If you follow the storied history of hot coffee in product liability litigation, the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s decision to recall certain Keurig home coffee makers last week probably grabbed your attention.  Certain reports have already surfaced (like this one from Forbes) attempting to compare this CPSC move to the infamous Stella Liebeck case and to use the recall as another example of hot coffee being an unreasonably dangerous product.  Before making such comparisons, we need to take a better look at the substance of the CPSC’s decision.

According to the CPSC report, the Keurig MINI Plus Brewing System, model number K10, is being recalled after 90 burn-related injuries were reported.  Here is the kicker:  the burn injuries were not the result of people drinking or spilling hot coffee as was the case with Stella Liebeck but rather the result of hot liquid spewing out of the coffee maker during the brewing process.  Nothing about this recall speaks to the Keurig’s brewing or serving temperature being too hot.  Nor does this recall dispel the notion that people like their coffee to be served hot.  Rather, the recall speaks for exactly what it says – people don’t like to get sprayed with hot water while their coffee is brewing.

We here at Abnormal Use understand the call to compare every bit of hot coffee-related news to the Liebeck case.  In fact, we are guilty of doing it often ourselves.  This CPSC recall and the corresponding reports is just another example of how a single cup of coffee served 20 years ago in a New Mexico McDonald’s has fundamentally altered how the general public perceives the beverage and our legal system. So, again, we appreciate the notion.  Nonetheless, before we make these comparisons, let’s at least make sure we are comparing apples to apples.

If you practice in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, we have some news for you. According to an email sent from the court late last month, the Bryson City division is no more:

Please be advised that the Bryson City Division and case number will be dissolved effective 01/01/2015.

All new cases filed that fall within the counties that were before covered by the BC division: Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Jackson, Macon and Swain now are incorporated into the Asheville Division and will be assigned a “1” at the beginning of the case number. (Example: 1:15-cv-00001)

Update your files accordingly.

Well, we here at Abnormal Use typically do not post on weekend days, but today is a special occasion. It’s our fifth birthday. To celebrate, we direct your attention to the comic book cover above, that of Yogi Bears Birthday Party #1, published a good many years ago. (We don’t know why they omitted the apostrophe from the title, which should likely be Yogi Bear’s Birthday Party.).

That’s right, dear readers. It was five years ago today, on January 4, 2010, that we published our first blog post, our mission statement. Many thanks, of course, go out to our contributors, Nick Farr, Rob Green, Kyle White, Batten Farrar, Jessica Waller, Lindsay Joyner, and Janice Holmes, without whom this enterprise simply would not be possible. And to you, our dear readers, we thank you for your support.

You can read our past birthday posts here, here, here, and here. And if you want to see the last time we used a Yogi Bear holiday themed comic book cover in a post, click here to revisit a 2013 post.

Hey, it’s our first Friday Links of 2015! How about that?

As we previously mentioned, Back To The Future Part II is set, at least in part, in the year 2015. When that first was released way back in 1989, that future year seemed very distant. Now it’s upon us. So, now that we’re here, we feel we should direct you to “11 Predictions That Back to the Future Part II Got Wrong” and “11 Predictions That Back to the Future Part II Got Right.” Oh, and if you dig those, you’ve got to see this tweet. Enjoy.

Since this is a law blog, we had to share our favorite lines from Back To The Future Part II, those being:

Marty McFly: [Reading the newspaper from 2015] “Within two hours of his arrest, Martin McFly Jr. was tried, convicted and sentenced to fifteen years in the state penitentiary.”? Within two hours?

Doc: The justice system works swiftly in the future now that they’ve abolished all lawyers.

Ouch. I suppose it’s a good thing for us that such a thing never came to be.

Our favorite headline of late: “Lawsuit Blames DA’s Office for Failing to Supervise Investigators Accused of Stealing High-Priced Comic Books.” (Thanks for the link, Eric Nordstrom!).

Happy New Year from the Abnormal Use law blog and Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A.!

You know, usually, we set our posts to run at 7:30 a.m. each business day, but today, we couldn’t resist running this entry at 12:01 a.m. on this New Year’s Day of 2015. Wherever and in whichever time zone you find yourself, be safe, and be merry. Enjoy your day off and try to find some time to listen to U2’s “New Year’s Day” (which we mentioned here two years ago in a post about songs celebrating the arrival of a new year).

By the way, above, you’ll find the New Year’s themed cover of Walt Disney’s Comics & Stories #28, published way, way back in 1942.

It’s New Year’s Eve! We here at the Abnormal Use law blog and Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A. wish you a safe and festive evening. We can’t believe that it’s going to be 2015. In fact, twenty-five years ago, back in the halcyon days of 1989, we went to the movies to see Back To The Future Part II, in which the protagonist travels into the future and arrives in 2015.  We don’t think the coming year will be full of hover boards, but we’re still excited about it. (In fact, on Friday, we plan to dwell a bit more on the predictions of the future made by BTTF 2.).

By the way, above, you’ll find the cover of Batman: The Long Halloween #4, published in 1997 (itself a fine year). It seems appropriate for the day, no? Here’s a brief summary (from a much longer post on the issue) courtesy of Comicvine:

The gangsters of Gotham are having a New Year’s Eve gala aboard a yacht. Carmine “The Roman” Falcone is talking to Salvadore “The Boss” Maroni, and suggest that Maroni might be behind the Holiday killings. Falcone runs into his sister Carla and tells her that he is looking for his son Alberto. Alberto is scene alone by the rail of the yacht. Carla steps outside to have a cigarette. A gloved hand is seen unscrewing one of the light bulbs behind Alberto. An untraceable handgun fires and Alberto goes over the rail. Carla rushes towards the sound of the shot and finds the gun along with a glass of champagne and some confetti. It looks like Holiday has claimed another victim.

Yikes! Whatever the case, we wish you a fun evening, and we’ll see you next year.

Yesterday, we reported on the Tito’s Handmade Vodka lawsuit over the liquor’s “handmade” label.  That news came on the heels of the lawsuit filed against Maker’s Mark in California challenging the validity of the claims that the Kentucky bourbon is itself handmade.  With so much fuss about handmade liquor, we here at Abnormal Use thought it worthwhile to add an additional day of commentary.

As you may recall, the Tito’s lawsuit was filed by two New Jersey men on behalf of themselves and vodka drinkers everywhere who claim the Texas company’s “handmade” moniker is a sham. In addition to featuring the word “handmade” right in its brand name, Tito’s website states:

[Tito’s vodka] is microdistilled in an old-fashioned pot still, just like fine single malt scotches and high-end French cognacs. This time-honored method of distillation requires more skill and effort than modern column stills, but it’s well worth it.

According to the latest lawsuit, however, this “time-honored method” actually involves a large manufacturing plant in Texas.  Specifically, Plaintiffs allege:

This entire manufacturing process of the defendants is devoid of the caring touch of human hands.  This is a material factor in many individuals’ purchasing decisions, as they believe they are purchasing a product that is made in small amounts that is of inherently superior quality.

As such, the vodka is allegedly “not worth the purchase price paid.”

Even assuming the allegations are true, how have these plaintiffs really been damaged?  As was the case with Maker’s Mark, we here at Abnormal Use don’t pretend to know the difference between “handmade” and machine-made liquor.  We do, however, recognize that there is a certain premium associated with any handmade product.  For many, handmade products are perceived to be better made and, thus, come with a higher price tag.  On the other hand, we do not know whether handmade vodka is really better than that “devoid of the caring touch of human hands.”  Our guess is that blind testing would reveal a certain placebo effect associated with knowledge that the vodka is homemade.  After all, “top shelf” just means where the bottle is stored, right?

Obviously, if Tito’s represents one thing to consumers while doing another, it may pose a problem.  But the real question is whether the vodka-Red Bull of a regular Tito’s drinker now tastes a little less fulfilling after learning of this lawsuit.  Sometimes, ignorance is bliss.

Two plaintiffs from New Jersey are on a mission to exact justice on behalf of those who they believe were duped in to buying mass produced vodka. Gasp!  The alleged evildoer? The maker of Tito’s Handmade Vodka.  The plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit alleging that Tito’s production process is “the complete opposite of the product being handmade.”  This comes on the heels of a similar suit on which we reported against the distiller of Maker’s Mark Bourbon.

Plaintiffs Marc McBrearty and Paul Cantilina say Tito’s had a legitimate claim to the “handmade” label when the vodka was made in a 16-gallon pot still. However, the plaintiff’s claim that “it is now manufactured by machines in a highly mechanized process on a 26 acre operation that produced approximately 850,000 cases in 2012.”  They allege that by using this process and not dropping the “handmade” moniker, Tito’s is intentionally misrepresenting its product in violation of New Jersey’s Consumer Protection Act.

According to a 2013 Forbes article, Tito’s did nearly $85 million in sales in 2012 at around 12 million bottles.  In spite of this huge number, Tito’s founder, Bert “Bertito” Beveridge, certainly isn’t conceding that his product fails to live up to its name.  He told Forbes, “If someone tells me my brand isn’t a craft-distilled spirit because it’s too big, I just say, ‘I make it the same way I’ve always made it. I just have a lot more stills.”

On the one hand, the lawsuit seems very silly, considering that all decent vodka tastes exactly the same.  However, given that fact, little schticks like being “handmade” are what sets the brands apart. We’ll be watching this lawsuit and the others like.

We here at Abnormal Use and Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A. hope that everyone has a wonderful Christmas yesterday. With that in mind, we’ve got time for one more Christmas themed comic book cover, so we direct your attention to that of The New Archies #21, published not so long ago in 1990. As you can see, the Archie gang is up to its usual set of tricks.

Last week, on December 17, we published a piece about the U.S. Navy’s new laser weapon. In so doing, we referenced – and included a picture of – Dr. Evil. Well, just three days later, on the final episode of “Saturday Night Live” of the year, Dr. Evil returned. How about that?

Speaking of which, this is our last edition of Friday Links of 2014.

Behold: “6 Predictions For Law Firm Marketing in 2015” from the LexisNexis Business of Law Blog.

Congratulations to GWB shareholder Ron Wray on his election as president of the South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys Association. For more information, please see here.

Don’t forget: You can follow us on Twitter here and on Facebook here!

We here at Abnormal Use and Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A. wish everyone a very Merry Christmas. To celebrate the occasion, we direct your attention to the Dennis The Menace comic book cover above, published way, way back in 1965. (We thought we’d go with something traditional today.). We’re a bit concerned with young Dennis, who finds himself on a snowy rooftop. That fact scenario is a torts exam question waiting to happen, isn’t it? Whatever the case, we hope you have a safe and festive holiday. And, dear readers, try not to bill too many hours over the break.

Now, we’re off to open some presents, so we’ll see you tomorrow with a Christmas-themed edition of Friday Links.