The stated mission of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to “protect human health and the environment.”  However, a recent scandal is forcing the EPA to focus its mission inward.  Reportedly, the EPA Denver office recently sent an email to all employees regarding “recent incidents” including “an individual placing feces in the hallway.”  Apparently, the EPA is “taking this situation very seriously and will take whatever actions are necessary to identify and prosecute these individuals.”  Criminal charges could include “disorderly conduct” or “vandalism.” We at Abnormal Use remain confused and troubled by this news.  Is this ironic environmental scandal worse than the NSA domestic surveillance debacle?  Possibly.  We just hope that the miscreant offenders face justice so that these federal antics don’t become a trend, like Tebowing or planking.

(Hat tip: FindLaw).

Apparently, if believe the news, pro se Plaintiff Jonathan Lee Riches isn’t the only person to have fallen victim to “Batman and identity robbin.”  Troubled actress Lindsay Lohan recently filed suit against the makers of the Grand Theft Auto V video game alleging that they improperly used her likeness in a “a look-alike side mission.” The character in question is named Lacey Jonas and begs the main character for a ride so that she can avoid the flock of paparazzi chasing her. This is not Lohan’s first legal action involving an alleged theft of her likeness.  In 2010, Lohan sued E-Trade in connection with a baby’s reference to “that milkaholic Lindsay” during an E-Trade ad aired during the Super Bowl.  In 2011, Lohan sued Pitbull for a reference in one of his songs to having it “locked up like Lindsay Lohan.” It will be interesting to see how this one turns out.  We at Abnormal Use are thankful to Lindsay for the material.  Keep it coming!

(Hat tip: FindLaw).

We here at Abnormal Use love awards shows. Sure, call us saps, but we must confess our interest in such things. The Upstate of South Carolina is abuzz with talk of Lanie Hudson, Clemson student and Anderson native, taking the Miss South Carolina crown.  In similar pageant news, the American Tort Reform Foundation has released this year’s list of “judicial hellholes.”  The short list is here, and the full report can be found here.

This year’s standouts are South Florida, Madison and St. Clair Counties in Illinois, New York City, the entire state of California, all of Louisiana, and beautiful West Virginia.  This year’s notable snubs include this author’s former state of Mississippi, although Jones County, Mississippi did make the “watch list.” We welcome your thoughts on this year’s honorees as well as the concept of naming such jurisdictions hellholes in the first place.

Reportedly, GM has unveiled a compensation plan for those affected by the ignition switch defect.  As a part of said plan, GM cut checks to “any driver, passenger, pedestrian or occupant of another vehicle who can show they were hurt in a crash involving one of 2.6 million cars GM has recalled after admitting they were equipped with faulty ignition switches.”

The plan apparently does not have a limit on compensation.  The catch: claimants must be able to show that the vehicle’s airbags did not deploy in any crash at issue.

Interestingly, claimants who previously entered into settlements with GM prior to GM’s admission of the ignition defect can apply for additional compensation through the fund.  GM has reportedly collected evidence of 3,500 death and injury claims, but they have yet to be vetted to ascertain whether they meet the requirements of the compensation plan. As The Wall Street Journal Law Blog noted the other day: “The compensation program is limited to the 10 models GM has identified as being equipped with a faulty ignition switch. That includes the Chevrolet Cobalt, Saturn Ion and other older models.”

The claim period is from August 1 through December 31.

When it rains, it pours for GM.  Of course, if you’re a reader of a products liability blog, then you’re certainly already familiar with the myriad difficulties facing GM in various courts across the country these days. A recent class action suit filed in California alleges that GM’s actions in handling the alleged ignition switch defect have resulted in a devaluation of all GM cars, which will cost GM customers when it comes time to resell their vehicles.  Surely you saw this one coming, right? The named plaintiff in the suit is Anna Andrews, and the firm that filed the suit on her behalf is Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP.

The lawsuit purports to seek at least $10 billion, which is apparently over twice GM’s net earnings for 2013.  It will be interesting to see how this suit plays out.  We at Abnormal Use see this as a slippery slope in that it could lead to a class action suit by owners of a product any time a brand receives negative publicity, finds itself subject to a recall, or otherwise makes headlines relating to a defect. Only time will tell.

(Hat Tip: Law360).

By the time this blog post goes live, GM will probably have made public the results of its internal investigation regarding how it responded to an ignition switch defect.  Part of the inquiry involves delving into why GM apparently waited more than ten years to recall 2.6 million small cars with faulty ignition switches linked to at least 13 deaths. Reportedly, a Texas woman, Candice Anderson, was recently informed that a GM ignition defect was responsible for her fiance’s 2004 death, in connection with which she pled guilty to manslaughter.  Apparently, she was driving a Saturn vehicle and her fiance had the misfortune of being the passenger.  The car left the roadway without leaving any skid marks or other signs of causation.  Anderson survived.  Her fiance perished. Anderson happened to have trace amounts of anti-anxiety medication in her system.  Anderson was charged with manslaughter, but pled guilty to negligent homicide. Anderson reportedly wants an apology from GM.  Unless the statute of limitations has expired, we have a feeling that Anderson may be destined for more than an apology.

There’s nothing worse than an error message; it’s like an electronic flat tire.  Your Internet activity comes to a screeching halt and your computer freezes.  So, you then click the “x,” but the “x” won’t click.  Then you press the “esc” key that had a good run in the 90’s, but it just doesn’t really do anything anymore (but it’s still worth a shot).  You then press the ctrl+alt+delete, using three of your fingers that should never be forced to work in concert.  If that doesn’t work, you hold the round button on the computer machine for ten seconds until the light goes off.  If that, too, fails, you buy a new computer.

We can all agree that the error message is one of the worst first world problems one can experience.  Reportedly, Verizon is litigious and unhappy that Netflix has attempted to link Verizon to this unpleasant experience in the minds of Netflix customers. Apparently, whenever there is an interruption in a Netflix video that is playing on Verizon’s network, Netflix displays an error message that essentially blames the error on Verizon.  Verizon is not appreciative of this association.  Things have apparently escalated to the point that Verizon has fired the first snail mail shot over the bow and threatened to sue if Netflix does not cease and desist.

We at Abnormal Use do not pretend to understand the series of tubes in enough detail to weigh in on who is to blame in this spat over streaming Internet entertainment, but we will say that we do not endorse the erroneous messaging of error messages.  But we await the litigation thereof.

An inexplicable coincidence happened some time ago.  I prepared a blog post about a new lawsuit filed in the area and saved the draft on our blogging platform and placed it in the queue for review by our editor. When we learn of interesting complaints in the area, we sometimes write about them, and this is what I did in this case.

The following afternoon, I received a call from a number I did not recognize.  The caller ID indicated that the call was from the corporate offices of the defendant in the lawsuit about which I had just drafted a post.  I assumed that the blog post had gone live and that someone was calling to discuss the post, clarify the facts, tell me to remove the post, etc. To my surprise, the caller was the in-house counsel at the defendant corporation calling to retain our firm in the that very lawsuit.  During the discussion, I checked our blog site and learned that my post had not yet gone live.  We took the case and elected not to run the post.

I have racked my brain in an attempt to understand this coincidence without avail.  Perhaps it was magic.

If anyone needs me, I will be typing a novel about a former litigator who had no choice but to retire at the age of 30 after winning the lottery five times in a row.

I was recently offered the opportunity to help with iCivics day, which involves attorneys visiting local schools to talk with students about the framework of our country’s democracy.  As part of the iCivics day briefing, we were told that students may ask a variety of personal questions, including how much money lawyers make, why we decided to be a lawyer, et cetera.  The “why did you decide to be a lawyer” question jumped out at me and prompted a period of self-reflection.

I finally decided that the answer to that question is not simple, and that there are a variety of reasons.  One thing is certain: I am not a lawyer because of money.  Do I appreciate the fact that lawyers may earn more than members of some other professions?  Yes. However, I have found that money is not a good motivator, standing alone. When money is the only motivation for something, it will inevitably lead to demotivation and burnout.

So why am I a lawyer?

I am a lawyer because I genuinely enjoy helping people and solving their problems.  Our firm, at least in my practice areas, typically represents companies.   Even before the recent and much discussed judicial decision making it official, I have always enjoyed the fact that corporations are (and are founded, made up of, and act through) people.  People by nature occasionally need help.  Whether it’s the employee in a panic because something he has done has put the company at risk or the owner motivated to protect his company’s proud reputation, I welcome the opportunity to take ownership of their problems in order to find a solution.

I am also a lawyer because I love the courtroom.  I love everything about the courtroom.  I love the formalities of the courtroom, the magic words, the judge’s robe, the gavel, and everything else that makes the courtroom a courtroom.  I recently argued a motion in a makeshift temporary courtroom that looked more like a multi purpose room at a school than a courtroom.  I liked that, too.  Some courtrooms are nicer than others, but I like them all, mainly because of what happens in them, which brings me to my next point. There are lawyers for every detailed cases these days, even brain injury lawyer nashville tn.

I love the adversarial process.  I love investigating facts, taking depositions, arguing motions, and otherwise working hard to protect my client from whatever the party on the other side of the “v” is seeking to recover.  Of course, trial is where all of this hard work ends up under the spotlight, and that’s my favorite part of the adversarial process.  I love the various ways that lawyers try to connect with members of the jury.  I love the feeling of being prepared.  Most of all, I love cross-examination.  To be honest, it is truly my favorite thing about practicing law.  I love catching people in fibs. I love asking a difficult opposing witness a question with my back to the witness stand while making eye contact with the jury.  It is a great feeling to be the one asking the questions, but I even love watching someone else cross examine a tough witness.  A great cross examination is a beautiful thing.

Despite the lawyer jokes and occasional smear campaigns in the media, good lawyers do a great service to the community.  Whether a lawyer is representing someone charged with a crime, or whether a lawyer is closing on a house, the lawyer is tasked with ensuring that the law of the land is followed and respected.   That alone makes it a noble and important profession.

A Manhattan man, Anton Prisima, has reportedly filed suit against New York City, Hoboken University, LaGuardia Airport, the MTA, and “thousands more people,” including “Latina Dog Owner” and “Kmart Store 7749.”  Apparently, the nature of the lawsuit is just the standard dog bite/coffee overcharge case, or as categorized by Justia, “other civil rights.”  Mr. Prisima seeks $2,000 decillion in monetary damages.

Mr. Purisima “claims that his middle finger was bitten off by a ‘rabies-infected’ dog on a city bus, then a ‘Chinese couple’ took photos of him as he was being treated.”  Separate and apart from those allegations, Mr. Prisima has joined several defendants in the suit based on the fact that “he’s routinely overcharged for coffee at LaGuardia Airport.”  We assume that this is a permissive joinder situation.  If not, Mr. Purisima may have a Palsgraf issue.  In any event, as a result of these wrongs,  Mr. Purisima seeks the modest amount of money mentioned above, in additional to “additional damages that ‘cannot be repaired by money” and are ‘therefore priceless.'”

Good thing Mr. Purisima cast a wide net to bring in as many deep pockets as possible, considering the fact that it is not possible to raise the amount of money he seeks even if the defendants are somehow able to sell the Earth and everything on it for scrap.

(Hat tip: Lowering the Bar).