New study on the possible effects of energy drinks on children

As you may remember, about two years ago there was a lot of discussion on whether "energy" (highly caffeinated) drinks are harmful to children.  (I posted comments and links to articles on the subject here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)

Now, AboutLawsuits.com is reporting that according to a new report, young children may face serious health risks from popular energy drinks, such as Monster, Red Bull and Rock Star, potentially causing seizures, heart problems and other life-threatening conditions.

Podcast on the Takata airbag cases that have settled confidentially

Go here to listen to a Bloomberg law four minute interview on the Takata airbag cases that have settled confidentially

Honda Failed to Report 1,789 Auto Injuries and Deaths to NHTSA

Read the full story here.

Comment on the NFL concussion claims settlement

Over at Mass Tort Profs, Prof. Howie Erichson (Fordham) analyzes the NFL concussion settlement. He's not in favor.

Thanks to the TortsProf blog for the link.

Criticism of GM's compensation fund

Here is a comment criticizing GM's compensation fund (administered by Kenneth Feinberg), which claims the Fund has approved only 79 of 2180 claims in five months.

Video Quiz: Assumption of the risk?

You may remember my discussion of the case involving a claim against the Kansas City Royals' mascot for hitting a fan with a flying hot dog (go here and here for my most recent comments on the case).  The claim raised the issue of whether getting hit by a flying hot dog is an inherent risk of the sport, which spectators assume when they go to the games.

There are also other cases out there discussing whether fans can bring a cause of action when mascots touch them, hug them or sit on their laps as some are known to do.

Now I have a new video quiz for you on a similar question.  What if the mascot is not a person in a costume but an actual animal?  

If you watched football yesterday, you may have seen this video of the Seattle Seahawks mascot flying off to the stands and sharing a moment with the fans.  Assume for the moment that the bird's talons cause an injury to the fan.  Would he have a cause of action for strict liability because the bird is an animal?  Or does the fan assume the risk by going to the game?  Does the team have a duty to protect fans from attacks by their mascots?  

Here is the video (if you can't see it below, go here):

Video Quiz: who is negligent and what percentage of fault would you assign?

If you can't see the video below, go here. If an ad appears on the screen, click on top right hand x to delete it.

 

California Proposition 46 is defeated

I recently posted a few comments and links on the debate over California Proposition 46, an initiative to, among other things, raise the cap on pain and suffering damages, which has not been increased since it was adopted in 1975.  (Go here, here and here for previous posts.)

Today, I am sad to report that the proposition was defeated. This is bad new for consumers, victims of malpractice and, as usual, particularly bad for women, the poor, children and people with disabilities, all of whom are most affected by measures that limit recovery of non-economic damages.

Sad.

South Carolina Supreme Court recognizes the right of a beneficiary of a will or trust to sue a lawyer for malpractice

About ten days ago, in a case called Fabian v. Lindsay, the South Carolina Supreme Court recognized a cause of action, in both tort and contract, by a third-party beneficiary of an existing will or estate planning document against a lawyer whose drafting error defeats or diminishes the client's intent. The Court added that "[r]ecovery under either cause of action is limited to persons who are named in the estate planning document or otherwise identified in the instrument by their status. Where the claim sounds in both tort and contract, the plaintiff may elect a recovery."  You can read the opinion here.

Podcast on Georgia case regarding parents liability for negligence in handling child's use of social media

A few days ago, I reported on a recent case in which the Georgia Appellate Court held that parents could be held liable for failing to supervise their children use of social media, or perhaps more importantly, for failing to act to remedy the consequences of the use of social media.  The case is interesting in its own right, but it was made more interesting because it was quickly misinterpreted, as I explained in my previous post.

The case also generated some attention because it was reported that it was the first case in which a court imposed a duty on parents to supervise a child's computer use.  Today, Bloomberg Law posted a podcast on the case that you can listen to here.  Among other things, one of the panelists explains how the case is not really creating new law as much as applying old principles to a new type of scenario.