Categories
criminal law

Exceptions to the Animal Fighting Venture Prohibition

By now, the details of Michael Vick’s indictment for dog fighting have been well-covered.  And, since he has agreed to plead guilty, let’s reflect a bit on the offenses with which he has been charged.The Animal Fighting Venture Prohibition, found at 7 U.S. § 2156, prohibits knowingly sponsoring or exhibiting an animal in an animal fighting venture, as well as buying, selling, delivering, or transporting animals for participation in animal fighting venture.So, what exactly is an animal fighting venture? The Code defines this as a fight between at least two animals and is conducted for purposes of sport, wagering, or entertainment. However, an animal fighting venture does not include the use of one or more animals in hunting another animal or animals, such as waterfowl, bird, raccoon, or fox hunting.And, what is an animal? Not you or me, my friend. Animal means any live bird, or any live dog or any other mammal, except man.So, what lessons can one learn from Michael Vick’s misfortune?Fighting Fish. The title says animal fighting venture, but birds and mammals (except humans) is more accurate. Next time, if he must bet, toss two fighting fish into one tank.Release the Hounds. If Michael Vick had to see two pit bulls face off, he should have used one to hunt the other. Two pit bulls – bad. Two pit bulls, one horse, one hunter, one rifle – good. See, there’s no pit bull lobby in Washington. But, once you brandish a rifle with a pit bull, then it’s a Second Amendment issue. “I was just hunting with my pit bull and availing myself of my constitutional right to bear arms.”Planet of the Apes. You can’t pit two chimpanzees against each other, but two humans facing off in the ring is somehow acceptable? We can protect the gorillas and chimps, but we can’t even protect us from ourselves.Boxing Promoter. Michael Vick should have just been a boxing promoter. He could have done all the sponsoring and exhibiting he wanted, just not the messy execution of poor performers. He just picked the wrong animal to back, except we’re not animals.

Categories
consumer law personal injury

Poison Me Elmo

Forbes/Associated Press: Experts Urge Blood Tests in Toy Recall. Parents worried their children may have been exposed to excessive levels of lead in recalled Fisher-Price toys should visit the pediatrician for a blood test, experts said Thursday. 

So, explain this one to me. Toys that contain lead paint that you are not supposed to ingest gets recalled. However, chicken that contains melamine that is intended for human consumption…well, that’s safe. Huh?Anyways, Mattel will be taking a $30 million charge to reflect the cost of the recall, which may seem high. In reality, an American jury presented with a fact pattern showing that a major American toy company exported American manufacturing jobs overseas to cut costs and then imported lower quality Chinese manufactured children toys that contain toxic lead paint without screening for product safety…well, you tell me what the punitive damages award will be. Think the jury will want to “send a message” to corporate America? $30 million product recall looking cheap now?

Categories
admiralty

Treasure Hunt

Last year, Odyssey Marine filed a complaint in rem against a 17th century merchant vessel located at 49° 25′ N, 6° 00′ W. I couldn’t decipher the coordinates either, but I was able to find the location of the wreck through Google Maps once I figured out that 6° W translated to -6°. I knew that the ship was not wrecked near the border between France and Luxembourg.

Categories
Technology

Endangered Species in the Legal System

The Grizzly Bear, Bighorn Sheep and Humpback Whale. Now is a good time to add Doe Plaintiffs to the endangered species list. In Doe 1 et al. v. Ciolli et al., the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants defamed, harassed and threatened them on AutoAdmit, an Internet law school admissions discussion board.Seriously, what’s the point of filing the case as a Doe Plaintiff? When the complaint includes specific phrases with fairly unique combinations of words, someone typing those same phrases into Google can easily retrieve the name of the plaintiffs. Can doe plaintiffs truly be anonymous in this day and age?

Categories
personal injury

WSJ Laments the Lack of Product Liability Laws

Wall Street Journal: China Product Scare Hits Home, Too. China is still at the early stages of developing the type of product-liability and product-recall system that is common in many Western countries, a system that leaves little recourse against companies that flout regulations that are rarely enforced. Product-liability lawsuits, common in the U.S., are rare in China’s legal system.

And, if some politicians have their way, product liability lawsuits will be rare in the U.S. legal system as well. After all, President Bush said, “The cost of lawsuits, relative to countries that we compete against, are high.” [Actually, he should have said the costs—plural—are high, but who am I to pick on the President’s grammar.] Now, the Census tells us that our second largest trading partner is China. So, either we have to gravitate toward their model or they have to move to ours. Which will it be? Who wants diethylene glycol in fresh mint with tartar control?

Categories
personal injury

Atlanta Personal Injury Attorney Endorses Volvos

Ken Shigley: Ford – Volvo divorce in the works?. When Ford acquired Volvo a few years ago, I thought it was quite a mismatch of corporate cultures. Volvo had a reputation for building the world’s safest cars. Ford, on the other hand, sometimes seemed only slightly ahead of Yugo in that regard.

In his observations about the rumored impending split between Ford and Volvo, Atlanta Personal Injury Attorney Ken Shigley notes that both he and his first-born daughter drive Volvos. Who better to tell you which cars are safe than someone who is intimately familiar with the devastating impact that unsafe cars can cause. Now that’s an endorsement.

Categories
Legal Research Technology

Better Than God

Some people worship God, while others believe that Google is God. While Google’s ability to deliver relevant search results appear miraculous at times, Google can miss the mark. For the standard Google web search, I know that Google’s algorithm can be attacked by spammers and made to seem “off.” But, what’s up with Google Maps? Lately, I’m discovering that Google Maps isn’t as accurate as many would assume.Exhibit A: MarylandMarylandSo, when I searched for Maryland, why did Google Maps take me roughly 12 miles to the wrong side of the Maryland Virginia border? Was Virginia a victim of some weird gerrymandering scheme where a narrow 12-mile strip of land was ceded to Maryland? 😉 Surprisingly, Yahoo Maps knows where Maryland is, but no one thinks Yahoo is God.Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. Google thinks Sunrise, FL is about 6 miles off the Florida west coast. But, Yahoo knows that Sunrise, FL is really off the Florida east coast.But, that’s not all. Google places Kensington, CA in San Diego, but Yahoo knows that Kensington, CA is north of Berkeley, CA. I thought that where a city or state was located should be pretty well established. Evidently, Google begs to differ.

Categories
personal injury

Republicans Against Tort Reform

Last week, Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) introduced legislation to prevent children from being trapped or eviscerated by swimming pool drains. The Senator named the legislation after Virginia Graeme Baker who drowned when suction from an outdoor spa drain cover pinned her underwater. Virginia Baker was seven at that time, and was the granddaughter of former Secretary of State James Baker.So, what happens when personal tragedy strikes a Republican family? Do they sue and look for deep pocketed defendants? You betcha. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the trial court’s judgment to dismiss the case against defendants Poolservice Company and Hayward Pool Products, Inc. with prejudice. Their only connection to the tragedy was that they had performed routine cleaning and maintenance on the spa a few days before the drowning. The spa owners did not ask them to perform a safety inspection. Nevertheless, the Bakers sought to hold this business responsible for the death of their daughter. I wonder if the American Tort Reform Association will be holding a fundraiser for the pool cleaners?


Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act (Introduced in Senate)S 1771 IS

110th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1771
To increase the safety of swimming pools and spas by requiring the use of proper anti-entrapment drain covers and pool and spa drainage systems, to educate the public about pool and spa safety, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
 

July 11, 2007

Mr. PRYOR (for himself, Mr. DODD, Mr. STEVENS, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. WARNER, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. MCCAIN, and Mr. COLEMAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation


A BILL
To increase the safety of swimming pools and spas by requiring the use of proper anti-entrapment drain covers and pool and spa drainage systems, to educate the public about pool and spa safety, and for other purposes. 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
    • (1) Of injury-related deaths, drowning is the second leading cause of death in children aged 1 to 14 in the United States.
    • (2) In 2004, 761 children aged 14 and under died as a result of unintentional drowning.
    • (3) Adult supervision at all aquatic venues is a critical safety factor in preventing children from drowning.
    • (4) Research studies show that the installation and proper use of barriers or fencing, as well as additional layers of protection, could substantially reduce the number of childhood residential swimming pool drownings and near drownings.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
    • (1) ASME/ANSI- The term `ASME/ANSI’ as applied to a safety standard means such a standard that is accredited by the American National Standards Institute and published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
    • (2) BARRIER- The term `barrier’ includes a natural or constructed topographical feature that prevents unpermitted access by children to a swimming pool, and, with respect to a hot tub, a lockable cover.
    • (3) COMMISSION- The term `Commission’ means the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    • (4) MAIN DRAIN- The term `main drain’ means a submerged suction outlet typically located at the bottom of a pool or spa to conduct water to a re-circulating pump.
    • (5) SAFETY VACUUM RELEASE SYSTEM- The term `safety vacuum release system’ means a vacuum release system capable of providing vacuum release at a suction outlet caused by a high vacuum occurrence due to a suction outlet flow blockage.
    • (6) SWIMMING POOL; SPA- The term `swimming pool’ or `spa’ means any outdoor or indoor structure intended for swimming or recreational bathing, including in-ground and above-ground structures, and includes hot tubs, spas, portable spas, and non-portable wading pools.
    • (7) UNBLOCKABLE DRAIN- The term `unblockable drain’ means a drain of any size and shape that a human body cannot sufficiently block to create a suction entrapment hazard.

SEC. 4. FEDERAL SWIMMING POOL AND SPA DRAIN COVER STANDARD.

    (a) Consumer Product Safety Rule- The requirements described in subsection (b) shall be treated as a consumer product safety rule issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission under the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.).
    (b) Drain Cover Standard- Effective 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, each swimming pool or spa drain cover manufactured, distributed, or entered into commerce in the United States shall conform to the entrapment protection standards of the ASME/ANSI A112.19.8 performance standard, or any successor standard regulating such swimming pool or drain cover.

SEC. 5. STATE SWIMMING POOL SAFETY GRANT PROGRAM.

    (a) In General- Subject to the availability of appropriations authorized by subsection (e), the Commission shall establish a grant program to provide assistance to eligible States.
    (b) Eligibility- To be eligible for a grant under the program, a State shall–
    • (1) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission that it has a State statute, or that, after the date of enactment of this Act, it has enacted a statute, or amended an existing statute, and provides for the enforcement of, a law that–
      • (A) except as provided in section 6(a)(1)(A)(i), applies to all swimming pools in the State; and
      • (B) meets the minimum State law requirements of section 6; and
    • (2) submit an application to the Commission at such time, in such form, and containing such additional information as the Commission may require.
    (c) Amount of Grant- The Commission shall determine the amount of a grant awarded under this Act, and shall consider–
    • (1) the population and relative enforcement needs of each qualifying State; and
    • (2) allocation of grant funds in a manner designed to provide the maximum benefit from the program in terms of protecting children from drowning or entrapment, and, in making that allocation, shall give priority to States that have not received a grant under this Act in a preceding fiscal year.
    (d) Use of Grant Funds- A State receiving a grant under this section shall use–
    • (1) at least 50 percent of amounts made available to hire and train enforcement personnel for implementation and enforcement of standards under the State swimming pool and spa safety law; and
    • (2) the remainder–
      • (A) to educate pool construction and installation companies and pool service companies about the standards;
      • (B) to educate pool owners, pool operators, and other members of the public about the standards under the swimming pool and spa safety law and about the prevention of drowning or entrapment of children using swimming pools and spas; and

      < /li>

      • (C) to defray administrative costs associated with such training and education programs.
    (e) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Commission for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010 $2,000,000 to carry out this section, such sums to remain available until expended.

SEC. 6. MINIMUM STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS.

    (a) In General-
    • (1) SAFETY STANDARDS- A State meets the minimum State law requirements of this section if–
      • (A) the State requires by statute–
        • (i) the enclosure of all residential pools and spas by barriers to entry that will effectively prevent small children from gaining unsupervised and unfettered access to the pool or spa;
        • (ii) that all pools and spas be equipped with devices and systems designed to prevent entrapment by pool or spa drains;
        • (iii) that pools and spas built more than 1 year after the date of the enactment of such statute have–
          • (I) more than 1 drain;
          • (II) 1 or more unblockable drains; or
          • (III) no main drain; and
        • (iv) every swimming pool and spa that has a main drain, other than an unblockable drain, be equipped with a drain cover that meets the consumer product safety standard established by section 4; and
      • (B) the State meets such additional State law requirements for pools and spas as the Commission may establish after public notice and a 30-day public comment period.
    • (2) USE OF MINIMUM STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS- The Commission–
      • (A) shall use the minimum State law requirements under paragraph (1) solely for the purpose of determining the eligibility of a State for a grant under section 5 of this Act; and
      • (B) may not enforce any requirement under paragraph (1) except for the purpose of determining the eligibility of a State for a grant under section 5 of this Act.
    • (3) REQUIREMENTS TO REFLECT NATIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND COMMISSION GUIDELINES- In establishing minimum State law requirements under paragraph (1), the Commission shall–
      • (A) consider current or revised national performance standards on pool and spa barrier protection and entrapment prevention; and
      • (B) ensure that any such requirements are consistent with the guidelines contained in the Commission’s publication 362, entitled `Safety Barrier Guidelines for Home Pools’, the Commission’s publication entitled `Guidelines for Entrapment Hazards: Making Pools and Spas Safer’, and any other pool safety guidelines established by the Commission.
    (b) Standards- Nothing in this section prevents the Commission from promulgating standards regulating pool and spa safety or from relying on an applicable national performance standard.
    (c) Basic Access-Related Safety Devices and Equipment Requirements To Be Considered- In establishing minimum State law requirements for swimming pools and spas under subsection (a)(1), the Commission shall consider the following requirements:
    • (1) COVERS- A safety pool cover.
    • (2) GATES- A gate with direct access to the swimming pool that is equipped with a self-closing, self-latching device.
    • (3) DOORS- Any door with direct access to the swimming pool that is equipped with an audible alert device or alarm which sounds when the door is opened.
    • (4) POOL ALARM- A device designed to provide rapid detection of an entry into the water of a swimming pool or spa.
    (d) Entrapment, Entanglement, and Evisceration Prevention Standards To Be Required-
    • (1) IN GENERAL- In establishing additional minimum State law requirements for swimming pools and spas under subsection (a)(1), the Commission shall require, at a minimum, 1 or more of the following (except for pools constructed without a single main drain):
      • (A) SAFETY VACUUM RELEASE SYSTEM- A safety vacuum release system which ceases operation of the pump, reverses the circulation flow, or otherwise provides a vacuum release at a suction outlet when a blockage is detected, that has been tested by an independent third party and found to conform to ASME/ANSI standard A112.19.17 or ASTM standard F2387.
      • (B) SUCTION-LIMITING VENT SYSTEM- A suction-limiting vent system with a tamper-resistant atmospheric opening.
      • (C) GRAVITY DRAINAGE SYSTEM- A gravity drainage system that utilizes a collector tank.
      • (D) AUTOMATIC PUMP SHUT-OFF SYSTEM- An automatic pump shut-off system.
      • (E) DRAIN DISABLEMENT- A device or system that disables the drain.
      • (F) OTHER SYSTEMS- Any other system determined by the Commission to be equally effective as, or better than, the systems described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of this paragraph at preventing or eliminating the risk of injury or death associated with pool drainage systems.
    • (2) APPLICABLE STANDARDS- Any device or system described in subparagraphs (B) through (E) of paragraph (1) shall meet the requirements of any ASME/ANSI or ASTM performance standard if there is such a standard for such a device or system, or any applicable consumer product safety standard.

SEC. 7. EDUCATION PROGRAM.

    (a) In General- The Commission shall establish and carry out an education program to inform the public of methods to prevent drowning and entrapment in swimming pools and spas. In carrying out the program, the Commission shall develop–
    • (1) educational materials designed for pool manufacturers, pool service companies, and pool supply retail outlets;
    • (2) educational materials designed for pool owners and operators; and
    • (3) a national media campaign to promote awareness of pool and spa safety.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Commission for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012 $5,000,000 to carry out the education program authorized by subsection (a).

SEC. 8. CPSC REPORT.

    Not later than 1 year after the last day of each fiscal year for which grants are made under section 5, the Commission shall submit to Congress a report evaluating the effectiveness of the grant program authorized by that section.
Categories
Uncategorized

Juror Blogs

Kevin O’Keefe noted that a California Court of Appeals had vacated a judgment in a case where a juror failed to disclose that he was an attorney. He also blogged about the case while it was pending.Here’s the decision: People v. McNeely. In this case, a jury had convicted McNeely of residential burglary, grand theft, and receiving stolen property. The defendant had a distinguished resumé. With 11 prior prison term convictions, he wasn’t merely a “Three Strikes” candidate. He had more than enough strikes to fan the whole side, and then some. And the appeal? Besides the blogger issue, the defendant contended that his convictions must be reversed because the trial court denied him his right to self-representation and also removed him from the courtroom (in part for feigning a seizure). You can draw your own conclusions about defendants who seek to represent themselves and end up having to be removed from the courtroom. Judges in a different state usually add the words “harmless error” in cases such as these.So, after the verdict, the defendant’s counsel learned that a Juror No. 8 had blogged about the case while it was pending. The defendant then sought an order disclosing juror names and information to assist him in moving for a new trial, in part because the statements indicated the juror had lied during voir dire, and also revealed the jury reached its verdicts through a compromise and not through a unanimous decision on the evidence and merits of the case.So, who is Juror No. 8?

Juror No. 8, who ultimately became the jury foreman, advised the court he was a project manager for a technology company. He did not mention that he was a licensed California attorney who had practiced immigration law out of a separate office listed with the California State Bar, and who, at the time of trial, was still using that office and spending approximately five percent of his time counseling an attorney colleague on some “lingering cases” Juror No. 8 had handled. Nor did Juror No. 8 disclose that he had held his present position for only two months, and was formerly one of the company’s attorneys. At an evidentiary hearing, Juror No. 8 testified that in his current employment he acted as a liaison between his employer and its outside counsel; was involved in reviewing, drafting and editing contracts for the company; dealt with outside attorneys and investment bankers as a “special assistant” to the company’s board of directors; filed trademark applications; and spent 10 percent of his time “in an in-house counsel role” representing foreign employees of the company in immigration matters. He also testified that he spent about 20 percent of his time involved with legal documents, explaining, “I’m a lawyer who got thrown into an engineering business at the invitation of the president of the company.” None of these facts had been disclosed during voir dire.

Seriously, if you want to know whether potential jurors are attorneys, just ask them. Juror No. 8 isn’t the only lawyer in California to assume both business and legal roles within a company. Nowadays, a lot of lawyers work for companies where their job title do not carry the traditional “general counsel” designation.Being a bit curious, I tried to figure out the identity of Juror No. 8. Google did return a matching search result when I looked searched for a sentence from the juror’s blog post.

Same, and Different (Jury Duty, Part III)6 Mar 2006 by RussThe effort to piece the evidence together began. The bailiff deposited the trial exhibits, including blown up photographs, a mug shot of Donald the Duck, and one Hyatt parking paystub in the center of the table. …Blog A – http://www.frw.net/index.php?blog=2

Unfortunately, the blog post had been removed, but you can find the owner of the domain via whois. And, if you run an attorney search from the State Bar of California web site, you will only find one San Diego attorney that has the same name as the owner of the website. Sure, the name may not be an identical match, but I’m thinking that the domain name is his initials. Didn’t need a court order to figure this one out.

Categories
legal marketing

Jack of All Trades

Seth Godin spotted this blog post on specialization. If you have a law firm web site or blog, you should take his advice to heart. While for a large law firm, the breadth of practice areas may demonstrate size and strength, for a solo or smaller practice, someone that visits your web site or blog may think you are spreading yourself too thin. Can anyone really be a specialist in 3 or 4 practice areas? You want to project to a potential client that you really are a master of divorces of he is seeking a divorce, or a master of copyright if he has a copyright issue.