Santa Strikes Back

by Andrew McClurg

Uh-oh, Christmas is over and the old man in the red suit decided to retaliate over the lawsuit filed against him by the children of the world. Originally appeared in the December 2001 issue of the ABA Journal.

Santa Strikes Back

BY ANDREW J. McCLURG

Readers may recall that holiday cheer was dampened two years ago when the children of the world filed a class action against Santa Claus (Santa Suit, Jan. 2000). That action remains pending as thousands of judges who have received gifts from the defendant continue to recuse themselves. Now Mr. Claus is fighting back with his own class action:

Santa Claus, Plaintiff

vs.

Children of the World, Defendants.

Complaint

Plaintiff, Santa Claus, aka St. Nick, Kris Kringle and Father Christmas, sues John and Jane Does 1-3 billion and alleges:

1. This is an action for damages and equitable relief.

2. Plaintiff is a jolly old soul engaged in a complex enterprise of global commerce.

3. Defendants consist of the class of all kids in girl and boyland, including infants tender and mild, who have received merchandise from plaintiff over the years without compensation.

4. Recission. Throughout the fall, plaintiff and his employees have met with defendants at various shopping malls and department stores to negotiate contracts for the delivery of goods. Each negotiating session is marked by grossly unequal bargaining power as defendants literally climb on top of plaintiff to dictate their unreasonable demands. (Defendant possesses substantial photographic evidence to support this allegation.)

5. To persuade plaintiff to accede to their demands, defendants employ numerous forms of coercion and intimidation, including but not limited to pitiful pleas, doleful looks, drooling, beard pulling, and high-pitched screaming. Defendants frequently vomit on plaintiff to “seal the deal.”

6. These sessions result in billions of unconscionable contracts requiring defendant to personally deliver trillions of packages on a single evening, to wit, December 24, to every zip code in the world using a costly and inefficient shipping method. As defendants repeatedly emphasize during the negotiations, time is of the essence in performance of each contract.

7. Labor law violations. The only consideration plaintiff receives for his extraordinary services are stale cookies and spoiled 2% low-fat milk. Although he is hundreds of years past retirement age, plaintiff has no 401k plan or other retirement security.

8. Whereas defendants used to be satisfied with little tin horns and little toy drums that go rooty-toot-toot and rummy-tum-tum, they now demand expensive electronic equipment and name-brand athletic apparel. As a result, plaintiff has been forced to lay off his largely unskilled workforce of elves and spend long overtime hours assembling PlayStations® and stitching Swoosh® marks.

9. Reckless endangerment. Contrary to popular belief, it is not fun to ride in an open sleigh, especially at high altitude. It is a terrifying experience. Yet rather than support reforms to improve plaintiff’s working conditions, defendants show callous indifference by seeking to actually increase the hazards with repeated calls to “let it snow, let it snow, let it snow.”

10. Fraud. Each year, defendants induce plaintiff to deliver the subject goods by affirmatively misrepresenting their behavioral status, providing false assurances that they have been good when, in fact, they have been rotten. Upon information and belief, despite receiving ample notice that plaintiff is coming to town, defendants continue to pout, cry and shout.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for damages, equitable relief, and that everyone have a merry little Christmas and happy holiday, despite the fact that he is a little ticked off right now.

Santa Suit

by Andrew McClurg

Santa Suit originally appeared in the January 2000 issue of the A.B.A. Journal. Caroline Kennedy selected it for inclusion in her anthology, A Family Christmas.

Santa Suit

BY ANDREW J. McCLURG

Children’s rights is a popular issue these days. One reason is that it is an impossible issue to oppose. A person can not stand up and say, “I oppose children’s rights.” Such a person would be reviled, especially by children. Of course, in our society we carry everything to extremes. Holiday cheer received a jolt yesterday with the announcement of a new lawsuit:

Children of the World, Plaintiffs

vs.

Santa Claus, Defendant.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, consisting of the class of all children who on or about December 24 were hanging stockings by the chimney with care in the reasonable belief that St. Nicholas soon would be there, sue defendant and allege:

1. This is an action for an accounting, damages and injunctive relief.

2. Upon information and belief, defendant is a citizen and resident of the North Pole, where he maintains his principal place of business. The court has subject matter jurisdiction of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

3. Count I – Breach of Contract. Throughout the fall of 1999, plaintiffs met with agents of defendant at various shopping malls to negotiate the delivery of certain goods on the evening of December 24, for which plaintiffs paid valuable consideration in the form of exorbitant tie-in charges for photographs of the negotiating sessions. Plaintiffs repeatedly informed defendant, through his agents, that time was of the essence in completing such deliveries. As of this date, many of the contracted goods have not been delivered. Other goods were nonconforming and lacked batteries, rendering them of no use of plaintiffs.

4. Count II – Deceit. Defendant fraudulently induced plaintiffs to improve their conduct against their will by misrepresenting that defendant knows if plaintiffs have been bad or good, when, in fact, defendant lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to form a reasonable belief regarding such matters. In justifiable reliance upon these representations, plaintiffs invested substantial labor in not shouting, pouting or crying and at all times relevant hereto were good for goodness sakes.

5. Count III – Infliction of Emotional Distress. On the relevant night, defendant knew or should have known that plaintiffs were snug in their beds with visions of hand-held video games and name-brand athletic apparel dancing in their heads. Despite such knowledge, defendant willfully and maliciously concealed off-brand goods and inherently worthless property such as sweaters and umbrellas in packages that misrepresented their true contents. Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional shock and fright upon opening such packages.

6. Count IV – Trespass and Conversion. Defendant’s implied license to enter plaintiffs’ premises terminated upon his substantial breaches of contract, rendering all subsequent entries actionable trespasses. Once on the premises, defendant exercised substantial dominion and control over an estimated 200 tons of cookies and 44,000 gallons of milk, converting such property and depriving plaintiffs of its beneficial use.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief and an accounting.

Warning: Watch Your Head, British Style

by Andrew McClurg

Low-clearance warnings can help avert unintentional head-banging (as opposed to purposeful head-banging to, say, Metallica).

In the U.S., we shout these warnings (Danger! Watch Your Head!) like we shout everything. But the Brits take a more proper, refined approach, as shown by the sign on the right, taken in a London pub.

The only thing missing is an “Old Chap” at the end, as in “Please Do Mind Your Head, Old Chap.”

Thanks to Pat Crowell.

Hilarious New Book: UnVentional by Tom Giesler

by Andrew McClurg

How do you describe a book that is so original, creative and wacky that the best comparison to it is to MAD Magazine? (Fitting since Al Jaffee, the legendary MAD cartoonist and creator of the fold-in cover, wrote the forward to it.)

We’re talking about Patent Illustrator Tom Giesler’s new book, “UnVentional,” an unhinged collection of bizarre free inventions to save the world. Watch his hilarious trailer for a clearer picture:

[embedyt] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDaCYW6ms-k[/embedyt]

Reviews:

Adam Savage, co-host of Mythbusters: “Tom Giesler has the illustrator’s version of perfect pitch. His drawings perfectly capture the sense of strange adventure inherent in every patent drawing. This book is a virtuoso performance.”

David Rees, author of How To Sharpen Pencils: “Brilliant, hilarious, and weirdly inspiring, unventional will forever change the way you look at objects that don’t actually exist.”

Fernando Cota, former U.S. Patent Office examiner: “Mr. Giesler has, for better or worse, applied the principles of open sourcing to the patent process. His cavalier vision is a world free from patent attorneys, licensing, patent examining fees, and, unfortunately, regard for public safety.”

This would make a perfect, unique gift. Order it on Amazon.

Lawn Darts for the Torts Museum

by Andrew McClurg

[Great News. The Torts Museum accepted my invitation. My lawn darts will be safely displayed in the museum’s “Dangerous Toys” section.]

When I first heard the news about Ralph Nader’s new American Museum of Tort Law, my first thought was, “Awesome! A Torts Museum.” My second thought was, “My lawn darts! They belong there.”

In case you missed the news, the Torts Museum opened last month in Nader’s home town in Winsted, CN. The museum offers a history of American tort law, with exhibits covering everything from the infamous McDonald’s hot coffee case to the even more infamous Ford Pinto exploding gas tank fiasco.

I bought my lawn darts about twenty years ago at a garage sale. Never used. No dirt or even bloodstains. Pristine. I knew it would be selfish for me to keep enjoying them, like hiding a Rembrandt in a private studio.

Lawn darts were banned by the Consumer Product Safety Commission in 1988 on the basis that their risk outweighed their social usefulness. The Commission reported three deaths associated with lawn darts from 1970-1988 and an estimated 700 annual emergency room cases. Then-Commissioner Anne Graham explained the Commission’s risk-utility analysis (which my current first-year students will recognize as Judge Hand’s famous formula for negligence):

What limited recreational value lawn darts may have is far outweighed by the number of serious injuries and unnecessary deaths. This week another child was severely injured by a lawn dart. She is now in critical condition. There are numerous alternatives to lawn darts, and I would urge adults who have lawn darts to throw them away now.

The most amazing aspect of my set of Jarts is that the packaging doesn’t include a single warning.

To the contrary, it touts lawn darts as “The Most Exciting Outdoor Game Today.” No doubt. Nothing like a screaming ambulance to liven up the neighborhood.

Best of all, it was a game for the whole family, except … oops, that missile on the cover appears headed straight for mom!

The Consumer Product Safety Commission’s original notice of the ban “urge[d] consumers to discard or destroy all lawn darts immediately” and instructed them to call the Commission’s hotline if they find any still for sale.

Technology Dangers for Lawyers

by Andrew McClurg

Former student George Carder sent along this tale of caution about technology and client relations:

I was preparing a will for an 87-year-old woman. She and her 67-year-old daughter were meeting with me. I was looking at her previous will, which said she was to be “interned.”

I was thinking that didn’t look right and that the correct word was “interred.” So I pulled out my phone, hit Google and touched the mic button. When I said “interred,” unfortunately, Google didn’t hear the “in” part.

Can you imagine my embarrassment when my phone shouted out the definition of what it thought it heard?

–Thanks to George Carder

Snoopy the Legal Beagle

by Andrew McClurg

Being lifelong fans Peanuts and Snoopy fans, Lawhaha.com is happy to promote a new ebook, Snoopy the Legal Beagle.

Snoopy, Esq. gets into all sorts of antics in these classic Charles Schulz comic strips. After all, what could possibly go wrong with Snoopy running the litigation team?

Spot the Tort: Secure Your Dirt

by Andrew McClurg

Some of the worst “Rolling Torts,” as we call them here at Lawhaha.com, involve folks negligently failing to secure objects being transported on the backs or tops of their cars or trucks.

Not sure whether to give the driver of this truck credit for at least trying to secure this huge loose pile of dirt or demerits for not trying quite hard enough.

Other examples of Rolling Torts are here, here, and here.

Mom Lacks Clarity on Relations with Cuba

by Andrew McClurg

We’ve all seen those funny texts posted on Facebook and elsewhere. Being a skeptic by nature, I assume most of them are made up … but maybe not.

From a good friend in South Florida we get this hilarious text exchange between her and her mom about the historic recent reestablishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba after a fifty-four year gap.

It makes me laugh every time I read it. Lest you think my friend’s mom is not very smart, the contrary is true. She’s a highly educated professional … but obviously not a big follower of politics or world relations.

Meanwhile, I’ve suggested to my friend that she clean up her language when talking to her mother.

Warning: Do Not Touch Warning Sign

by Andrew McClurg

I’ve seen pictures like this on Facebook that were Photoshopped jokes, but this sign warning “Danger: Do Not Touch, This Sign Has Sharp Edges” is the real deal, straight from Auckland, New Zealand.

The friend who captured this image reports that she is not sure whether the sign is a joke or not because it’s attached to another large normal sign. Weird stuff.

Thanks to Lina Lim.