The Problem with Case People

Humans seem to be a relatively hardy species in general. We live all over the world, from people roasting at the equator, to the hardy scientists who spend their time drilling ice cores in Antarctica. But if all you read about human nature came from my Torts book, that sense of humanity's strength would be sorely lacking.

Case in point: Bonkowski v. Arlen's Department Store (1962). Mrs. Bonkowski was a patron of Arlen's Department Store in Saginaw, Michigan. Arlen saw that there was some costume jewelry missing, and sent the security guard to talk to Mrs. Bonkowski, to see if she had stolen anything. She emptied her bag, her purse, and showed her reciepts, the guard was satisfied that she hadn't stolen anything, and sent her on her way. Admittedly, this sucks a bit. It's generally uncool to be hassled for something you didn't do. But Mrs. Bonkowski took this to a whole new level, claiming the incident had left her with "various psychosomatic symptoms, including headaches, nervousness, and depression." I mean, what an utter load of crap. There was no force involved, and this took probably no more than fifteen minutes out of her day. Yet a jury awarded her nearly $$44,000. And this, friends, is why I could never be a defense attorney.

May all your hits be crits,
B

In Defense of Patriotism

I know that, especially recently, patriotism has gotten kind of a bad rap. As Chuck Klosterman proved in a relatively informal poll used in one of his books, a woman who is perfect in every regard and patriotic is seen more negatively than a woman who is merely perfect in every respect. I don't really blame people for this; this country has played a lot of us for fools, and has out-and-out screwed us on a whole bunch of issued.

However, in the arena of sports, there is nothing more exciting than patriotism. I have no particular love for swimming, track, or gymnastics normally, and I think curling is just downright ridiculous. But put an athlete in any of these sports in a USA uniform, playing against other countries, and I automatically get psyched.

Now, this shouldn't be new information, and I'm reasonably sure that everyone feels this way at least to some degree. But the reason that I bring this up is the Ryder Cup. I HATE watching golf. I think it's as interesting as watching paint dry, and not nearly as important (paint doesn't come out of clothes, no matter what you do.) But the fans there are getting psyched, and I found myself getting excited too. In fact, since I've gotten home, the Ryder Cup has been the background noise for my ConLaw reading, and I've found myself occasionally switching my computer to watch the live feed. So, I guess what I want to say is GO USA GOLF!!

May all your hits be crits (and land within 3 feet of the hole),
B

Proof That the Law was Written By Men

First case: Reed v. Maley, Kentucky, 1903. The court claimed that soliciting a woman for illicit intercourse is not only not an assault, but also isn't actionable for infliction of emotional distress. The court claimed this was because, apparently, "there's no harm in asking." Score one for the Y chromosome.

Second case: American Airlines v. Ulen, 1949. Woman is in a plane crash, suffers a fractured collarbone, broken ribs, torn ankle ligaments, and a concussion. She sues the airline, and she wins. However, her husband also sues the airline, claiming damages stemming from "medical and other expenses resulting from his wife's injuries and for loss of her services." You gotta love that one: "my wife can't service me, I've suffered damages." He ended up winning 2,500 dollars. According to the good folks at measuringworth.com, and using the Consumer Price Index, that would be worth $21,733.96 today. To put that in "service" terms, that's seven hours with a seven-diamond prostitute, and nearly an entire day with the kind of girl that took Eliot Spitzer down. Giggedy Giggedy Goo...

May all your hits be crits,
B

Worst. Job. Ever.

The case is Brandenberg v. El Al Israel Airlines. The plaintiff, a 72-year old Jewish grandmother, claims that two airlines were negligent by not treating her with particular care during her travels. This doesn't seem too bad up front, but at the deposition, despite the fact that she could not remember the sequence of events that she's claiming constituted the airline's negligence, she was very clear on the fact that they had done her wrong.

At the deposition, the attorney for British Airlines (the other airline being sued) asked her (among other things):

1. Do you know of any factual basis to support your allegations?
2. Can you tell me in your own words what the basis of your claim is?
3. Did British Airways do anything to you that was not in accordance with the way you thought you should be treated?

Plaintiff declined to answer all of these. Now just imagine being the British Airways lawyer giving the deposition. You have an angry, crotchety, completely uncooperative Jewish grandmother across from you, refusing to answer any of the questions that are essential to the ability to form a defense. I don't know about you, but I'd be rueing the day I first picked up a law book if I was him.

In other news, I made a kitty friend. This is gonna be crucial...

May all your hits be crits,
B

Quick Pre-Bed Observation

So, I'm quest-grinding a bit before bed, as I wasn't particularly sleepy for some reason and I am sent to collect 20 spider eyes. The first spider yields one eye, so I assume the other was burned beyond recognition and/or usefulness. This is a relatively common WoW occurrence, and I didn't think much of it. At least, until my second kill. This spider dropped 3 eyes. Now, there are a few things that came to mind here:

1. There is something freaky in the water in Azeroth. I mean, shit is being born with more eyes than they should have. I might get this checked out, but while I do so, please only drink Conjured Water. Trust me.
2. There is some sort of barter system going on between the spiders. I don't know exactly what they would be trading for; spiders are not known for a system of private property per se. However, it seems to make sense that they would trade their eyes. I mean, it would be a relatively useful commodity to have an extra eye. Maybe some higher level economic analysis is in order.
3. Eye Thievery!!!! Ow.

I guess I'll ponder that while I go to bed. On second thought, maybe not...

May all your hits be crits,
B

The Use of Firearms

So, the case of the day involves a cocaine dealer from Florida. He trades an MAC-10 for some cocaine in a sting operation, and the court has to decide whether or not this constitutes "use of a firearm in a drug deal." Marie intially said that you have to discharge the weapon, but quickly changed her mind when I told her that this would align her with Justice Scalia. Really, as far as liberals are concerned, the man might as well be Satan.

The Court decided that there are a whole bunch of things that all could be considered "use." Which leads me to question, if the firearm is involved at all, is it considered use? If for example, you want to impress your drug dealer friends by shooting your gun at targets before they sell you the drugs, is it use? How about if you juggle firearms in order to pass the time until the drugs get there? Is that use? How about if you're a sword swallower, except with guns, and you choose to eat your gun during the drug deal? Is that use? Oh guns, useful in so many ways...

May all your hits be crits,
B

Law School & PhD Progress

The first week of law school is over, and I'm still alive. Alive, but with plenty of work to do. The case of this week involves Mr. Sapp, a Western Union agent who reached out to touch the hand of a married customer, "coupled with a request that she come behind the counter in defendant's office, and that, if she would come and allow Sapp to love and pet her, he "woud fix her clock."

Oh lord, where to begin? First, he wants to "love and pet her?" She's not a cat, or maybe he's a furry. And what kind of man desires nothing for himself? The guy doesn't even ask for a kiss. Bizzare. On the final clause, I only have one thing to say: Bow Chicka Bow Wow. If I was a woman, I'd have no idea what to do if a man asked to "fix my clock." I'd have some basic idea of what he wanted if he asked to fix my plumbing or check my engine, but fix my clock? Quite the pickup line. Good attempt, Mr. Sapp.

Second is a question: What would be your dissertation topic for a PhD in Horribleness? I mean, you need to write a dissertation to get a PhD, but what would your course of Horribleness study lead you to write about? I was thinking something along the lines of "The Effect of Bush's Foreign Policy on Contemporary Definitions of Horribleness." If there actually is anyone who reads this, any thoughts?

I guess last, and most importantly, in approximately 8 hours, I will have been born exactly 22 years ago. I've never spent a birthday so far away from so many people that I both care about, and who have made the last 21 years 364 days so enjoyable, Marie and my family above all. I haven't known too many of the GULCers that long, and although they're great people, I don't know them as well yet. Hopefully, the powers that be will give me a Jet victory for my birthday. Oh well, at least I lasted another year.

May all your hits be crits,
B

Intro to Law School

Hey all. First day of law school classes tomorrow. I'm kinda psyched. I mean, this has been my destiny since I've been old enough to talk (thereby making me old enough to argue). I've been doing my first law school readings, and its been kinda a mixed bag.

First, there's ConLaw. Mr. Marbury, meet Mr. Madison (or more accurately, don't meet Mr. Madison, as he isn't going to deliver your commission. Ever.) I guess this will be the first test of how different law school will be. Is this going to be the same case I read 3 times in undergrad, or will there be a new and different way of thinking about it? On a related note, I think Starbury v. Madsen is a phenomenal name for an IM basketball team, and am REALLY hoping that I can talk a group of people into it at some point.

Second comes Civil Procedure, or CivPro. Yikes. Stripes. It took me a while to figure out what the hell the case was about, then took me another readthrough to figure out the rest. I think I've got a handle on it though. Supposedly, Prof. Abernathy makes your first three weeks hell on purpose, and calls it Boot Camp. I think I'll do better at it than actual boot camp, mostly because i think there will be less running and fewer push-ups.

Finally, Torts. I know its only been a day, but I love Torts. Case in point: A guy gives a co-worker a "friendly, unsolicited hug," while at work. Upon pulling away from the hug, the co-worker has suffered "paralysis of the face and mouth." I mean, damn. Is this guy Iron Man? Is it even conceivably possible to hug someone that hard? I've given my share of hard hugs, but never to the point of doing serious physical harm. And the kicker is that the judge appears to think that paralysis is a legitimately foreseeable consequence. I have no clue, but at least it's a ton of fun to think about.

Aside from that, I've been playing lots of soccer, and keeping up with the world of Azeroth before bed. Saw the National Symphony Orchestra last night, and you haven't lived until you've seen a set of classically trained musicians play the theme from Looney Tunes. You really haven't.

So, class tomorrow. I hope I can actually get some sleep.

May all your hits be crits,
B