In my Products Liability course, we have “Stupid Warning Day,” where each student is required to bring in an unusual warning label. When I was teaching at a law school in San Francisco, a student brought in this warning for a set of “Lock Up Your Lover Furry Handcuffs.”
It’s actually a pretty good warning though:
WARNING: Place an extra key in a safe place to avoid unnecessary discomfort, embarrassment and any need to call a locksmith or a police officer.
… 50 yards from a preschool.
University of Memphis law student Leighann Ness sent this picture of a water-filled hole a stone’s throw away from the Nashville preschool attended by her daughter.
Meanwhile, while awaiting corrective action, we can all rest easy that this ribbon of yellow tape will effectively protect nearby toddlers and others.
Leighann reported that her non-lawyer husband is the one who actually spotted the problem. As I always say, Spot the Tort is a game for the whole family.
Sounds like a warning one might expect to find on one of the Weasley twins’ products in the Harry Potter franchise, but this disclaimer on a pack of incense comes from the Muggle world.
First, the incense promises a magical world of mystic knowledge and ecstasy, but the small print at the bottom takes it all back:
Sold as curio only, no magical effects are guaranteed.
To which they might want to add:
If you’re experiencing magical effects, it’s probably not from the incense, but from that other product you’re using the incense to cover up.
McClurg’s popular legal humor column, Harmless Error: A Truly Minority View on the Law, ran monthly on the Obiter Dicta page of the American Bar Association Journal, the official magazine of the American legal profession, from September 1997 to December 2001 for a total of fifty columns. Browse all Harmless Error columns.
Harmless Error tackled a wide variety of both pressing and purely ridiculous issues from a legal point of view most frequently described as “twisted.” Sampling of reader praise.
• Historical retakes on classic cases such as Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. and Hadley v. Baxendale (Palsgraf Uncovered and Hadley’s Reprise).
• Lawsuits against and by Santa Claus (Santa Suit and Santa Strikes Back).
• Harry Potter’s tortious victimization at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry (Hogwarts Torts).
• A reimagining of the lyrics to the Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s album from John Lennon’s legal point of view (Yeah, Yeah, Yeah).
• Chin shots to monopolistic industries like managed health care (Heal Thy Self), insurance companies (Insurance Deterrence), and the cable industry (Cable Cartel).
• Legal protection for the heart (Cupid’s Covenant, My Phony Valentine).
• And, of course, the dramatic struggles of America’s favorite little litigator, Suzy Spikes, as she fought oppression by The Man. (Sentencing Suzy, Suzy Assumes the Risk, Suzy’s Re-dress, Suzy’s Breach, Suzy’s Soulmate). Read more About Suzy Spikes.
| 1. On Shelley’s Case (Oct. 1997) |
26. Say What? (Nov. 1999) |
| 2. 100 % Guarantee (Nov. 1997) |
27. Tot Tech (Dec. 1999) |
| 3. Please, Mr. Postman (Dec. 1997) |
28. Santa Suit (Jan. 2000) |
| 4. The Comma (Jan. 1998) |
29. Cupid’s Covenant (Feb. 2000) |
| 5. Sentencing Suzy (Feb. 1998) |
30. Cable Cartel (Mar. 2000) |
| 6. Perpetually Clueless (Mar. 1998) |
31. Cellular Rights (May 2000) |
| 7. Matter of Form (Apr. 1998) |
32. Ruff Justice (June 2000) |
| 8. Dog Daze (May 1998) |
33. eLawrealcheep.com (July 2000) |
| 9. Canned Sincerity (June 1998) |
34. Suzy’s Breach (Aug. 2000) |
| 10. Hadley’s Reprise (July 1998) |
35. Campaign Refinancing (Sept. 2000) |
| 11. Hep Catalogs (Aug. 1998) |
36. Rocket Science (Oct. 2000) |
| 12. Suzy Assumes the Risk (Sept. 1998) |
37. Hogwarts Torts (Nov. 2000) |
| 13. Agreeing to Disagree (Oct. 1998) |
38. Really Intellectual Property (Dec. 2000) |
| 14. Conquering Renters’ Blues (Nov. 1998) |
39. Palsgraf Uncovered (Jan. 2001) |
| 15. Fowl Play (Dec. 1998) |
40. My Phony Valentine (Feb. 2001) |
| 16. Legal Hoopholes (Jan. 1999) |
41. Insurance Deterrence (Mar. 2001) |
| 17. Hold Your Fire (Feb. 1999) |
42. Suzy’s Soulmate (Apr. 2001) |
| 18. Accidents Happen (Mar. 1999) |
43. Hair Piece (May 2001) |
| 19. Short Subjects (Apr. 1999) |
44. Reference Work (June 2001) |
| 20. Frequent Crier Miles (May 1999) |
45. Bad Law (July 2001) |
| 21. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah (June 1999) |
46. The© Controversy (Aug. 2001) |
| 22. Contract Sports (July 1999) |
47. Oil Fume (Sept. 2001) |
| 23. Hiring Squeeze (Aug. 1999) |
48. For Children’s Sake (Oct. 2001) |
| 24. Heal Thy Self (Sept. 1999) |
49. Return to Vendor (Nov. 2001) |
| 25. Suzy’s Re-dress (Oct. 1999) |
50. Santa Strikes Back (Dec. 2001) |
“I was laughing so hard people near my office thought I was crying.” — Sherry Cooper
“I have to tell you that in 38 years of perusing the ABA Journal I never have laughed as much as I did when I read your item on Canned Sincerity. I was laughing so hard that tears came to my eyes.” — Joe Frank
“Beyond superb, beyond funny … absolutely, positively, stupendously magnificent!” — Sheldon Finkelstein
“Laughed myself silly.” — Denise Sangster
“Your Hep Catalogs piece in the ABA Journal is the funniest thing I have come across in ages. I laughed until I cried. Thanks for brightening my day!” — Kent Schneider
“You are the Dave Barry of our profession.” — Charles R. Crawford
“It has been a long time since I read anything as funny. Thanks for the laughter.” — Cooka Hillebrand
“It’s a rainy cold Sunday … No one else is in the office and it’s a good thing because I am howling with laughter. This column is your best ever!” — Dianne Dailey
“I loved your piece on A Civil Action. I read much of it aloud to my Civil Procedure class. They howled.” — Gerry Hess
“When I receive the ABA Journal the first thing I always flip to is Harmless Error. I am a third-year law student and I have been religiously reading Harmless Error since I began law school. Keep up the humor! In the law we definitely need to see the lighter side.” — Erin Eckert
“The Rule Against Perpetuities moved me to tears on more than one occasion while a law student, but your column actually moved me to tears of hysterical laughter. Thanks for the welcome break from the insanity.” — Michelle Katz
“Just read your article in the ABA Journal!!! I laughed so hard—the best laugh I’ve had all summer!” — Deborah K. Comini
“I am an attorney who has been practicing for almost 20 years. Your article was hilarious. What a great way to start my day. Thanks!” — Barbara Burnett
“Your article regarding the mailbox rule was hysterical.” — J.L. Kessler
“You’ve really got a gift for writing in a way that slides right through the brain and goes straight to the funny bone. Thanks for all the giggles.” — Jacquie Brennan
Apparently, it’s not as hard to get a patent as people think:
U.S. Patent 4,022,227 is a patent for a “Method of concealing partial baldness,” described more particularly in the abstract as “[a] method of styling hair to cover partial baldness using only the hair on a person’s head. The hair styling requires dividing a person’s hair into three sections and carefully folding one section over another.”
It even comes with diagrams:
Yep. It’s a valid U.S. patent for the dreaded “comb-over.” We’ve all witnessed the results of this amazing invention, which works so effectively that no one notices the baldness, provided they are sight-impaired and at a distance of more than 200 yards.
— U.S. Patent 4,022,227, May 10, 1977. Thanks to David Barman.
Do have a dog? Do you like to take it for walks? Do you feel it’s your moral and social responsibility to clean up after it? Are you skilled at playing lacrosse?
If your answer is yes to all of the above, then the invention protected by U.S. Patent 7,090,268, Aug. 16, 2006, is the perfect dog-walking accessory for you.
As described in the patent application, the invention is “a simple portable device which allows the dog’s owner to catch and hold the dog waste in a plastic bag before it comes in contact with the ground or grass without bending over.”
Basically, the invention sounds like kind of a lightweight lacrosse stick that you use to catch dog feces in. But just as in the real sport, you have to be quick on your toes to use this baby effectively. As the patent explains: “As soon as the dog shows a motion to excrete, this device is … placed underneath the dog’s bottom and catches the dog waste, thus preventing the soiling of the ground or grass.”
Is it a good invention? Darn right it is. As everyone knows, “[d]ogs tend to excrete while they are walked” and “[o]nce the droppings fall on the ground or grass, it is difficult to collect them completely, especially when they are loose.” Which, of course, is why many dog owners prefer to leave it to their neighbors to deal with.
This sounds like a good invention, although I’m not sure the dogs are going to sit still for it.
— U.S. Patent 7,090,268, Aug. 16, 2006. Thanks to David Barman.
That’s apparently what the inventors of the “non-lethal gamecock sparring match” and equipment are trying to sell. And they got a patent for it: U.S. Patent 6,928,960, Aug. 16, 2005.
With this invention, each fighting bird is fitted with a protective vest carrying sensors that send a signal to an electronic scoreboard each time they are pecked or clawed. The talons of each gamecock are also “covered with a protective device,” and their beaks are “taped shut.” Sounds very comfortable.
The “background” of the invention explains it was designed to remedy a “cultural clash of values” pitting aficionados of gamecock fighting (which the inventors assert is an accepted and enjoyable form of entertainment in Latin and Asian cultures and many U.S. states) against those who object to the birds being killed or injured.
The patent description reminded me of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer’s rooster, named “Little Jerry,” was about to become embroiled in cock-fighting because of a bad check Big Jerry wrote at the deli. Seinfeld’s explaining that cock-fighting is dangerous and that Little Jerry could get killed. Kramer says something like, “I thought they wore little gloves and helmets!” Well, now they might.
— U.S. Patent 6,928,960, Aug. 16, 2005. Thanks to David Barman.
Special thanks to Senior Judge James Barlow, from San Antonio for all the classic stuff he has sent to Lawahah.com. Here’s a distinguished jurist who not only appreciates a good laugh, but possesses a lifetime collection of legal humor treasure. He’s sent along a lot of gems not available elsewhere. Here’s an interesting one:
Apparently because he was the only person in the family with a driver’s license, a man (a lawyer, apparently) was ordered by a Giles County, TN, chancery court to shuttle two kids of divorced parents back and forth during periods of visitation.
But the involuntary driver–“intervenor” in the pleading below–filed a petition to relieve him from the transportation duties in the best interests of the children on that basis that “Friday afternoon by 1700 hours, and particularly on Sundy [sic] by the same time, your intervenor, generally has consumed three or more beers,” and that, as a consequence, he will “register .15 or higher on any cop’s ‘Get’m’ scale.” (The copy of the petition bears the clerk’s file stamp (May 13, 2002), and appears to be authentic.)
Further, he said he didn’t know how to operate child seats or the seatbelts in his “pickity-up truck.” Children, he asserted, should not be subjected to such danger.
Whether or not you sympathize with the intervenor, it’s hard to deny his sincerity (original typos left in):
IN THE MATTER OF WHITE VS. WHITE
IN GILES CHANCERY
NO. 2196
INTERVENING PETITION
Comes the petitioner, Wm. Travis Gobble, who professes to be greatly aggrieved by the order of this court … whereby your intervenor was ordered to provide transportation for Suzanna and ‘Log-Jam’ White, minor children of Derrell and Chrysty White, during periods of visitation between the said parties, in the following particulars:
1. Your intervenor is the only damn one in the family with drivers licenses.
2. He should not be required to risk losing his.
3. On Friday afternoon by 1700 hours, and particularly on Sundy by the same time, your intervenor, generally has consumed three or more beers.
4. Three, or more, beers according to all the clients your intervenor has represented causes a driver to register .15 or higher on any cop’s “Get’m” scale.
5. According to MADD mothers, any driver who has consumed three beers, whatever he registers, is drunk and a menace to society.
6. Small children should not be subjected to such danger.
7. In addition thereto, your intervenor drives a small pickity-up truck with only two seat belts, neither of which he can make operable.
8. The two children are of such a size that both must be bundled inside a device resembling and over-sized football helmet. Your intervenor has tried, but has been unable to date, to secure said children into such a device.
9. In any event, he, two children and a fourth person would crowd his little truck.
10. In the event your intervenor elected to have a fourth, or a fifth beer enroute [sic] ith said kids, he would have no place to sit said cans and would have to drive one-handed.
11. The kids themselves would be a further distraction.
12. A distracted driver is a dangerous driver.
13. Without a fourth person to assist him, should minor children commence to cry, a common occurance [sic], your intervenor would surely drop his beer and wreck.
…
16. As the common carrier, your intervenor would be trown into regular contact with both parents and subjected to all the
allegations hurled from both sides. Your intervenor is too old to suffer such.
FOR ALL OF WHICH Wm. Travis Cobble respectfully moves this Honorable Court to assign said duties to some other caring soul.
— In the Matter of White v. White, Giles County, Tennessee, Chancery Court, No. 2196, filed May 13, 2002. Thanks to Senior Judge James Barlow.
Kentucky Judge Martin J. Sheehan was happier than a pig in … on second thought, we won’t try to imitate his unusual judicial writing style here. But he was darn happy that a case settled. How happy? Let’s hear it from him:
And such news of an amicable settlement having made this Court happier than a tick on a fat dog because it is otherwise busier than a one legged cat in a sand box and, quite frankly, would have rather jumped naked off of a twelve foot step ladder into a five gallon bucket of porcupines than have presided over a two week trial of the herein dispute, a trial which, no doubt, would have made the jury more confused than a hungry baby in a topless bar and made the parties and their attorneys madder than mosquitoes in a mannequin factor [the jury trial is cancelled].
Glad you’re pleased, Judge!
— Kisel v. Schwartz & Maines & Ruby Co., Case No. 09-CI-00165, Kenton Circuit Ct., Ky, Jul. 19, 2011. Thanks to Mary Mulherin, Andrei Bogos and others.
Ol’ Frank Zotter happened upon this little ol’ case and we reckon we’re mighty glad he did.
In State v. Knowles, the Missouri Court of Appeals, a good ol’ bunch of guys and gals from over in them parts, took up an appeal where the trial judge had tossed out a criminal information for receiving stolen property. Well, shucks, we’ll just let the court tell y’all about it:
Old Dave Baird, the prosecuting attorney up in Nodaway Count, thought he had a case against Les Knowles for receiving stolen property, to-wit, a chain saw, so he up and files on Les.
Now Les was a bit impecunious, so the judge appointed him a lawyer, old Dan Radke, the public defender from down around St. Joe. Now, Dan, he looks at that old information and decides to pick a nit or two, so he tells the judge that the information old Dave filed against Les is no good …. Dan says Dave charged that Les “kept” the stolen chain saw and that’s not against the law. You don’t commit that crime by “keeping” the chain saw, says Dan; the law says you commit the crime of “receiving” if you “retain” the saw, and that’s not what Dave charged Les with, and the judge should throw Dave out of court. And that’s exactly what the judge did.
But old Dave was not having any of that. No, sir! …
Bystanders could plainly see the fire in old Dave’s eyes. He was not backing down. Sure. Dave could simply refile and start over with a new information by changing only one word. Strike “kept”; insert “retained.” But that is not the point. Dave knows he is right.
And so he is.
So we’ll just send the case back to Judge Kennish and tell the boys to get on with the prosecution.
— State v. Knowles, 739 S.W.2d 753, 754 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). Thanks to Frank Zotter.