Apparently, this villain depicted on the cover of Superman #314 is “Superman’s Judge, Jury, and Executioner.” That’s troubling. However, we find ourselves more intrigued by the promotion that the reader might find him or herself as an extra in the first Superman movie!

Um, did you see the voir dire depicted on this week’s episode of “Modern Family”? Yikes.

Speaking of pop culture, any thoughts on the new “Star Wars” trailer? After the prequels, we are bracing ourselves for disappointment, although we must confess that we are cautiously optimistic in light of everything we’ve seen to date.

Our favorite tweet of the week involves the law of donuts:

Look, kids, if you leave the donut in the box you have abandoned it even if you broke a piece off and wanted the rest later. It’s the law.

— Harvest Ceremony Hat (@Popehat) October 18, 2015

Back in 2013, James Carlson, owner of the Last Place of Earth head shop in Duluth, Minnesota, was convicted on 51 counts of peddling synthetic drugs. He was sentenced to 17 1/2 years in prison and ordered to forfeit $6.5 million. Carlson was accused of selling synthetic drugs misbranded as incense, potpourri, bath salts, and glass cleaner, the effects of which mimic illegal narcotics and hallucinogens. Carlson’s defense? The government led him to believe the products he was selling were legal. Carlson feels so strongly that he was in the clear that he has taken his case to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to a report out of CBS Minnesota, Carlson is challenging the constitutionality of the Federal Analogue Drug Act, 21 U.S.C. § 813, a section of the Controlled Substance Act allowing any chemical “substantially similar” to a scheduled controlled substance to be treated as if it were one of the scheduled drugs. Carlson contends that the law is so vaguely worded that it is impossible to know if one is violating it. At his sentencing hearing in 2014, Carlson claimed that over 1,000 other Minnesota businesses were selling the same products.

This White Sands rehabilitation facility says that the purpose of the Analogue Drug Act was to stay ahead of the curve in combating the ever changing molecular formulas of banned substances. With that said, we have grown weary of phrases like “substantially similar.”  What is and is not “substantially similar” is a question of fact opening the door to pickles like the one faced by Carlson.  Just as federal prosecutors can argue that the substances sold by Carlson are substantially similar to scheduled substances, so too can others argue that they are not.  And, there is your dilemma.

Whether or not the Court determines the statute is unconstitutionally vague, this case is yet another example of the problems of federal drug regulation. Again, the overarching principle – to protect the health and safety of the public – is a good one. But we must ask if there is a better way to go about it? Maybe we wouldn’t have to worry about the existence of “synthetic” drugs if we better addressed how we handle the pure ones.

If you’ve been on social media at all this week, then you know that today, October 21, 2015, is Back To The Future Day. In the 1989 film Back To The Future II, Marty McFly, who we shouldn’t even have to say was played by Michael J. Fox since it is such common knowledge, travels to this very day in 2015. Today, his distant future was our present. How about that?

Much has been written this week about the predictions, some zany, some accurate, that were made in the film. We’re pleased to see that the prediction that all lawyers had been abolished by 2015 did not come to pass. We wonder what Walter Olson thinks about that, though.

Self-driving cars are inevitable. But when human drivers are no longer operating their vehicles, who is to blame if the “self-driving” vehicle is involved in an accident? Google and Mercedes Benz have reportedly already “accept[ed] full liability if their self-driving vehicles cause a collision,” and now, Volvo has followed suit:

Only a few days after unveiling the user interface for its coming IntelliSafe Auto Pilot self-driving system, Volvo’s president and chief executive Håkan Samuelsson said the company would ‘accept full liability whenever one if its cars is in autonomous mode.’

What does that mean?

Apparently, Volvo will accept liability “for an accident if it was the result of a flaw in the car’s design.” However, “[i]f the customer used the technology in an inappropriate way then the user is still liable,” and of course, “if a third party vehicle causes the crash, then it would be liable.”

We at Abnormal Use struggle to see how this is different than the current state of the law, in which the manufacturer of a vehicle may be liable for an accident caused by a product defect and the driver of the vehicle may be liable if the driver’s negligence causes the collision. However, these proclamations by autonomous vehicle manufacturers may provide clarity in an otherwise uncertain, uncharted area.

Our editor has reminded me that it’s time for me to submit a blog post. So, here it is.

I could write about unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), commonly known as drones. There has been a good bit of discussion lately about the potential regulatory scheme for drones,  liability for negligent operation of drones, and product liability claims against drone manufacturers. But that would require some research, and I am not inclined to do that just now.

I could provide my nuanced political analysis on the first Democratic presidential debate, but I am confident our editor does not want me to go in that direction.  (Hint:  Ms. Clinton was the clear winner; Senator Sanders was his usual cantankerous self.)

What about religion? I could write about the role of religion in our political system with some GOP presidential candidates relying so heavily on evangelical support for their candidacies. But that would be a double-whammy taboo for the Abnormal Use blog.

What about this? I have been invited to speak to the Greenville County Dental Society about depression and suicide among that profession. According to the CDC, they have the highest per capita suicide rate among all professions. I have no idea why, but if our readers wish to offer any thoughts, I’m listening.

Alas, I suffer from a social media malady known as Blogger’s Block. Catch you next time!

Above, you’ll find the cover of Supernatural Law #38, and we must confess we dig it. “My case has become such a personal issue for my attorney – she doesn’t even notice I’m disappearing!” exclaims a client facing more than legal issues, it seems. We wonder if any of the ethical bodies of the state bars have addressed the issue of a partially disapparating client.

If you’re in Charlotte next week, you might be interested in a CLE that our editor, Jim Dedman, has planned for the Mecklenburg County Bar. It’s called “Bitcoin Basics for Lawyers,” and you can find the program and registration information here. If you’ve ever wondered about the nature of and law governing this cryptocurrency, there’s no better time to learn how it might affect your practice.

We tend to agree with this writer that emojis are ruining civilization. Any thoughts, dear readers?

Our favorite legal tweet of late is from our own Stuart Mauney, who congratulates our own John Cuttino:

Congrats to @GWBLawFirm partner John Cuttino @SCLitigator for election to Pres-Elect of DRI! Proud to call him my partner.

— C. Stuart Mauney (@stuartmauney) October 15, 2015

There are those moments when you are in the room, waiting for the other parties to arrive at the deposition, when conversations inevitably turn to that topic of topics:  iPads. Who can resist?

Recently, under such circumstances, I had an interesting conversation with a court reporter in which we discussed the possible future usage of iPads during the deposition process.  Certainly, already, lawyers are bringing their deposition outlines and documents to depositions on their iPads, laptops, or tablets.  With utilities like Dropbox and other online file storage utilities, lawyers or their staff members can place sizable PDF files in shared folders and make them accessible to the lawyer at their deposition. (Let’s assume for the purposes of this blog entry that any file sharing security and safety concerns are not at issue, shall we?)

The chief practical advantage of this approach is that the lawyer need not take boxes and boxes and boxes of voluminous potential exhibits to the deposition. Wouldn’t that be nice? Sigh. There have been cases during which I have had to take multiple boxes – each full of red wells, folders, papers, binders, and such – to the deposition.  You’ve got to have your notice of deposition, accident report, witness statements, and other records ready to be admitted into the record. Plus, you must carry with you a number of potential exhibits, as well. You never know what might become relevant; perhaps the witness will make a remark which requires the usage of voluminous medical or employment records as exhibits.  Perhaps you’ve dug up lots of dirt on the witness and want to reserve the right to confront him or her with documents to that effect.

But why are we are we continuing to bring these papers with us to depositions?  Well, the custom is, and the rules generally require, that the deposing lawyer provide copies of each exhibit to any lawyer present at the deposition.  We also need for the witness to be able to physically hold a copy of the exhibit, which, of course becomes the property of the court reporter who attaches it to the deposition in question. Lots of paper, that.

There’s a better way.

For most exhibits, we could simply produce a PDF on our iPads and show the witness the document in that format.  Prior to doing so, we could email a PDF of that exhibit from our iPads to all the lawyers present at the deposition so that they could have a copy to review on their laptops, PDAs or iPads.  Finally, a copy could be emailed to the court reporter to attach to the deposition itself, thereby sparing the need for multiple printouts of these exhibits (particularly when certain exhibits were probably already brought by all of the lawyers present as part of their own preparation for the proceeding).  This certainly seems to be an appropriate approach for exhibits such as notices of deposition, discovery responses, and accident reports, all of which are almost certain to be introduced into evidence, that every attorney in the case already has anyway, and in all likelihood, brought with them to the deposition in the first place.

But what if you want the witness to draw the exhibit?  How can I do so if it is in digital format?  Well, there are even programs that will allow someone using a stylist to draw on a PDF that is imported in that program.

Such issues are easily overcome.

Someday, though, someday, we’ll be able to arrive at the deposition with just our laptop or tablet.

But, alas, that day has not yet arrived.

(This post was originally posted on the now defunct North Carolina Law Blog on Wednesday, April 11, 2012).

We knew there would be much litigation over the Volkswagen emissions scandal, but even we are shocked by the quantity and speed of the filings. As of our last check, PACER showed that Volkswagen has already been named as a defendant in 374 lawsuits in more 60 different federal courts since the scandal broke on September 18. In the words of Ron Burgundy, “Boy, that escalated quickly.”

There were a lot of firms angling to file their complaints quickly to beat the competition to be named lead attorneys when cases reach the consolidation phase. Nearly 200 cases were filed less than a week after the allegations surfaced. However, the clear winner of the 100 meter dash to the courthouse is the Seattle firm of Hagens Berman. PACER reveals that it filed a 27 page class action complaint on September 18, which is the very day the news was reported.  Now that is some speedy complaint filing.

With so many class-action suits filed in so many different courts across the country, these cases will probably head to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In order to conserve resources, the panel will likely assign all of the cases to one federal judge. This action will avoid duplication of efforts for simple things such as pretrial hearings. In deciding where to assign the case, the panel will consider things such as the residency of the plaintiffs, the location of the evidence, and the availability of judges. Volkswagen of North America is headquartered in Herndon, Virginia, so the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia may be a candidate for the handling these cases. We shall see.

Recently, an Alabama man filed suit against Sears Roebuck & Co. after losing several fingers while operating a Craftsman table saw. According to a report from the Cook County Record, Victor Ingram’s fingers came in contact with the saw’s blade while he was “acting reasonably and exercising all due care for his own safety.” As a result of the accident, Ingram had to have multiple fingers amputated on his left hand. The suit alleges that the table saw was known to Sears (which owns Craftsman) to be dangerous when it was designed and manufactured. Specifically, Ingram alleges that Sears knew of available technology which could better guard the blade and which could trigger the blade to shut off if the blade made contact with flesh. However, the table saw did not incorporate such technology. The suit contains causes of action for product liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranty of fitness.

At first glance, this suit appears to be the prototypical “open and obvious” case. Obviously, the purpose of the table saw is to cut wood.  The risk of injury from getting one’s fingers too close to a moving saw blade would certainly be known to the reasonable person. We question how Ingram could have possibly been “exercising all due care for his own safety” if he allowed his fingers to touch the blade in the first place. On the other hand, the allegations are not that Sears failed to warn of such an injury, but that there was available technology which could have prevented it that Sears neglected to use. Back in 2011, we wrote on a similar suit involving Ryobi and its failure to incorporate the “SawStop” technology.  In that case, Dr. Stephen Gass, who invented “SawStop,” testified on behalf of the plaintiff that he had pitched his technology to a number of table saw manufacturers, but did not get any suitors. In case you were wondering, that case ended with a $1.5 million verdict for the plaintiff.

The question becomes whether “SawStop” or similar technology is a viable alternative design? Are we going to establish that an entire category of inexpensive table saws are defective because they don’t incorporate the technology? Has technology now caught up to product liability principles such that what was once “open and obvious” is now a design defect? For the record, SawStop now manufactures its own line of table saws.

As we reported last week, two Colorado marijuana users filed a first of its kind lawsuit against a marijuana grower they claim used a dangerous pesticide to treat its product. The target of the suit, LivWell Inc., operates one of the largest marijuana grow houses in the world. Although legalized marijuana is a growing industry, this case a regulatory gap for the new industry. LivWell is accused of using a pesticide known as Eagle 20 on its marijuana crop. Plaintiffs allege that while Eagle 20 may be safe for use on foods, its morphs into hydrogen cyanide when heated with a standard cigarette lighter. Obviously, that might be a big problem for a crop that is usually consumed by smoking it. However, neither Plaintiff claims to have become sick or suffered any personal injury from smoking marijuana treated with Eagle 20. Rather, Plaintiff’s causes of action include breach of contract, implied warranty of merchantability, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment.

Nevertheless, the case shines a light on marijuana’s odd place in the regulatory arena. Colorado is one of four states that have legalized the sale of recreational marijuana.  However, safety regulations on marijuana growth are still sparse. The U.S. government still regards almost all marijuana as an illicit drug, and there are no federal safety guidelines for growing it.  Thus, regulation is left to the states who must do their own research on what chemicals are safe for use on marijuana.  Colorado’s Department of Agriculture has an approved list of marijuana pesticides that growers are supposed to follow.  However, the list doesn’t specifically ban any pesticides.

Given the infancy of the marijuana industry and the lack of research regarding pesticide use, this could be the first of many lawsuits to come.