor recommends “drinking at least a glass daily [of lime juice] in non-concentrate form” as a preventative measure.
Sound inconvenient? It’s not. In fact, one of the primary advantages of lime juice as a remedy for angina pectoris over nitroglycerin is that:
Since the juice is regularly stored in the refrigerator or freezer, it can be quickly located by the patient, particularly at nighttime where the refrigerator light plays a helpful role.
— U.S. Patent No. 6,457,474, Oct. 1, 2002. Thanks to David Barman.