• Believe it or not, but the Marvel Comics character She-Hulk is an attorney. Above, you’ll see the cover of The Sensational She-Hulk #59, published not so long ago in 1994, during which She-Hulk, clad in her courtroom attire, asks the court for a “short recess” so that she can dispose of the host of super villains who have appeared. (One wonders how they all bypassed the security at the courthouse entrance). Whatever the case, we suspect the request was granted by the trial court judge. She-Hulk’s Wikipedia entry describes her as a “highly skilled lawyer” who has “served as legal counsel to various superheroes on numerous occasions.” She apparently practices at the fictional firm of Goodman, Lieber, Kurtzberg & Holliway which, curiously enough, has its own Wikipedia entry. (Below, at the end of this post, you’ll find the cover of She-Hulk #7, published very recently, only back in 2006. Note that She-Hulk dresses up for hearings and walks up the courthouse steps just like real lawyers do!)
• The ContractsProf Blog uses a clip from “Seinfeld” to illustrate the principles of Lauvetz v. Alaska Sales & Serv. d/b/a Nat’l Car Rental, 828 P 2d 162 (Alaska 1991). We encourage this method of legal instruction. As you know, we love “Seinfeld.”
• You may recall that here and here we mentioned the case of Barbour v. Int’l Union United Auto. Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., (4th Cir. Feb. 4, 2010) (PDF), in which the Fourth Circuit adopted the last served defendant rule in the removal context. Beware: that case is now no more. Brian Peterson of the West Virginia Legal Weblog reports that the Fourth Circuit, en banc, has issued a new opinion in the case and held that it will not adhere to the last served defendant rule after all. Rather, it has elected to follow the McKinney Intermediate Rule. See the new opinion here. [PDF].
• Eric Goldman of the Technology & Marketing Law Blog writes about Badella v. Deniro Marketing LLC, 10-03908 CRB (N.D. Cal. Jan 24, 2011), a putative class action brought on behalf of “lonely and vulnerable men” who claimed they were tricked into using an online dating site. The court refused to dismiss all of their claims. Those are going to be some great depositions.
• We must confess that we love it when Plaintiffs claim one thing in their lawsuits and entirely contradict themselves with posts and pictures on Facebook. This past week, that topic was apparently quite popular, with a story at MSNBC/Reuters and follow-ups here at Overlawyered and here at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog. While you’re off reading those reports, we’re just going to go set our Facebook Wall to private.
• Deadline Hollywood, a widely read Hollywood blog, reported this week that pay cable giant HBO has bought the rights to “Hot Coffee,” the Susan Saladoff directed documentary about the Stella Liebeck McDonald’s hot coffee case. As you recall, we previously commented upon that film here. This, of course, means that the film will receive a much wider audience than it did at the Sundance Film Festival, where it premiered just a week ago . Writes Deadline Hollywood‘s Mike Fleming:
  

  EXCLUSIVE: HBO has closed a deal for Hot Coffee, the Susan Saladoff-directed competition documentary which focuses on how corporations have used the memory of outlandish legal verdicts as a way to press for tort reforms and avoid jury trials through arbitration on cases that actually have merit.

  HBO’s Sheila Nevins viewed the documentary after it premiered last Monday. I’m told the deal was mid to high six-figures. HBO licensed the film for broadcast and VOD for 2 years, and will afford the film a qualifying Oscar theatrical run before it airs on the pay channel. Preferred Content’s Kevin Iwashina brokered the sale. Carly Hugo and Alan Oxman produced with Saladoff.

  The film’s title refers to the famous case of a woman”s million dollar judgment from McDonald’s over a spilled cup of coffee. Saladin, a lawyer, focuses on other outrageous cases that illustrated where corporations were negligent or unresponsive. They include a case involving Halliburton, which housed a 19-year old worker overseas in a barracks with men and ignored her concerns. She was gang-raped.

  Although we caught some grief last week for pointing out Saladoff’s career as a Plaintiff’s attorney and longstanding ties to various “civil justice groups,” we stand by our post and look forward to see the film when it hits our television screens.

• Depicted above is the cover of Green Lantern #11, published way, way back in 1962. It features a story entitled “The Strange Trial of Green Lantern,” which is an odd affair indeed. It’s nice to know that the High Court of the Green Lanterns of the Universe doesn’t just find criminal defendants to be not guilty of the charges at issue; they go so far as to pronounce the defendant innocent of the charges. However, we think that Earth’s Green Lantern, the apparent defendant in this case, should have just pleaded guilty in the first place if his response to the acquittal is “I’m Guilty! You must strip me of my super-powers!” Extraterrestrial judicial economy is not served by forcing an alien tribunal to go through a trial if you’re just going to plead guilty at the end of the process, anyway.
• We’ve arrived! We here at Abnormal Use must be doing something right if a Plaintiff’s friendly blog like The Pop Tort sees fit to bash our commentary of “Hot Coffee,” the documentary by Plaintiff’s lawyer Susan Saladoff which profiles the famous Stella Liebeck case and advocates civil justice reform to make it easier for Plaintiffs to recover. The Pop Tort‘s philippic, written under the pseudonym “Joe Consumer,” calls our writer Nick Farr’s story a “sorry attempt to slam” the film and part of “a dirty corporate disinformation campaign” all concocted by a “corporate lawyer” attempting to relitigate the famed case. Wow! Nick is planning his own retort to set the record straight which we will publish next week. In the meantime, we thank the mysterious “Joe Consumer” for also linking our “comprehensive” FAQ on the Liebeck case, published here the day after our film comment.
• This is not a copyright and trademark blog, but we can’t resist sharing WordSpy‘s definition of the term “copyfighter,” which is defined as “[a] person who opposes copyright laws and practices that he or she perceives to be unfair.” If you’re not familiar with the site, WordSpy is dedicated to defining newly coined words and clever turns of phrase in the media.
• In this video, we learn that Darth Vader is quite adept at contract modification. We pray he doesn’t alter the deal again. (Hat tip: ContractsProf Blog).
• We congratulate the Honorable Henry F. Floyd of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina for his appointment by President Obama to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. See the news coverage of the appointment here.

Now is the time that we, as consumers of media, are inundated with year end best-of lists. So, we here at Abnormal Use thought we would add to that cacophony and list for you our favorite twelve posts of this past year – which was also our first year. If you’ve followed us from the very beginning, you know that we’ve posted at least every business day this calendar year. Looking back over several hundred posts, it was difficult to choose only twelve. But, dear readers, the ones we enjoyed the most are linked for you below, along with their author and publication date.

The Not-So Deep End (Kevin Couch, January 22, 2010). Our very first foray into the realm of television reviews. The program we reviewed, “The Deep End,” did not last. In fact, both this blog and that show debuted in January of 2010. We outlived the show!

What Does Society Demand from a Chicken Sandwich? (Kevin Couch, February 3, 2010). Our first truly irreverent look at products liability litigation. We have since learned that any posts having to do with hot chicken (or hot coffee) garner great attention. (We were particularly pleased the chicken sandwich post earned this link from How Appealing and this one from Overlawyered, two of our favorite law blogs).

A Modest Proposal: Abolish Strict Liability (Phil Reeves, April 7, 2010). Our first editorial, in which site author Phil Reeves argued for the abolition of an old products doctrine. That’s right; we’re not afraid to have an opinion. Don’t tread on us.

Unsatisfying Snickers Bar Unreasonably Dangerous and Defective, Texas Court Holds (Jim Dedman, April 1, 2010). Our first hoax, perpetrated, of course, on April Fool’s Day. We were pleased to report that we actually did fool a few people, despite the many clues indicating that it was all in fun. “Reasonable degree of confectionery certainty,” indeed.

A Can of Tuna A Day, Keeps The Doctor Away? (Mary Giorgi, May 10, 2010). Someone who ate a can of tuna a day sued claiming damages for eating a can of tuna day. We had to comment. Really, we did.

Our First Milestone: 100 Posts (Stephanie Flynn, May 18, 2010). Our first arbitrary celebration of an arbitrary milestone. Pensive as we are, though, we couldn’t resist. Blogging is, after all, an introspective medium designed for self indulgent self reflection. That’s what we here do best!

Live from Litchfield Beach (Dan Eller, June 7, 2010). If you had any doubts, this post is clear and convincing evidence that we blog even when on vacation.

Google Failed to Warn Woman Not to Walk into Oncoming Traffic (Laura Simons, June 22, 2010). Someone alleged that she walked into the highway traffic because she was blindly following directions taken from Google Maps. Um, okay.

Bluejays and Mockingbirds (Mills Gallivan, July 6, 2010). Our boss – senior partner Mills Gallivan – paused to observe the anniversary of the publication of Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockibird and reflect on what that means to the legal profession as a whole.

Wii Class Action Strikes Out: Hang on to Your Controller (Frances Zacher, October 12, 2010). People who inadvertently toss their Wii controllers at there televisions, thereby damaging them, attempt to certify themselves as a class. We comment thereupon.

Thanksgiving in 1810, 1910, and 2010 (Jim Dedman, November 22, 2010). We dug up a forgotten magazine article from a long forgotten magazine. Writing in 1910, the author – a lawyer, no less – looked back a hundred years and commented upon the many changes that had taken placed and briefly wondered at the world of 2010. We responded, and in the process, received so many links and hits that we broke all of our site traffic records.

Views of 2011 From 1931 (Jim Dedman, December 14, 2010). We comment upon the predictions contained in a series of editorials published in The New York Times in 1931. The paper of record asked that day’s visionaries what they thought they year 2011 would look like. Some were surprisingly accurate; others, not so much. It became our most linked post of the year, and we saw huge, huge traffic as a result.

We can hardly believe it ourselves. But we here at Abnormal Use scored an interview with the actor, Phil Morris, who most know as Jackie Chiles, the bombastic, flamboyant, and opportunistic trial lawyer from “Seinfeld.” So, today, Abnormal Use continues its series, “Abnormal Interviews,” which now includes actors, as well as law professors, practitioners, and other commentators in the field. Though the character only appeared in six episodes of the series (including the 1998 finale), Chiles resonated with viewers. Recently, Morris reprised the role for a series of videos posted on the Funny or Die website (two of which have been posted already with three more on the way in the coming weeks). Less than a week ago, Morris was kind enough to submit to a telephone interview with our own Kevin Couch. In the interview, Morris discusses not just his role as Chiles, but also his upcoming projects, his love of superhero comic books, and his past work and influences. Although you may be able to quote many lines of Jackie Chiles “Seinfeld” dialogue, you probably didn’t know that Morris has studied kung fu, collected 20,000 comic books in his life time, and expressed an interest in one day playing the Silver Surfer on screen. His new sitcom, “Love That Girl!,” premieres in January. Our favorite part: Though his signature character is associated with litigiousness, Morris himself is actually skeptical of the modern litigation culture, going so far as to call it “beyond the pale.”

The interview transcript is as follows:

ON THE RETURN OF JACKIE CHILES

KEVIN COUCH: [I]t’s been 12 years since the finale of “Seinfeld,” and you have revived the Jackie Chiles character recently. Can you tell me about that?

PHIL MORRIS: Well, you know, Jackie had a life of his own even during the run of “Seinfeld.” You know, I had done a couple of commercials for Honda and Diet Dr. Pepper. He was one of the few characters, actually maybe the only character, that Larry [David] and Jerry [Seinfeld] would allow to do his own thing outside of the “Seinfeld” universe. So, you know, I mean, I just never really tired of him. I don’t think the public did, and we never got a chance to do a show that was – we had in development, and it was always just kind of percolating beneath my skin, and when the “Curb Your Enthusiasm” shows came out last season with the “Seinfeld” reunion kind of run, or arc, everybody was asking me about Jackie. I mean, you know, it was like Jackie had come back, and Jackie wasn’t even in it. So, I sat down with a friend of mine who’s a pretty high powered agent here in town, and he was asking me about Jackie. You know, we loved this reunion stuff, and we finally had something to talk about at the water cooler again, and you know, the only thing missing is Jackie. Where’s Jackie? I was like, “You know, man, Jackie, that ship has sailed, and blah, blah, blah.” He goes, “Oh, no, it has not sailed. We want that guy back.” And he gave me the idea to kind of put it on the web and, you know, test the waters, see if people were interested. You know, Kevin, I work a lot. I do a lot of shows. I do a lot of stuff. I’m on “Smallville” on the occasion. I’m doing a new show called “Love That Girl!” for TV One. So, it’s not like I was sitting around waiting on stuff to do.

COUCH: Right.

MORRIS: It’s like, this came to me, and as an actor, rarely do you get a character that you feel so committed to and it speaks to you so fully as a Jackie Chiles. So I was like, “Why not?” Let me give it a shot. You know, so, I wrote a couple of these interstitial commercial kind of things. You know, Jackie’s back, and he’s wanting new clients kind of deal. And, a buddy of mine and I who are writing it, he told Funny or Die that we were doing this. And we hadn’t even started. And they came right at us. They were like, “We’ll produce it, we’ll distribute them, we love this guy, he’s perfect for us!” So I wrote these five with Whit’s help, Whit Hertford’s help, and went to Castle Rock and cleared their legal. It took about two months. And the result is kind of, you know, what you see. They’re parceling out one episode or one segment every few weeks and judging the public’s interest. And so far, the public is very interested.

…

COUCH: [W]ould you be interested in pursuing the Jackie Chiles character further? I mean, it sounds like you’ve got some good feedback from Funny or Die, and from the public on Funny or Die, would that be something you’re interested in pursuing in the future?

MORRIS: Of course, of course. Like I said, it’s rare for an actor to have characters that you so firmly connect to. Now, I don’t really relate to Jackie personally, but as an actor, I get it completely. So, I find that it’s refreshing for me to try to fit into that skin all the time, and like I said, I have barely scratched the surface of Jackie Chiles, so it’d be great to be able to pursue this path, you know, the computer screen and maybe into a television series, or I don’t even know what’s next for him, but I really don’t think there’s a limit.

COUCH: [H]ow much of you is in Jackie? Is he a completely foreign character, or is there some part of you that can identify with who Jackie is?

MORRIS: Well, I’m sure you have people in your family or people that you know that you can imitate or you can represent because they’re such great characters, but they’re not – it’s not really you, but you know them so well, you know, and I think Jackie is a combination of many men that I have grown up with and seen, from my father to my great uncle, Uncle Phil, my namesake, that just remind me of this kind of force of nature that is Jackie Chiles. You know, of course, Johnnie Cochran is in there as well. He was the template. For my purposes as an actor, Jackie is a hustler, he’s a pimp, he’s a preacher, and he’s an attorney. So, do I relate to all those things? I relate to them. Are they Phil Morris? No, not all of them.

COUCH: Did you have a chance to meet Johnnie Cochran?

MORRIS: I did, actually. Interestingly enough, we went to the same barber shop for years and years and years here in Los Angeles. So, I would see him as a kid come in and pontificate on everything from the Raiders moving to L.A. to any of the number of egregious acts of civil unrest. So I think I was doing some subconscious study on him for a long, long time.

COUCH: [B]ut you never had a chance to discuss the Chiles character with him?

MORRIS: Yeah, I did. And he loved it. I mean, I think he thought it was very flattering – at first.

COUCH: At first. Understood. Of course, one of the story lines from “Seinfeld” was, I guess, Kramer’s burns from the hot coffee. Do you have any feeling about that? What about people filing these lawsuits for burning themselves on hot coffee?

MORRIS: Well, we’re so litigious in this society, too much. It’s way beyond the pale. So that’s where I kinda jump off from Jackie. I certainly wouldn’t put stock in a lot of that stuff. I think, it’s just, we’ve gotten away with way too much here in the United States in terms of the legal ramifications of everything. I think, again like I said, beyond the pale. Jackie is an opportunist. So anything like that is manna for him. But personally, I think we’re really hurting ourselves and shooting ourselves in the foot. Not only are we giving our legal system a bad name, but we’re abusing it! We’re misusing those bits of legal power that we have – we’re fortunate enough to have in this country. It kind of drives me crazy.

…

COUCH: Have you ever had any lawyers come up to you and talk about Jackie Chiles?

MORRIS: All the time.

COUCH: What’s common in what they talk to you about?

MORRIS: Most of them – all of them, to me, are very positive. In fact, there is a Jackie Chiles Law Society at the University of Utah. I bet you didn’t know that!

COUCH: I did not go to the University of Utah, or I assure you, I would have been a member.

MORRIS: Is that crazy? So, anyway, their club, their society is about the public’s perception of law as the media represents it. And it’s very interesting, a very interesting phenomenon. But, yeah, most of the lawyers that come up to me are very supportive. They get the joke! You know what I’m saying? And I think people need to know that. As crazy as we think lawyers are and as crazy as the lawyers might actually be – on a whole, especially when it comes to Jackie – they get it! They’re like – man, this man is a lightning rod for all that’s good and all that’s bad.

COUCH: Anybody talk to you about not getting the joke?

MORRIS: No. Not one lawyer has gone – you know, “What the heck are you doing, I can’t understand why people even like this character!” Not one. Not one has come up to me with any sort of negative spin on this [character].

…

COUCH: It’s not the first time you’ve played a lawyer. I’ve got to ask you about Tyrone Jackson. I don’t know if anybody else will know who Tyrone Jackson is. But you played a character on “The Young and the Restless,” right?

MORRIS: You’re good, Kevin, you are good!

COUCH: Well, you know, I have the Internet to thank for that. . . . Is [there] anything from Tyrone that’s in the Jackie Chiles character?

MORRIS: Only his determination. That’s it. Tyrone actually was a very good natured, “Johnny Be Goode” kind of character, and Jackie certainly isn’t that. But what they have in common is their dogged determination to make sure the truth – as far as they see it – will out. That’s pretty much the only connection there.

COMIC BOOK SUPERHEROES

COUCH: Like you mentioned earlier, you’ve done a lot of different work – voice work and animated features, Doc Saturday, Jonah Hex, work in the “Justice League.” . . . I guess you’re a fan of this genre of entertainment?

MORRIS: Yep, oh, yeah.

COUCH: What motivated that? . . . From what I can tell your sister [actress Iona Morris] has done some voice work and animation, as well.

MORRIS: She actually turned me on to voice over work early on. I was so busy with the on camera stuff. Voice over is not easy. It’s a very clique-ish insider type of circle that you get into. But, hey, I’m a comic book fan, man. I’m sitting here right now in my bedroom, and I’m looking at the 20,000 comic books I have in my library. 20,000!

COUCH: Wow. That is impressive.

MORRIS: I’ve collected since I was a child. So, all of that helps me as an actor. It helps my imagination. It helps my fantasy life. All that stuff. So, it’s a natural to kind of transition into voice-overs. I’m just a child. Man, I haven’t grown up.

COUCH: Are you a fan of anything in particular in the comic book genre?

MORRIS: Now, I’m a big fan of the writers. Before, I used to be a Marvel guy. When you’re a kid you kinda take allegiances with either Marvel or DC – those are the two big dogs. But there’s a lot of independent books out there, and a lot of writers and artists that – now that I’m in that world – that I’ve known and been fortunate enough to become friends with. I really like the writing. Obviously, it’s not kid stuff anymore. They’re dealing with some interesting themes in the comic book world.

COUCH: Well, you mentioned earlier you played a super hero on “Smallville.” Do you have a favorite superhero? If you could play one, who would it be?

MORRIS: It would be the Silver Surfer, actually, from the Fantastic Four comics. He was a very existential, philosophical being who kind of belonged to no world and no universe, and sometimes, I feel like that. [Laughs.]

COUCH: Well, I’m sure it wasn’t hard to play a super hero right after playing a lawyer, right?

MORRIS: [Laughs.] You know, perfect study. I’ll have to be honest with you.

COUCH: You would agree that lawyers are pretty much like super heroes?

MORRIS: No doubt, no doubt. You’ll get no argument from me, Kevin.

ROLE AS PRODUCER

COUCH: You ever think about doing anything other than being an actor? Like, being something like a lawyer?

MORRIS: I was very interested in automotive design for a long, long time. When it got a bit too math intensive, I bounced out of that. You know, I think I sort of expanded my ability to create and express within this particular career choice. You know, Jackie, I wrote and produced, and obviously, am Jackie. Since then, I’ve produced something else that we want to turn into a feature film. So, I went from producing nothing in 30 years of acting to the last couple of months producing two very diverse and very extravagant products. I would really like to pursue that more – to produce and to write and use all of my skills as opposed to just the acting part of my tool kit.

COUCH: Is there anything you’re working on now as far as production or writing?

MORRIS: There’s a movie that we’re trying to put together called Surf Men, which is a historical piece about the turn of the century, actually 1880’s, Reconstruction lifesaving service back in the East Coast which is a precursor of the Coast Guard and the African American lifesaving crew that was a part of that service. It’s an incredible story, so my buddy Dennis Haysbert from “The Unit” and “24” and the Allstate commercials – he and I are producers on this project. And we’re very excited to get it out there and have people see what we’re really all about beyond our acting skills.

KUNG FU HOBBY

COUCH: Now, you’re a kung fu guy.

MORRIS: I am.

COUCH: How’d you get into that?

MORRIS: Well, my dad [Greg Morris] did the original “Mission Impossible” . . . years ago, back in the sixties. At first, they started to take karate lessons because they were doing some exotic hand-to-hand combat then – it really wasn’t seen. So, when my dad started, I started. In ’66, I was seven. So, I’ve been involved with the martial arts since I was seven years old. This particular master that I study with now, Hawkins Cheung, I’ve been with for a little over 20 years. I started with him here in Los Angeles, and he was Bruce Lee’s best friend back in Hong Kong. So, there was no better teacher I could find than him. And I was a huge Bruce Lee fan, so it just fell right in my lap. I’ve been with him for over 20 years.

COUCH: So if I were to anger you in some way during this interview, would you be more likely to file a lawsuit Jackie Chiles style or just put me in some kind of kung fu grip?

MORRIS: I think I’d just file a lawsuit. Jackie would come after me if I put hands on you. He would say, “You should know better.” And I should. I need to walk away. I’d rather come after you with humor. [Laughs.]

COUCH: Now, you talked about your dad, Greg Morris. You grew up in a household where he was an actor. Did you ever think to yourself, “He’s got a much cooler job than being a lawyer?”

MORRIS: Yeah, I think so. Yeah.

HIS INFLUENCES

COUCH: . . . [W]ho else helped shape your career – who have you wanted to be as far as an actor and now maybe this production and writing?

MORRIS: A big influence – not as much personally, although I do know him personally, professionally, in terms of his legacy is Sidney Poitier. I remember when my father came up, he was one of the first African Americans to present an image on television that was palpable, acceptable, mainstream, strong, intelligent. It was a huge deal in the country, period, but especially in my community. And certainly one of the great idols and icons in my community, Sidney Poitier. And I had the fortune to meet him as a child and to see him come to our house, hear him speak, he was a good friend of my father’s. And every time I run into Sidney, he has great words of wisdom and is always checking on my well-being and my understanding of this business beyond just being an actor. So, he’s been a huge influence. The way he carries himself, his intelligence, his bearing. So two of the greatest – Sidney in film and my father in television – were two of the greatest influences a young African American actor could have. Those two. Bill Cosby, ironically enough. Another very good friend of my father’s who is such a solid individual. He’s a professor. He’s very much a family man. A staple of entertainment, black, white, indifferent, for years and years and years. In fact, decades. So he’s been a very close friend. Not so much personally [that] I call him up on the phone and say, “Hey, Bill, what do you think about this?” Just that when you grow up the way I grew up, the influences are everywhere. You’re fortunate, and you’re smart, if you take a page out of the people’s books who’ve been there before you. I’m hoping to find that and further that in my own creative career.

HIS NEW SITCOM, “LOVE THAT GIRL!”

COUCH: . . . You have got a new sitcom coming. Tell me about that.

MORRIS: Yeah. Martin Lawrence is one of our producers, and Bentley Kyle Evans, who produced the “Martin” show and “The Jamie Foxx Show,” created a show called “Love That Girl!” starring Tatyana Ali from the “Fresh Prince.” It’s basically – Tatyana plays this young divorcee’ who moves back to Los Angeles and deals with her father. I play her dad. And deals with her brother, played by Alphonso McAuley and her crazy neighbors. It’s really a traditional four camera sitcom that is just funny and has great value and is not just good for my community but good for television overall, and TV One is a brand new network that has been out maybe five or six years and is being run by some of the most forward thinking African American executives I’ve ever worked with. We air in January. We have a 26 show initial order. So, I think the public will like that, as well.

FAVORITE ROLES

COUCH: Do you have a favorite project that you’ve done? You’ve done a multitude, you know, “Star Trek” and all the other stuff that you’ve done. Can you point to a favorite? Is that hard to do?

MORRIS: It’s kind of hard to do because I’ve done so much and so different. I loved “The Young and The Restless.” I really did. We started talking about that a little bit. That was a great initial offering for, again, a young actor.

COUCH: I tried to look that up on YouTube. I did not find any Tyrone Jackson videos. I don’t know if there’s some legal reason for that. But if we can dig one of those up, we’ll put that up.

MORRIS: I don’t know where that would exist either. “The Young and The Restless” has been on forever. They’re a daily show, so the archives have got to be very convoluted, but “The Young and The Restless” was great. Certainly, “Seinfeld” was phenomenal. I did a television movie for Disney called “Tracks of Glory” about Marshall “Major” Taylor who was a world champion cyclist. That’s a project that not a lot of people saw, but again, very close to my heart and helped me a lot as a creative person. I did the new “Love Boat.” This was a weird one to pick up and talk about. The new “Love Boat” I did with Robert Urich and Joan Severance, and it was one of the most incredible times I’ve ever had. First of all, Robert Urich was a fabulous guy. He had had – he was post-operative cancer, he’s since passed away from cancer. But to know him was just a joy, and he just was a brilliant guy, and I got a chance to work with him. I worked with Peter Graves on the new “Mission Impossible,” which was phenomenal. Here, he was my Uncle Peter, I grew up with him and his kids, now we’re working together! It was just – I’ve had a great life, a great creative life, Kevin.

FURTHER READING ON PHIL AND GREG MORRIS

• “Mission: Impossible’s Greg Morris / He keeps his cool despite grueling competition both on and off the screen,” Ebony, December 1967.
• “Mission: Possible: Greg Morris Family / Beats old show business ‘jinx,” Ebony, May 1981.
• “Mission: Possible / Phil Morris takes over dad’s role in suspense TV series,” Ebony, June 1989.
• “New Faces on TV and in Films,” Ebony, March 1985.
• “Phil Morris Stars in ‘Tracks of Glory,‘” Jet, July 20, 1992.
• “Second Generation: Children Tell Why They Follow in Their Parents’ Footsteps,” Jet, Jun 19, 1989.
• “TV’s Greg Morris Talks About His Family and Future,” Jet, January 12, 1978.
• Waldron Clarence. “‘Young and The Restless’ Celebrates 35 Years of Drama, Success,” Jet, April 7, 2008.

The Associated Press recently reported that if you use your laptop for too long while it sits on your lap, you could develop “toasted skin syndrome,” also known as erythema ab igne. This is a gross-sounding skin condition characterized by darkening or discoloration caused by long term exposure to relatively moderate heat levels – say from a heating pad, or a hot water bottle.

Today, Abnormal Use continues its series, “Abnormal Interviews,” in which this site will conduct brief interviews with law professors, practitioners and other commentators in the field. For the latest installment, we turn to law professor Susan Rowe of the Charlotte School of Law in Charlotte, North Carolina. The interview is as follows:

1. What do you think is the most interesting development in products liability or torts litigation of the last year?

The obvious one is the Toyota gas-pedal acceleration issue. Very recently, Toyota settled the Saylor lawsuit in California where a California Highway Patrol officer and three of his family members were killed in August 2009 when driving a Lexus ES 350 that crashed going about 100 mph. Also, last week, a California judge set a deadline of October 12 for parties to identify claims that are not currently part of the complaint in the multi-district litigation or those claims will be dismissed from the multi-district litigation. There are about 186 class action cases for economic damages based upon unintended acceleration in 39 states, including D.C. and Puerto Rico. Some claims allege a defect in the electronic engine control system, while others allege defects related to floor mat placement. Toyota says its investigations have never found any problems with the electronic engine control system. It will be very interesting to see how these cases are ultimately resolved and whether it will be proven that there was an electronic problem.

2. What rule or concept in modern products liability jurisprudence do you believe is the most outdated? How would you change it, and why?

Contributory negligence and assumption of the risk being complete bars to recovery in products cases are probably the most outdated rules since most jurisdictions have moved to comparative fault, which reduces a plaintiff’s ability to recover but is not a complete bar to recovery. I think comparative fault is more fair. For the few jurisdictions that retain contributory negligence and are concerned about moving away from it, I would probably change the rule to a modified comparative fault regime that requires that a plaintiff be less than or equal to 50 percent at fault in order to recover.

3. North Carolina retains the concept of pure contributory negligence. How does this affect products liability and torts suits filed in that state?

Yes, North Carolina does retain contributory negligence, which remains a complete bar to a plaintiff’s recovery in any tort suit in North Carolina. The doctrine of last clear chance also applies in North Carolina, but it is unlikely to help a plaintiff in a products suit because a manufacturer will rarely have a chance to avoid the injury to a plaintiff before she is injured. A North Carolina bill to change to comparative negligence recently failed to make it through the Senate.

Chapter 99B of the North Carolina General Statutes contains North Carolina’s Products Liability Act. This statute explicitly provides that contributory negligence applies in products liability actions and that there is no strict liability in products liability cases. Instead, plaintiffs must rely upon other causes of action such as negligence, unfair trade practices, misrepresentation, or warranty. The North Carolina Supreme Court has held that the defenses under 99B, including contributory negligence, apply to breaches of the implied warranty of merchantability regardless of whether negligence is also alleged, which is a bit unnatural that contributory negligence may bar recovery to a suit brought under the UCC where negligence is never alleged.

4. What advice would you give to lawyers practicing the field of products liability litigation?

I would say that lawyers should watch how jurisdictions approach the Restatement (Third) of Torts. Jurisdictions are beginning to use this Restatement some when deciding products cases. The Restatement (Third) retains strict liability for manufacturing defect cases, but tends to move toward negligence when deciding design defect and failure to warn cases. Under the Third Restatement, a design defect occurs “when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design.” A failure to warn defect occurs “when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings.” Thus, the use of the terms “foreseeable” and “reasonable” lean more toward a negligence standard.

5. What federal or state court opinion has been the biggest surprise for you of late, and why?

I think the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division decision in Kendall v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., No. A-2633-08T3, 2010 WL 3034453 (N.J. Super. A.D. Aug. 5, 2010) is interesting. In that case, the Appellate Division overturned a $10.5 million verdict for a plaintiff who developed ulcerative colitis after taking Accutane and remanded for a new trial. The trial judge initially prohibited Roche (the manufacturer) from using any numbers related to the number of incidences of IBD that developed in the general population as a way to show when Roche should have had signals that it needed to change its warnings. On the eighth day of trial near the conclusion of plaintiff’s case, the trial judge changed her mind and allowed the numbers to be used but issued a cautionary instruction to the jury, in part, that stated “[t]he comparison of a background incidence of . . . IBD, in the general population, to the reported incidence of IBD in patients taking Accutane, is not a scientifically accepted method of proving whether a particular product … acts as a trigger for, and, therefore, is a cause of a particular side effect.” She also sustained an objection by plaintiff’s counsel during defense counsel’s closing argument when defense counsel was going through Accutane usage numbers.

The Kendall court ruled that Roche had been prejudiced by the delay in allowing it to use the numbers and by the jury instruction and objection during defense counsel’s closing. The court also held that Roche could use the numbers not only to try and prove it acted reasonably in modifying its warnings, but also to disprove causation. The court based its reasoning on a similar decision by the same court that came out after the Kendall trial and before the appeal. In the prior case of McCarrell, Roche was never allowed to use the numbers. When McCarrell was retried, the jury returned a bigger verdict, so defendant’s use of the numbers may not be as helpful as one might think.

BONUS QUESTION: What do you think is the most humorous depiction of a torts lawsuit in popular culture, and why?

Her attorney, Allen K. Young, has tried to justify his client’s actions with the argument that the Plaintiff was walking in an area she had never been before, and at a time when it was “pitch black” outside. As if this somehow diminishes her own negligence. Young argues that Google failed to warn the Plaintiff that walking routes may be missing sidewalks or pedestrian paths. This failure-to-warn claim has been flatly disputed by Google, which has said every software version for mobile devices has had that disclaimer since Google Maps was launched in 2008.

Although Young has said that there is “enough fault to go around,” which presumably means he recognizes his client is at least partially responsible for her injuries, the absurdity of some liability arguments, and extent some will go to shift blame, continues to surprise.

The Plaintiff, then 18 years old, was boating with friends on Lake Austin in the summer of 2005. He had just returned to the boat from wakeboarding when the tow rope fell in the water. When the Plaintiff jumped back in the water at the rear of the boat to retrieve the line, his friend and 18-year-old driver put the boat in reverse. The boat’s propeller caught the top of the Plaintiff’s leg and twisted it around, causing extensive blood loss and eventual loss of his leg. See local news coverage of the accident here .

The Plaintiff filed suit against the parent company of Sea Ray Boats, alleging that the boat should have been equipped with safety devices, such as guards or covers, to prevent the plaintiff from becoming entangled or stuck. However, the U.S. marine industry reportedly has fought the idea installing prop guards on motors because no design has ever been proven safe or effective for maneuvering boats. The U.S. Coast Guard has agreed, and has consistently refused to order boat and engine builders to install prop guards.

Apparently, though, this Texas jury didn’t buy it. It found both the Plaintiff and the driver (who was not named a defendant) of the boat each to be 17% negligent, and the defendant 66% negligent and responsible for the injury. Its award of damages included $200,000 for past physical pain and anguish, $200,000 for future physical pain and mental anguish, and $100,000 for disfigurement.

The decision has naturally drawn harsh criticism from the industry, which points out the common-sense factor at work here and the fact that all motors are “emblazoned” with pronounced warnings. It likens the facts on this case to the infamous McDonald’s hot coffee suit. This case, which Brunswick Corp has said it intends to appeal, may be one to watch, as it surely will have a profound effect on the boating industry.