At first blush, the judgment awarded to the parents of a fallen baseball player is enough to make a tort reformer vomit. The Helena Independent Record reports (gavel bang: Overlawyered):

After 12 hours of deliberation, a jury sided with the parents of former Miles City American Legion baseball pitcher Brandon Patch in a civil suit over the player’s death during a 2003 game in Helena.

Aluminum bat maker Hillerich & Bradsby Co. failed to provide adequate warning as to the dangers of the bat used by a Helena Senators player during the game, at least eight of the 12 Lewis and Clark County jurors agreed Wednesday.

Hillerich & Bradsby Co. was ordered to pay $792,000 to Patch’s estate, which is represented by his mother, Debbie Patch, who filed the suit.

The jury felt the bat makers should have had some kind of warning about the dangers of batted balls at high speeds.

Seriously? On first blush, this verdict makes me want to hunt down jury members, scream “warning, terrible judgments could result in you getting hit with a bat,” and play pepper using their eyeballs.

But in my homicidal fantasy, I’m hitting eyeball grounders with a wooden bat, not an aluminum one. Are aluminum bats different, in a way that might partially explain the verdict?

More details after the jump.

Let’s get the boring stuff out of the way. Albert Freed (pictured) won a trip to Hawaii (not pictured). As part of the vacation celebration, Mrs. Freed bought her husband some new Hanes brand briefs. But Mr. Freed is a husky gentleman, and apparently the new trunks couldn’t contain all of his junk. He sued Hanes, claiming they made “defective” underwear.

Let me turn it over to Escambia County (FL) Judge Pat Kinsey:

A question for the guys out there: How long would it take you to correct a problem involving sandpaper and your penis? Don’t you think penis chafing is something that requires immediate attention and decisive action?

And while we’re here, how long does it take for you to notice your stuff hanging out where it is not supposed to be?

Check out Albert’s excuse after the jump.

The tort reformers among you are going to love this story. Just as it looks like there might be an opening to enact significant medical malpractice reform, it appears that one of the most powerful lobbying arms against reform is hemorrhaging money (gavel bang: Overlawyered). The Washington Times reports:

The American Association for Justice, the most prominent group representing plaintiffs’ attorneys, has seen a shake-up in its executive suite and has struggled to deal with what appears to be a mounting budget shortfall. To help it fight congressional efforts to make it harder for patients to sue doctors and lawyers, it recently sent out an extra solicitation to its members, asking them to fork over money for a lobbying campaign.

The most striking evidence of its financial woes is a swift decline in income, which resulted in a more than $6.2 million deficit in its operating budget for the fiscal year ending July 31, 2008, the most recent year for which data are available.

The reason for the shortfall appears to be fewer members. Details after the jump.

The Connecticut Employment Law Blog reports on the kind of plaintiff that gives other plaintiffs a bad name:

In the middle of trial, a plaintiff (who is claiming his employment was terminated, among other reasons, in retaliation of his exercise of FMLA rights) drops a bombshell:

“[In the prior October], I learned that I had — have stage III prostate cancer with a metastatic brain lesion.”

What kind of client just blurts out “metastatic brain lesion” in open court? What kind of counsel allows that to happen?

Not surprisingly, defense counsel moved for a mistrial. The judge called a hearing, and then the idiot plaintiff had something else to say:

During the hearing, however, there’s another another unexpected development: The medical records show that the employee did not have (and never had) a metastatic brain lesion.

The plaintiff knew he didn’t have a brain lesion — though it seems self evident that something upstairs is not working properly in this guy’s head.

Is this a situation that demands more than a mistrial?

New Yorker Kelly DeBrocky took her family to the aquarium in Norwalk, Connecticut. Her kid stepped in poo.

Now DeBrocky has filed a seriously sh**ty lawsuit against the city, seeking reimbursement for new shoes and the price of admission and parking. Maybe she’s part of the secret movement trying to get everyone in the world to hate New Yorkers.

From the Stamford Advocate:

A New York woman who took her family to visit the Maritime Aquarium has filed a $100 claim against the city, saying her child’s shoes, along with the entire outing, were ruined when her 1-year-old stepped in dog feces early last month outside the Maritime Garage.

Norwalk officials will deny the claim, city attorney M. Jeffry Spahr said.

“The official response is her claim is denied and poop happens,” he said.

Awesome quote. City attorney M. Jeffry Spahr sounds like the man. Another great Spahr quote: “I’m also having a tough time picturing why [the child] had to be bathed after stepping in this unless he thought it was some kind of poop sandbox.”

DeBrocky says it’s no laughing matter and that she’s “really skeeved.” Well, we’re really skeeved that your kid played in a poo sandbox and that you’re suing someone for it.

P.S. Things could have been much worse for DeBrocky. What if the poop had been dumped on her stoop?

City: Mom’s claim stinks [Stamford Advocate]

Former Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson, who infamously sued his dry cleaners for $54 million over a pair of pants, is a plaintiff once again. From the Washington Examiner:

The former D.C. judge who was fired after becoming a symbol of runaway litigation for suing over lost pants has claimed he suffered “humiliation” and “physical illness” in a new lawsuit seeking reinstatement and at least $1 million in damages.

In a 52-page lawsuit filed in the D.C. federal court, Roy Pearson claimed that the District and a city judicial commission wrongfully dismissed him for exposing corruption within the Office of Administrative Hearings, the department where he worked.

Exposing corruption? When it comes to abuse of power, ex-judge Pearson would seem to be Exhibit A. As for the claimed “humiliation,” Pearson brought that upon himself:

During the dry-cleaner trial, Pearson broke down on the stand when he tried to describe how he learned that he’d never see his pants again. The judge ruled in favor of the dry cleaners.

We agree with our friends at DCist: “Does Roy Pearson not have anyone in his life, say a family member or a friend, to smack him upside the head and tell him to stop being so crazy?”

Former judge from ‘pants suit’ sues for $1 million, old job back [Washington Examiner]
Roy Pearson Sues for $1 Million and His Job Back [DCist]

For a society that has embraced litigation and the digital age, there will soon be a new website to love, SueEasy.com. It’s like Match.com for lawyers and litigants.

The site promises to revolutionize legal service. There are three easy steps:

1. Register your case.
2. View attorney responses.
3. Choose an attorney.
4. Instant legal bliss.

We are not making step four up. “Instant legal bliss” sounds pretty sweet to us. These guys know how to market their stuff.

Tort reform advocates are not fans of the idea. From UPI:

Darren McKinney, spokesman for the American Tort Reform Association, said the site is the “latest distillation” of an attitude promoted by trial lawyers.

“It’s an attitude that runs against personal responsibility and seems to promote the notion that whatever negative happens in your life somebody else can be blamed and thus sued,” McKinney told Legal Newsline.

There are some interesting class action suits up on the site now. They include Hot Dog and Bun Mismatch filed by oscarmayer and Circumcised without Anybody’s Consent filed by Frank OHara on behalf of one million infant boys.

Oscarmayer’s complaint: “Currently buns are sold in packages of 10 but hotdogs come in packages of 8.” While certainly annoying, does it really warrant a lawsuit?

Web site makes suing easy [United Press International]
SueEasy — Hey Tort Reform, This One’s For You [WSJ Law Blog]
SueEasy.com [Overlawyered]

We weren’t surprised to see this case get a shout-out on I Am Lawsuit Abuse. From the AP:

A model who says she has worked hard to maintain a wholesome image has filed a $5 million lawsuit complaining that a jewelry company’s video advertisement in which she writhes and moans looks pornographic.

The commercial, seen on the Internet in a clip entitled “Rock Her World,” shows a woman wearing blue lacy lingerie and a diamond necklace while moaning and stroking her face and neck. It ends with the Web address for the jewelry company, Szul.com.

The 37-year-old woman claims in her lawsuit that she did not “consent to or authorize the use of her likeness, picture, image or name to simulate a female having an orgasm or otherwise experiencing sexual pleasure.”

Actually, we prefer the description of the New York Daily News:

The 35-second “Rock Her World” spot features the model rubbing her teal teddy and purring with pleasure to the hard-grinding sounds of a guitar as the slogan, “Jewelry works every time” pops up onscreen.

But look, no need to rely on print descriptions of the ad. One of the beauties of the internet as a medium is that, when it comes to audio or video, you can judge for yourself. So check out the clip — which, we warn you, is quasi-NSFW (at least with the sound turned on) — over at Blogonaut.

Done watching? Okay. We concur with our fellow blogger:

[W]e find it hard to believe that Jane Doe’s behavior on the ad could be taken for anything resembling the “wholesome” persona she claims was maligned. What could she have been thinking when she made the ad?

Indeed. What exactly did she think she was advertising when she consented to be filmed, clad in pastel lingerie, writhing on a bed? Anti-epilepsy drugs?

Anyway, casting directors, consider yourselves warned. If the woman from the Szul Jewelry ad shows up for your casting call, don’t even think of using her in that Herbal Essences ad.

Oh, and the “I’ll have what she’s having” scene from When Harry Met Sally? NOT FUNNY.

Update: Ted Frank has written about the case at Overlawyered. We like the title of his post, as well as this quip: “And, of course, she didn’t have to roll around on the bed in the first place.”

But he notes, in fairness, that the model-plaintiff is claiming no release (hehe). That might be a legitimate basis for a lawsuit.

Model’s suit: You used the video you took of me [Overlawyered]
NY Model Sues Jewelry Co for $5M Over R-Rated Web Ad [Blogonaut]
Model sues Szul Jewelry over Web ad [New York Daily News]
NY Lawsuit: My Commercial Looks Lewd [Associated Press]
Rock Her World [YouTube (mildly NSFW)]

* Apparently the President of the United States is somehow involved in the judicial nomination process. [The Weekly Standard via How Appealing]

* Too much litigation? Blame all those conservative trial lawyers. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Vick’s state trial date will be set today. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* Nevada tries to smoke out some justice. [Reno Gazette-Journal]

* How tough can you be on protestors at a free speech debate? [BBC]

Okay, it’s not a “layoff,” since it’s not due to economic pressures. Rather, it’s due to his being a total asshat judicial record and temperament — and maybe a certain infamous lawsuit he filed.

From the Washington Post:

Roy L. Pearson Jr., whose $54 million lawsuit against a Northeast Washington dry-cleaning shop was rejected in court, is about to lose his job as an administrative law judge, sources said last night.

A city commission voted yesterday against reappointing Pearson to the bench of the Office of Administrative Hearings, which hears cases involving various D.C. boards and agencies. Pearson, who was up for a 10-year term, had tried to hold on to the job.

Expect the litigious Pearson to fight any refusal to reappoint him:

If the panel carries out its decision against reappointing him, Pearson, 57, could take the case to the D.C. Court of Appeals. In a separate filing, he is asking the appellate court to overturn the decision in the dry-cleaning case.

The sources said that had Pearson’s term not ended this May, at the height of his battle with the dry cleaners, he might have kept the job. His term has expired, but Pearson has remained on the payroll, making $100,000 a year as an attorney adviser for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Judge Set to Lose Job, Sources Say [Washington Post]

Time for a quick update on a recent Lawsuit of the Day — the case filed by Nebraska state senator Ernie Chambers, against God. Yes, God.

From the AP (via TaxProf Blog):

A legislator who filed a lawsuit against God has gotten something he might not have expected: a response.

One of two court filings from “God” came Wednesday under otherworldly circumstances, according to John Friend, clerk of the Douglas County District Court in Omaha.

“This one miraculously appeared on the counter. It just all of a sudden was here — poof!” Friend said.

Or maybe the court clerks didn’t notice when it was dropped off, since they were too busy gabbing about why Tyra picked a chick with Asperger’s for America’s Next Top Model.

More after the jump.

It’s me, Ernie — Nebraska state senator Ernie Chambers. And I’m suing your divine ass! From the AP:

The defendant in a state senator’s lawsuit is accused of causing untold death and horror and threatening to cause more still. He can be sued in Douglas County, the legislator claims, because He’s everywhere.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers sued God last week. Angered by another lawsuit he considers frivolous, Chambers says he’s trying to make the point that anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody.

Chambers says in his lawsuit that God has made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents, inspired fear and caused “widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants.”

And he pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda, and microwaved a few pooches. Jonathan Lee Riches, holla!

What relief is Chambers seeking? The WSJ Law Blog reports:

The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction against God, ordering him to cease certain harmful activities. Chambers asked the court to waive personal-service requirement. Because God is omniscient, he argues, he will have actual knowledge of the action.

And you thought the $54 million pants lawsuit was crazy. If God’s deposition ends up being taken, can someone ask him about the proper construction of this contractual provision?

P.S. Props to the AP reporter who conferred a Jesus-like halo upon Senator Chambers. You win the prize for Most Creative Use of an Electric Fan as a Background Element.

[AP via WSJ Law Blog]

From the National Examiner:

The American Tort Reform Association has posted Weird Al’s “I’ll Sue Ya” on its Web site, suggesting that the tune be “adopted as a theme song by America’s personal injury lawyers.”

“It’s been awhile since I’ve personally kept up with Weird Al’s work, but it’s nice to know he hasn’t lost his genius,” ATRA director of communications Darren McKinney said.

“Like all good comedy, Weird Al builds on a foundation of truth,” he added.

What foundation of truth, that there are too many lawsuits in this country, or that Korn sucks?

Check out the music video for Weird Al’s tune after the jump.

Related:
American Tort Reform Association
“Weird Al” Yankovic

The story of ALJ Roy Pearson and his $54 million pants isn’t over just yet. From the Washington Post:

[T]he small-business owners sued by D.C. Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson withdrew their demand that he pay nearly $83,000 for their legal bills, saying that enough money had been raised from supporters to cover the expenses and that they want to end the fighting.

The cleaners want Pearson, who could soon be out of a job, to do the same….

It would make for an ironic conclusion to the case: Pearson effectively benefiting from the generosity of some of the very people who vilified his suit and came to the aid of the Chungs.

No comment from Pearson on the latest news:

Pearson has not responded to requests for comment on developments in the case. Early last night, he could not reached by telephone, and he did not respond to a message sent to his personal e-mail address.

Any guesses on that “personal e-mail address”? Crazypants at hotmail dot com? Or is Judge Pearson cool enough to use Gmail?

Update: Thanks, Mr. and Mrs. Chung, but no thanks. Roy Pearson has filed his notice of appeal.

Dry Cleaners Cut Plaintiff Some Slack [Washington Post via How Appealing]
Pearson to Appeal Pants Verdict [Washington Post]

After we put up our post this morning about how Roy Pearson, of $54 million pants fame, might not get reappointed as an administrative law judge, a reader sent us this:

“Note this help wanted ad for a new DC ALJ (from the July 9 edition of the Legal Times).”

“I ask you: Coincidence, or just good planning?”

Hmm… A salary pushing the six-figures, and the ability to call yourself — or at least make restaurant reservations under — “judge”? That gig doesn’t sound half-bad…

Earlier: Roy Pearson: From Pseudo-Judge To Ex-Pseudo-Judge?

Last week we alluded to the possibility that Roy Pearson, plaintiff in the notorious $54 million pants case, might not be reappointed to his post as an administrative law judge. That possibility is now one step closer to being realized. From the Washington Post:

A city commission has voted to formally notify Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson that he may not be reappointed to the bench, according to a government source.

In a letter sent to Pearson yesterday, the Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges cited not only Pearson’s infamous failed lawsuit against Custom Cleaners, but his work as a judge the past two years.

So it’s not just about the pants. Pearson was also talking trash about his chief:

Concerns about Pearson’s temperament as an administrative law judge preceded the publicity about the lawsuit this spring….

In e-mails sent to his fellow judges and cited in the letter, Pearson’s contempt for Chief Administrative Law Judge Tyrone T. Butler was evident. In one of the missives, he spoke of protecting himself from any attempt by Butler “to knife” him. In another, he questioned Butler’s competence and integrity.

Talk of a knife fight? Is Roy Pearson a judge, or a summer associate?

David Nieporent, at Overlawyered, sums up the situation nicely: “Apparently trying to destroy a business by using the legal system to extort millions from the owners isn’t his big sin; his big sin is being rude to his boss.”

Litigious Judge’s Future Unclear [Washington Post]
Updates - August 8 [Overlawyered]

Earlier: Roy Pearson: No Justice, No Pants… No Job

What do “Judge” Roy Pearson, of $54 million pants infamy, and ATL frequent commenter “Loyola 2L” have in common?

Both are — or should be — looking for new employment.

First, Pants Man Loses Case. Next, His Job [Raw Fisher / Washington Post]

See the Associated Press and the WSJ Law Blog. From the AP:

The $54 million pants, as they’ve come to be known, were the subject of a widely mocked lawsuit that garnered international attention. Now, they have their own security guard….

On display [at a fundraiser last night] were what the Chungs say are the pants that Roy Pearson brought in, were misplaced, and were later found. The guests had appetizers and cocktails, and under the stern gaze of the security guard, some posed for photos with the pants.

Quips reader Melissa Zawadzki: “Don’t ya just love happy endings?”

The Smithsonian famously dissed Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress. But how can they say no to a pair of $54 million pants?

$54M Pants Star in Fundraiser [Associated Press]
The Great American Pants Suit Fundraiser [WSJ Law Blog]

Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson is still pressing (harhar) his $54 million lawsuit over a pair of pants. From the Washington Post’s Marc Fisher:

Despite a clear finding by D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff that Pearson’s case against Custom Cleaners had no merit and that the cleaners’ possible misplacing of a pair of Pearson’s pants was not worth a penny to the plaintiff, Pearson is back.

He wrote to defense lawyer Christopher Manning this week to let the Chung family know that Pearson plans to file today a motion arguing that Bartnoff failed to address Pearson’s legal claims and asking the judge to reverse her verdict in the case.

If you can stomach it, read the rest after the jump.

Following up on yesterday’s post about law firm advertising campaigns, here’s another interesting ad:

Commentary after the jump.