As reported in the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law: The Defamation Act 2013, approved by the British Parliament on April 25, 2013, just recently went into effect. The Act incorporates several key reforms into the British libel system which historically has favored plaintiffs.
The 2013 Act maintains the traditional premise of British libel law that the defendant bears the burden of proof, but section 1 of the 2013 Act requires plaintiffs to prove that a statement caused “serious harm” to their reputation for the statement to be considered defamatory. For-profit corporations must now prove “serious financial loss” to meet the serious harm standard. The Act also strengthens the defenses of truth and opinion. Section 2 of the Act creates a defense “for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.” Section 3 of the Act protects statements of opinion, provided that “an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of … any fact which existed at the time the statement complained of was published.” Opinions are further protected as “privileged statements” if they appear in a publication of public interest, in a peer-reviewed scientific or academic journal, or if the defendant reasonably believed that the statement was in the public interest.
The Silha Bulletin has a detailed discussion of the new reforms here.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Update on investigation of effects of "energy drinks": attorneys general claim company that makes "5-Hour Energy" is withholding documents
As you know, there has been a lot of attention during the last few months on whether so called "energy drinks" are dangerous - particularly to children. (Go here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for some of my previous posts on this topic.)
Now, here is the latest: As part of a of a 33-state investigation into the safety and marketing claims of 5-Hour Energy, several attorneys general have claimed that the maker of 5-Hour Energy is withholding vital information that is necessary for the ongoing investigation. To gain access to those documents, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum filed a petition last month in Multnomah County Circuit Court calling for an order that would force Living Essentials, LLC, the marketer of 5-Hour Energy, to hand over complete documents that the attorney general’s office has been requesting since January 2013. The energy drink maker countered by asking another judge to set the demand aside claiming that the only data it has failed to provide is proprietary information regarding the amounts of certain ingredients contained in the products, arguing that release of that information could benefit competitors. For more information go to AboutLawsuits.
Now, here is the latest: As part of a of a 33-state investigation into the safety and marketing claims of 5-Hour Energy, several attorneys general have claimed that the maker of 5-Hour Energy is withholding vital information that is necessary for the ongoing investigation. To gain access to those documents, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum filed a petition last month in Multnomah County Circuit Court calling for an order that would force Living Essentials, LLC, the marketer of 5-Hour Energy, to hand over complete documents that the attorney general’s office has been requesting since January 2013. The energy drink maker countered by asking another judge to set the demand aside claiming that the only data it has failed to provide is proprietary information regarding the amounts of certain ingredients contained in the products, arguing that release of that information could benefit competitors. For more information go to AboutLawsuits.
Monday, January 6, 2014
A few headlines
I am still away, but I am taking some time away from my time away between semesters to catch up with some of the headlines from the last few weeks:
NFL players submit proposed settlement for court approval in concussion injury litigation. Details and discussion here (which includes a link to the 350 page proposed settlement itself) and here.
Reassurances that Lawyer Would Fix Mistake Do Not Toll Legal Malpractice Statute of Limitations in Tennessee.
Sixth Circuit Affirms Preemption Defense in Suit against Branded and Generic Drug Companies.
NFL players submit proposed settlement for court approval in concussion injury litigation. Details and discussion here (which includes a link to the 350 page proposed settlement itself) and here.
Reassurances that Lawyer Would Fix Mistake Do Not Toll Legal Malpractice Statute of Limitations in Tennessee.
Sixth Circuit Affirms Preemption Defense in Suit against Branded and Generic Drug Companies.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Happy New Year
I have been gone for weeks for our winter break, but I wanted to take a moment away from all the vacation family fun to wish everyone a great new year!
Thank you for reading and supporting the blog. I will continue to do my best to keep up and bring you news and commentary in the new year.
Happy New Year!!
Monday, December 23, 2013
What would it be like if ATRA's tort reforms were actually implemented?
The PopTort wonders what would the world look like if the American Tort Reform Association could get its tort reform proposal approved here. Hint: it would not be a pretty picture.
New report on regulation (or lack thereof) of generic drug manufacturers
The Center for Justice & Democracy has published a new "white paper" called America’s Unaccountable Generic Drug Industry; How Legal Immunity Could Be Making You Sick. You can read a short comment on it here.
One of the last remaining claims arising out of the September 11 attacks to settle
More than a dozen years after the Sept. 11 attacks, a last major piece of litigation against the airline industry and other defendants moved toward an end on Tuesday, as the Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald revealed that it would settle its lawsuit for $135 million. Go to Torts Today for more on the story. For my coverage of other aspects of the litigation go here, here, here and here.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Case against Kansas City Royals for injury caused by mascot is now before the Missouri Supreme Court
Long time readers of this blog might remember my posts on a case filed back in 2010 by a spectator at a Kansas City Royals baseball game who was struck in the eye by a hot dog thrown by the team's mascot. As I said in my original post on the case, it is often stated that spectators at a baseball game assume the risk of
getting hit by foul balls. Technically speaking, this is not
necessarily correct since the issue in those cases is not really a
question of assumption of the risk, but rather one of whether the defendant owes a duty to the plaintiff... but that is another story. The case generated much commentary (see here for links).
Eventually, the case went to trial and the jury found for the defendant. I commented on the verdict here, where I also posted a video of the mascot throwing hot dogs. You can judge the conduct for yourself.
The jury's verdict, however, was recently reversed and, as I said in my post on the opinion, that was the correct decision. (In that post, I have a link to the opinion itself, if you want to take a look at it.) As opposed to many of the other cases on the subject of sports injuries, the court in this case does a better job of explaining the issue.
What is interesting is that the question in the hot dog tossing case is whether there should be a duty to protect spectators from risks involved in watching baseball games other than the risks inherent to the game of baseball. As the court suggests, the answer at this point is "maybe" if the risk is inherent to the game but probably no, if the risk is not inherent and, more so, if it is created by the negligence of the defendant himself.
Do the risks created by a mascot throwing promotional items arise from the inherent nature of a baseball game? The question is now before the Missouri Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments last month. Here is a comment on the argument.
Eventually, the case went to trial and the jury found for the defendant. I commented on the verdict here, where I also posted a video of the mascot throwing hot dogs. You can judge the conduct for yourself.
The jury's verdict, however, was recently reversed and, as I said in my post on the opinion, that was the correct decision. (In that post, I have a link to the opinion itself, if you want to take a look at it.) As opposed to many of the other cases on the subject of sports injuries, the court in this case does a better job of explaining the issue.
What is interesting is that the question in the hot dog tossing case is whether there should be a duty to protect spectators from risks involved in watching baseball games other than the risks inherent to the game of baseball. As the court suggests, the answer at this point is "maybe" if the risk is inherent to the game but probably no, if the risk is not inherent and, more so, if it is created by the negligence of the defendant himself.
Do the risks created by a mascot throwing promotional items arise from the inherent nature of a baseball game? The question is now before the Missouri Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments last month. Here is a comment on the argument.
New study on possible effects of "energy drinks"
If you have been following the controversy over whether so-called "energy drinks" are dangerous (particularly to minors), you will be interested in this story on a new study that suggests that popular drinks like Monster, Red Bull and Rockstar may affect the way the heart beats, causing it to have more forceful heart contractions, which increases potential heart risks.
I have posted a number of stories on this topic. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
I have posted a number of stories on this topic. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
How much do you know about medical malpractice?
The PopTort has a quiz here. The lessons are not new to those who follow this topic: malpractice happens more often than people think, there are fewer lawsuits than people think, and so on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)