Comments for Overlawyered

Comment on November 24 roundup by Anne Reed

Anne Reed — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:52:24 +0000

Walter, thanks for these kind words. I’m so honored and excited to be entering this new life with such a great organization. One thing I’ll miss, though, is all the visits my blog got every time I was lucky enough to appear in Point Of Law Forum or Overlawyered. You have so many readers because you speak eloquently for those who agree with you, and respectfully and interestingly to those who do not — while raising enough questions to keep everyone’s thinking fresh and vital. We are all grateful for the example you set, and I look forward to staying in touch.

Comment on Coshocton pulls WiFi by CTrees

CTrees — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:21:25 +0000

You guys were a little late on this story: http://www2.nbc4i.com/cmh/news/local/article/Coshocton_County_Has_Turned_Wi_Fi-Back_On/26596/

Comment on Coshocton pulls WiFi by L.C. Burgundy

L.C. Burgundy — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:38:21 +0000

Upon learning that telephones could be used to call in a bomb threat, Coshocton officials dismantled their municipal phone system too.

Comment on Update on Ogborn v. McDonald’s by Kurt

Kurt — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:54:07 +0000

CT_Yankee,
Maybe that is his day job:-) Didn’t Madoff live in Florida?

Comment on Update on Ogborn v. McDonald’s by EB

EB — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:20:52 +0000

McDonald’s probably should have settled just to keep it from getting out that the people making the food there don’t seem to be intelligent enough to follow any sort of safety rules. What if the caller had told them to put rat poison in the food? From this account it seems pretty likely that they would have.

Comment on Update on Ogborn v. McDonald’s by CT_Yankee

CT_Yankee — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:04:02 +0000

In an alternate reality, “A Florida man who was unusually persuasive would call dozens of potential clients and secured a significant increase in sales revenue for his department. He is profiled in this months Business Journal.”

This idiot could have been rich and famous, instead of pathetic loser.

Comment on Update on Ogborn v. McDonald’s by John Rohan

John Rohan — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:36:06 +0000

The other problem is that the actual perpetrator got off scot-free. So without him around, people go after the most convenient target at hand.

Comment on Update on Ogborn v. McDonald’s by tugbug

tugbug — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:19:16 +0000

Frustratingly typical. Identical suits thrown out… but, keep on trying and eventually you might get your lottery ticket punched.

I am painfully aware each day in the hospital that we all do the same things the same ways in the same situations for the same reasons, and it provides little protection from the legal system should there be a bad result.

Is consistency from our legal system too much to ask for? And no, typically and consistently inconsistent does not count.

Comment on Update on Ogborn v. McDonald’s by Robert

Robert — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:40:10 +0000

The suit doesn’t seem wrong to me–it’s the amount of the judgement.

Think if it as a multi-car crash. The car behind you rear-ends you. However, he probably woudn’t have hit you if he weren’t rear-ended by the car behind him. You sue the driver of the car that hit you, and he, in turn, can sue the person who hit him.

But for the fact that it was McDonalds, and not some small buisness, the judgement was for $1MM instead of $5,000, which is more like the actual damages. (Perhaps you were so upset you couldn’t work for a week.) That’s the real problem here.

Comment on “Insurer Must Defend ‘Douche’ Defamation Suit, Judge Says” by A.W.

A.W. — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:35:58 +0000

Patrick

good points, although i will say that the ability to negotiate also depends on the size of the insured. my company can negotiate some with the insurance company because they positively want our business. And of course insurance companies are afraid to change language because they fear some hidden legal meaning far beyond the intended consequences. fwiw.