In the legal blogging world, there is much speculation about the manner in which to measure one’s success.  Our friends over at the Drug and Device Law blog have discussed this in the past, and each of us, as law bloggers, confronts this issue daily.  Do legal blogs lead to new legal business? If so, is there a way to chart the path from the initial blog post to a new client’s engagement letter? It’s an interesting question. There may never be a day in which a new client presents itself to one’s firm identifying a blog entry as the sole source of the retention.  However, amongst bloggers, the general consensus seems to be that the presence of a blog will spotlight both the firm and the blog’s authors, and accordingly, raise their profile, especially if they follow a strict blog launch checklist on the daily to keep content fresh.  That heightened level of attention will, very likely, lead to additional opportunities and perhaps new business.

For example, once a blog author becomes a familiar voice on a given topic, he or she may be invited to speak at events and conventions.  These opportunities would likely not have come but for the presence of the blog and subsequent raising of the profile of its authors.  Further, we here at Abnormal Use have had the opportunity to meet and network with several other lawyer bloggers that we never would have previously met had we not begun this enterprise here.  For example, in early June, while on an unrelated business trip in Philadelphia, we had the opportunity to meet the three authors of the Drug and Device Law blog, whom we have known in the digital world for 18 months but had never actually met in person.  Further, more recently, during a CLE conference in New Orleans, we were able to meet Jeff Richardson of the iPhone J.D. blog and Ernest Svenson of the Ernie the Attorney law blog.  At each of these informal meetings, we discussed this issue – how law blogs might lead to legal business.  However, the very fact that we were meeting and discussing that issue underscores the networking value of legal blogging, as we were all doing so solely because of our own blogging efforts. How’s that for networking?

There’s more to it than that, of course. Once a legal blog establishes a history and some credibility, who knows what will happen? We were very pleasantly surprised to learn recently that our posts were quoted both by The New York Times and National Public Radio. (See here and here for more information on those two twists of fate.). We’ve been asked to speak at events and present at CLE seminars as a result of our prose on this site. It’s difficult to calculate the value of such things, but it’s worth it.

In the end, Ernie probably said it best when he noted that we, as lawyers, speak in terms of causation, but we may never be able to identify the “but for cause” of every new client.  Further, we may never know if the legal blog is the reason for the business, or if the legal blog led to a secondary opportunity which itself led to new contacts which in turn led to new business.  It’s difficult to trace the chain of causation, but it seems clear that blogging is an excellent tool for networking among other attorneys and spot lighting one’s self. If you’ve got something to say, and you’ve got readers ready to listen, what can be wrong with that?

Fans of The Hangover undoubtedly remember the scene in which the actors are tasered by a group of children at the instruction of two police officers.  We here at Abnormal Use must admit that we found it at amusing.  Who wouldn’t find it funny watching 5000 volts of pulsed current flowing through Bradley Cooper and Zach Galifianakis?  However, after the recent $10 million jury verdict against it, TASER International might not consider this scene a laughing matter.

Very recently, in Turner v. Taser International, Inc., Case No. 3:10-CV-00125 (W.D.N.C.), a federal jury in the Western District of North Carolina ordered TASER to pay the estate of a 17-year old North Carolina resident $10 million.  According to reports, in 2008, the boy went into cardiac arrest and died inside a grocery store after being shocked in the chest for 37 seconds by a Charlotte-Mecklenberg police officer.   The boy was tased at the store by police following a verbal dispute with his boss.  The City of Charlotte settled with the boy’s estate for $625,000 in 2009 without admitting any wrongdoing.  TASER has moved for judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict.

Counsel for the plaintiffs issued a press release regarding the verdict, which said the jury found TASER negligently failed to warn users that discharging the taser into the chest of a person near his heart poses a substantial risk of cardiac arrest.  The press release further indicates that the medical examiner “found no drugs” in the decedent’s system, though Heraldonline.com reports that TASER has said a drug screen was not performed either at the autopsy or at any time before the lab destroyed the teenager’s blood evidence.  In any event, presiding District Judge Conrad reportedly did not allow the defense to offer evidence that three bags of marijuana were found in the decedent plaintiff’s sock during the incident and did not instruct the jury on contributory negligence in spite of defense counsel’s argument that the plaintiff’s behavior was negligent and “necessitated the use of force by police.”  Other outlets report that the teenager had committed offenses including theft, assault of other employees, resisting arrest, and assault on law enforcement.

TASER, the leading manufacturer of conducted energy devices (CEDs), is no stranger to litigation.  It has won judgment or been dismissed from more than 125 product liability cases.  The Turner verdict is only the company’s second adverse jury verdict (the first being a $7 million verdict in 2008 which was later reduced to $200,000).  With the limited information about the case in the media, we can only speculate what distinguished this case from the previous 128.  In TASER’s opinion, “compassion may have overwhelmed the scientific evidence presented in this case.”  TASER may be right, but certainly compassion was not the only factor at play.

It stands to reason that being shocked with large amounts of electricity may not be synonymous with a trip to the spa.  According to TASER’s website, however, the 5000 volts of electricity exerted by its product have a lower risk of danger than a 110 volt wall outlet.  TASER bases this conclusion on a taser’s pulsated current versus the continuous current found in a wall outlet.  Even at a pulsated rate, 37 seconds still seems like a long time to be subjected to 5000 volts of electricity – especially in the chest area.

A study recently released by the United States Department of Justice indicated that “there is currently no medical evidence that CEDs pose a significant health risk for induced cardiac dysrhythmia when deployed reasonably.” (emphasis added)  Interestingly enough, the study fails to define “reasonably.”  Regardless of how it is interpreted, the risk of injury is present. The question is what is TASER’s duty to warn?

We do not know what warnings TASER provided police officers prior to this incident.  (According to the DOJ study, TASER now recommends changing the target zone to below the chest).  Should officers have known the dangers regardless of any inadequate warning from the manufacturer?  Certainly, the officers from The Hangover didn’t get the memo.

Want more on this story?  Try this interesting piece from the South Carolina Criminal Defense Blog.

We here at Abnormal Use love a good legend: The Legend of Zelda; Legends of the Hidden Temple; City Slickers II: The Legend of Curly’s Gold; and for the ladies out there, Legends of the Fall. We especially love a good urban legend, such as the legend of the exploding toilet, which we recently came across in the news.

According to reports, a member of the Australian Air Force was recently injured critically during training when a port-a-potty he was using exploded. Ordinarily, the thought of an exploding portable loo would be comedic gold, as seen here. But not in this case. The airman was rushed to a local hospital where he received emergency treatment for third-degree burns to his head, face, arms, chest, and airways. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the airman, and we pray for his swift and healthy recovery.

But since this is a products liability blawg, it is only fitting and proper that we take a closer look at the Case of the Thunder from Down Under. The reports we’ve read relay an interesting, if dubious, chain of events that occurred immediately prior to the explosion. It has been suggested that the port-a-potty was not properly ventilated, and that some chemical – perhaps methane produced during the process of excretion – had been allowed to build up in the toilet to combustible levels. The airman entered the loo, lit up a cigarette, and the rest is history.

At first, this connection of causes and consequences seems plausible. Methane is a byproduct of natural bodily functions, and it is flammable. Case closed, right? The miracle of the scientific method has solved the mystery. And if we were to apply the same rigorous scientific methodology to other simple observations, we would come to the conclusion that Santa Claus exists because there is a North Pole, that the universe revolves around the Earth like the sun, and that thanks to Con-Air, the Rock, and Gone in 60 Seconds, Nicolas Cage is the greatest actor of our time. Scientifically, we know each of these to be false.

The same is true about the exploding toilet. Methane is flammable, but only under very limited circumstances. If this weren’t true, the tip of Florida would burn like a wildfire of Biblical proportions every time lightning strikes the Everglades. There’s also the small factual matter of how methane would be trapped at just the right quantity inside a port-a-potty. Even if every aspect of the toilet’s ventilation were sealed off perfectly, the user would still have to open the door.

The fine folks over at Snopes.com have previously debunked the legend of methane causing toilets to explode. The guys at “MythBusters” have done the same thing. Yet the legend inevitably limps on.

To be clear, we at Abnormal Use believe that toilets can and do explode. Not because of poor ventilation. But instead, because of: (1) some combustible substance other than methane being introduced into the restroom environment (intentionally or not); or (2) explosives being planted in the loo. Either way, we hope the injured airman finds out who’s responsible and gives them the business, Aussie style.

We’ve just received an email notice from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina that its offices will be closed on Thursday, August 4 in honor of Judge Matthew Perry, who passed away this past weekend.  The email from the District Court reads as follows:

The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina shall be closed on Thursday, August 4, 2011 to honor Matthew J. Perry, Jr. for his service and contributions to the federal judiciary.

A copy of Chief Judge Norton’s order is attached.  If you have difficulty viewing this order in your email application, you may download a copy at:

http://www.scd.uscourts.gov/DOCS/Order_11-mc-2000.pdf

We’ll keep you posted of any additional developments.

Though we hadn’t previously known “greenwashing” was even a word, much less something around which a class-action lawsuit could be centered, we now know that at least in California, and later Wisconsin, invocation of that term may entitle the accuser to an undisclosed sum of settlement money.  We previously reported here that a California resident had filed suit in federal court on behalf of purchasers of various household products manufactured by SC Johnson, alleging that the company was deceptively marketing its products as “green,” or environmentally friendly, with its use of the trademarked “Greenlist” labeling sticker on its products.  Koh v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., No. C-09-00927 RMW (N.D. Cal.).  Another suit similarly was filed in Wisconsin.

SC Johnson recently issued a detailed press release in which its CEO announced that the company will stop using its Greenlist logo on Windex products and disclosed that the company has reached “an undisclosed settlement” agreement as to the two lawsuits filed against it.  In its candid statement, the company set forth its reasons for settlement:

“We decided to settle for two reasons. First, while we believed we had a strong legal case, in retrospect we could have been more transparent about what the logo signified,” said SC Johnson Chairman and CEO Fisk Johnson. “Second, and very importantly, Greenlist™ is such a fundamentally sound and excellent process we use to green our products, that we didn’t want consumers to be confused about it due to a logo on one product.”

The statement goes on to wisely say – in words that must be echoed by many slapped with product liability suits – that “[w]hile companies always try to ensure labels are clear and understandable, different interpretations can arise.”  In any event, it looks at though SC Johnson settled these suits quickly, and likely took from it a valuable lesson in marketing practices.