Bull Shit Advertising

Today, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ordered Reebok to pay $25 million in consumer refunds for claiming its "toning shoes" would give wearers a better looking ass.

$25 Million? Wow, that's a lot.

The FTC claimed that Reebok’s advertising was false and deceptive in violation of sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act, which states:

(a) Unlawfulness

It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, or corporation to disseminate, or cause to be disseminated, any false advertisement--

They claimed erroneously that by wearing the shoes you can gain 28% more strength than if you wear regular shoes.

I'm glad Reebok got busted for deceiving unwary consumers. That's not fair. In the end, Reebok will have to change the message, but hopefully not the picture :)

Life & Limb

What do you think about the following?

Life and limb does not become less worthy of protection by the law nor a loss less worthy of compensation under the law because he has come upon the land of another without permission or with permission but without a business purpose.

What if someone breaks into your home and is injured by some unforeseen trap? According this this, he can sue you for damages resulting from the injury.

Is that fair?

Is all life and limb worthy of protection?

The uber-reasonable, Reasonable Test

The reasonable standard is the common law standard (judge-made) that determines liability or guilt based on whether the conduct of the defendant was reasonable or not. If it was, no liability. If it wasn't, liability.

I think it's fair. People (and the law) expect you to act with reasonable due care with respect to the safety of others. You should expect the same. However, it's not the standard with which I take issue, it's how the standard is applied.

Who applies the standard? Hopefully the jury, but very often, well, the judge.

Therein lies my concern.

The standard of due care inferred by a judge will be a more rigid, arbitrary, and ultimately higher standard than the standard of due care inferred by a jury. Compare the mentality of the average citizen v. the mentality of a judge. The lens through which the two groups view the world is different. After all, most people are idiots and most judges aren't.

Therefore, at the end of the day, what we have is not a reasonable test, but an uber-reasonable, reasonable test.

Doesn't seem fair.

The Game

I could be off base here, but law school is such a game.

People pay all this money, sacrifice their health, and even don suits (gasp) in order to play this game. It's kinda ridiculous really. But what's the game you ask?

Well, the game is called "Pin the Fact on the Law."

To play, all you have to do is take some facts like, Tom hit Ben, and then pin it somewhere on the law (battery, assault etc.). You get a point for each correct pin. Sometimes you even get an extra point if you can manipulate the facts so that it appears to fit on the law tree.

For example, let's take the fact Tom hit Ben. I could pin that fact on battery because tom swung his arm, and the arm landed on Ben's face. Battery is when a person (1) intends to cause a (2) harmful or offensive contact. When Tom swung his arm that satisfies intent because arms don't just swing on their own. When Tom's arm hit Ben's face that was a harmful or offensive contact because harmful or offensive is defined by what a reasonable person would consider harmful or offensive, and let's be honest, who thinks getting hit in the face is not harmful or offensive? So we have ourselves a battery. One point.

Well what if Tom has epilepsy? Is that still a battery? No, because when Top swung his arm he was having an epileptic seizure and he didn't intent to swing his arm. No battery. So now you have to take Tom hits Ben off the law. Two Points.

That's the game. It's kinda fun, really.

What's sobering, however, is out in the real world it's not a game.

Duty to Rescue?

Question.

You're riding the escalator at the mall and the brat ahead of you gets his hand stuck in the escalator, are you required to help?

It's a tough question.

The law says that the nature of some relationships require that a person help another e.g., a mother must help her child; the driver of the vehicle must help the passengers. If your conduct, whether dangerous or innocent, injures a person, you're required to help.

Also, one state (Vermont), passed a "duty-to-rescue" statute that require individuals to rescue as long as they don't jeopardize their safety by doing so. It's only Vermont, but other states are getting on board. Some states have even passed Good Samaritan laws that exonerate botched rescue attempts.

So, what do you think now? Are you required to help?

Reflect on this case from a Montana court. After a boyfriend severely beats his girlfriend, she stabs him out of self-defense and leaves him for dead. Is she required to call attention to his wounds, even after she stabbed him out of self defense?

Indeed she is. And here's the kicker: Isn't it crazy that she is liable for failing to rescue this idiot after the self-defense doctrine allows her to kill him? She should have just finished the job. It would have saved her legal fees.

Anyway, the conclusion is the law usually doesn't compel you to rescue, which begs the question: Well, should it?