Now is the time that we, as consumers of media, are inundated with year end best-of lists. So, just as we have done in years past, we here at Abnormal Use have collected our favorite posts of this past year. Looking back over our posts this year, it was difficult to choose our favorites. But, dear readers, the ones we enjoyed the most are linked for you below, along with their author and publication date. So, without further ado, fill yourself with nostalgia, just as we have, and revisit these entries from 2016.

$55 Million Reptilian Verdict in Erin Andrews Peephole Video Trial (Kyle White, March 8, 2016).

In “Game Of Thrones” Litigation, South Carolina State Court Enters Judgment Against George R.R. Martin (Jim Dedman, April 1, 2016).

Snapchat Sued Over Distracted Driving Accident (April 26, 2016).

Snapchat Lawsuit Inspires Inaugural Abnormal Use Field Test (May 9, 2016).

Golden Rule – Treat Everyone Like They Are A Potential Source of Business (Kyle White, May 10, 2016).

Hot Coffee May Be A Carcinogen? (Kyle White, June 20, 2016).

How I Became A Lawyer (Stuart Mauney, June 29, 2016).

Real Lawyers Don’t Cry (Stuart Mauney, July 18, 2016).

Hot Coffee Karma: The Day Was Bound To Happen (August 22, 2016).

Nirvana’s Nevermind: 25 Years of Influence (Nick Farr, September 26, 2016).

Turning Lawyer Life Into Home Life (Nick Farr, October 18, 2016).

Are Litigation Experts Entitled To Prepayment for Depositions? (Kyle White, October 24, 2016).

With no headphone jack, how can we purchase the new iPhone? This is an ethical dilemma indeed!

Our editor, Jim Dedman, has planned the Mecklenburg County Bar’s second annual Halloween CLE event. Called “Ghosts, Graves, and The Occasional Murder House: A Halloween CLE,” the event takes place in Charlotte, North Carolina on October 19. For more information, please click here.

Tomorrow is the 25th anniversary of the release of Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit” single.

How long has it been since you revisited our Stella Liebeck McDonald’s hot coffee case FAQ?

Yesterday, we published the second post in Stuart Mauney’s “12 Steps Toward Fulfillment in the Practice of Law” series. If you’ve not been reading it, we’d encourage you to do so. A new post comes each Thursday.

Any regular follower knows that we here at Abnormal Use love an entertaining headline about the trials and tribulations of the food service industry. From hot coffee burns to heart attacks involving “triple bypass” burgers, the world of food and drink has given us much to write about over the years. Why are these stories so engaging? Maybe it is because we can all relate to the everyday people involved. We have each spent our fair share of time eating at a franchised chain restaurant or sitting in a drive-thru line. Or perhaps it’s because our articles are drafted during a lunch break, subconsciously leading our trusty writers to focus on topics that give them an appetite. But we are entering dark times in the food service industry.  After opening our Internet browser this morning and reading today’s headlines, we fear the end is near. They have simply gone too far. I cannot – and will not – get on board with this. Behold, faithful readers, Burger King’s new Mac N’ Cheetos:

That’s right, folks. Soak it up in all its greasy, cheesy, consumeristic glory. Deep-fried sticks of macaroni and cheese encrusted with Cheetos-flavored breading. This writer is a big supporter of restaurant chains and snacking brands partnering together to promote their products under the right circumstances. Taco Bell’s Doritos Locos Taco? Amazing (especially in Cool Ranch flavor). By the way, does anyone really know what those blue flakes on the Cool Ranch Doritos are made of? They need to start selling those bad-boys by the jar in the grocery store. I’d sprinkle them on every dish in place of salt and pepper. But I digress. Back to the offensive issue at hand. Burger King seems to be trying to run with the success and overall deliciousness of Taco Bell’s Doritos Locos Taco by rolling out this sad excuse of a snack. Cheetos are incredible. Mac and cheese is a classic American dish. However, there is no circumstance under which they should be served as one item. Hey, I’m just one guy. And I am certainly no foodie. But if you ask me, this is troubling.

Be it hot coffee or greasy french fries, McDonald’s often finds itself as a defendant in some intriguing litigation. A new lawsuit filed in an Illinois federal court against the fast food giant might just take the crown as the most interesting. According to a report from the Chicago Tribune, a Louisiana man has sued McDonald’s because its drive-thrus are not accessible to the blind. Specifically, the man has challenged McDonald’s policy of not serving individuals who walk up to the drive-thru window without a car. During the normal operating hours, the prohibition is hardly a problem as customers without cars can simply walk inside the restaurant. However, after hours, the restaurant only serves customers through the drive-thru and, thus, people who do not have cars or otherwise cannot drive, such as blind persons, cannot order from McDonalds, the suit alleges. According to the suit, such failure to accommodate constitutes a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

We here at Abnormal Use are not certain as to how this McDonald’s policy will be construed under the ADA. We do have some questions, however, as to certain statements the plaintiff’s lawyer made about the litigation. In commenting on the suit, attorney Roberto Luis Costales stated that the late-night snacks are a “quintessentially American activity that should not be denied to someone because of their disability.” Moreover, he indicated, “This is something simple that can cause a lot of hurt to disabled people, especially if, like [Plaintiff], they cannot cook for themselves.” We must admit that we, too, have been known to take a late night food run, particularly during our college days. But, we question whether it is a “quintessential American activity,” so ingrained in our nation’s DNA that it cannot be denied. Maybe if we were talking about a more critical issue like healthcare, we could take this rhetoric seriously.

Costales claims that McDonald’s could remedy the situation by installing a phone to allow customers to call in orders from outside and have the orders brought out to the customers. However, this proposal ignores the primary purpose of the late night drive-thru-only policy in the first place – security. If McDonald’s is going to be bringing orders out to customers, it might as well just open the restaurant in the first place. Or, maybe that is the end goal of the master plan and the lawsuit is just the mechanism of delivery.

On the heels of the announcement that Subway settled its 11-inch footlong sub suit, a new class action has been filed alleging that a national chain’s products don’t quite measure up. This time, it is Starbucks in the cross-hairs. According to a report from Top Class Actions, Plaintiffs Siera Strumlauf and Benjamin Robles have filed suit against the coffee giant in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Starbucks intentionally underfills its lattes by 25 percent. Starbucks’ baristas are allegedly instructed to make lattes by filling a pitcher with steamed milk up to a “fill to” line, pour shots of espresso into a serving cup, pour the steamed milk into the serving cup, top the latte with milk foam and leave 1/4 inch of free space at the top. The plaintiffs, however, allege that the “fill to” lines don’t correspond to the 12, 16, and 20 ounce cup sizes – an allegedly conscious decision made by Starbucks to save on the cost of milk.

Regardless of the merits of the short-pouring allegations, one particular allegation in the suit gave us pause. The plaintiffs allege that “Starbucks refuses to fill any hot beverage to the brim of the cup. Thus, under no circumstances will Starbucks ever serve a Grande Latte that actually meets the fluid ounces represented on the menu.” If we read that correctly, it sounds like the plaintiffs are actually suggesting that hot coffee should be filled to the brim of the cup to ensure that they are getting the full bang for their buck. We are guessing that had Starbucks done so, there would be a whole other class of plaintiffs clamoring for some massive hot coffee burn litigation. Maybe the plaintiffs should demand Starbucks use bigger cups and let the not filling to the brim policy stand for those who value safety.

It is too early to tell whether this suit will follow in the footsteps of the Subway litigation. Regardless of the size of any potential monetary settlement, we doubt it will be too life changing for any of the plaintiffs. If approved, the class will be open to all persons in the United States who have purchased a Starbucks latte. In other words, all 318 million U.S. citizens can be class members and should expect a free cup of coffee.

We here at Abnormal Use have written much about McDonald’s and its history with absurd lawsuits. Of course, much of the discourse centered around the infamous Stella Liebeck hot coffee case and its progeny. As much as we have downplayed its significance, we must admit that the most recent suit filed against McDonald’s makes the Liebeck case look like Marbury v. Madison. According to a report from Eater.com, a California man has filed a class action lawsuit against the fast food chain seeking $5 million in damages over purportedly defective mozzarella sticks. Kind of makes burns from a cup of hot coffee sound like child’s play.

So how was the man (or the proposed class) injured by the McDonald’s mozzarella sticks you ask? They weren’t. At least not in a way that necessitated medical attention. The plaintiff, Chris Howe, takes issue with McDonald’s claims that the sticks are “100% real cheese” and “real mozzarella.” Specifically, Howe alleges:

The sticks are filled with a substance that is composed (in part) of starch, in violation of the federal standards of identity for ‘mozzarella’ cheese, and contrary to reasonable consumers’ expectations regarding the meaning of the term ‘mozzarella.’

Howe believes McDonald’s cut costs by using a starch filler to comprise 3.76 percent of the “cheese,” and, thus, has engaged in deceptive practices. For the record, McDonald’s denies the allegations, stating that the mozzarella sticks are made with “100% low moisture part skim mozzarella cheese.” Whatever that means.

Regardless of the genetic make-up of the McDonald’s mozzarella sticks, the real question is whether anyone can actually be deceived by their contents. Last we checked, the mozzarella sticks are a new item made a part of the “2 for $2” menu. In layman’s terms, a customer can get mozzarella sticks and a double cheeseburger for $2. Federal standards for identifying “mozzarella” aside, don’t expect the finest organic, farm-to-table ingredients in dollar cheese sticks. And, if you really think McDonald’s is an appropriate destination to satisfy for mozzarella craving, don’t expect anyone to fork over $5 million when they don’t live up to your expectations.

So, above, you’ll find the cover of Blade Runner #1, published way, way back in 1982. As you probably know, this issue is an adaptation of the film released that year directed by Ridley Scott and starring Harrison Ford. Why do we choose that cover today? Well, as you may remember, Ford plays Deckard, whose job as a blade runner is to pursue and kill replicants, cybernetic organisms which look just like adult humans. Rutger Hauer plays Roy Batty, a replicant hunted by Deckard. In the film, released 33 years ago, Batty’s “creation date” was January 8, 2016. That’s today.

Also, in case you weren’t aware, David Bowie released a new album today. It’s eerie.

Is anyone else going to the 6th Annual Sports and Entertainment Law Symposium at Duke Law next week?

Our favorite legal tweet of late concerns, of course, hot coffee warnings:

Getting mixed messages from this cup. If there’s one place you’d think would know better, pic.twitter.com/k6YzNhkbSG

— sigh hersh (@Ugarles) December 26, 2015

Now is the time that we, as consumers of media, are inundated with year end best-of lists. So, just as we have done in years past, we here at Abnormal Use have collected our favorite posts of this past year. If you’ve followed us from the very beginning, you know that we’ve posted at least every business day since January of 2010. That’s a lot! Looking back over our posts this year, it was difficult to choose our favorites. But, dear readers, the ones we enjoyed the most are linked for you below, along with their author and publication date. So, without further ado, fill yourself with nostalgia, just as we have, and revisit these entries from 2015.

Mourning The Death of Westlaw Classic (Jim Dedman, January 12, 2015)

Can Defense Lawyers Co-opt The Reptile Strategy? (Kyle White, March 18, 2015)

Federal Court Enjoins Reboots of “Twin Peaks” and “The X-Files” On “1990’s Estoppel” Grounds (Jim Dedman, April 1, 2015)

A Lawyer At Career Day? An Inspirational Journey Into The Minds of Fifth Graders (Nick Farr, June 2, 2015)

Why Can Plaintiffs Only Remember Solvent Defendants In Asbestos Cases? (Kyle White, July 22, 2015)

CPSC To Go Interstellar Against Space Buckyballs? (Nick Farr, August 3, 2015)

Media Still Trying to Cash-In On Hot Coffee Buzz (Nick Farr, September 22, 2015)

Halloween Special: Must Home Sellers Disclose That A Home Is Haunted? (Kyle White, October 29, 2015)

Star Wars and the Abnormal Use Law Blog: A History (Jim Dedman, November 12, 2015)

The Abnormal Use Guide To Holiday Safety (Nick Farr, December 7, 2015)

Plumber Sues Ford Dealership After His Old Truck Is Recruited for Syrian Civil War (Kyle White, December 16, 2015)

We hope everyone is having a good time at the DRI Annual Meeting in Washington, DC this week. We here at Abnormal Use and Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A. have quite the contingent of representatives there, including our editor, Jim Dedman, as well as GWB lawyers John T. Lay, Gray Culbreath, Stephanie Flynn, Ron Wray, and John Cuttino. Say hi if you see us! And don’t forget that Jim is speaking on the McDonald’s hot coffee case this afternoon!

Who has seen The Martian? Has anyone confirmed Mat Damon’s character’s space law analysis? We may need to have one of our contributors investigate that monologue.

Our legal tweet of the week is an important one:

SC Bar & SC Legal Services have a legal aid hotline for victims of flooded areas. To request help from a lawyer-call 1-877-797-2227 ext.120

— annephutto (@annephutto) October 8, 2015

Torts and their reforms have spurned hot debates among lawmakers. Most laymen do not know what a “tort” is, but many of them have also become convinced in recent years that torts must be reformed. Ralph Nader, long-time consumer advocate and enemy of “corporate America,” disagrees. He has recently opened a Tort Museum in Winsted, Connecticut which pays homage to the pure, unreformed tort. According to the museum’s website, the mission of the museum is simple: “The American Museum of Tort Law seeks to increase citizen understanding of Tort Law – the law of wrongful injury – and the role it plays in protecting personal freedom, health and safety through the American civil justice system.”

The New Yorker’s recent article offers readers an idea of what to expect from the attraction. The museum apparently has something for everyone. For beginners, the museum explains the basics:

…a tort is any wrongful act that can be the basis for a civil lawsuit. For example, if you punch the mailman, the county prosecutor can charge you with the crime of assault and the mailman can sue you for the tort of battery. The law looks at the same punch in two different ways.

Surely, the museum also included a disclaimer instructing museum patrons not to strike the mailman. The museum includes an exhibit on the Corvair, the vehicle which was the subject of Nader’s 1965 book, Unsafe at Any Speed. For the tort history buffs, the museum has an exhibit dedicated to the historic “flaming rat” case, which we are still talking about today. Of course, the museum also has a section dedicated to the famous “Hot Coffee” case, a subject on which we often post.  If you visit the tort museum, you may have the opportunity to hear Nader’s personal take on the case:

Inside the museum, Nader personally escorted bewildered townspeople through the exhibits. He stopped in front of the McDonald’s Coffee Cup Case exhibit. “The lawyers didn’t tell people that McDonald’s kept their coffee that hot for commercial advantage. So it would stay hotter than Burger King’s as you drove along the highway. They’d already gotten seven hundred complaints about the burns.” Nader shook his head and looked at his guest, who nodded. He had changed one mind. He seemed satisfied.

Apparently, there is some question whether the museum will be successful:

Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York, an organization that supports changes to tort law, said he doesn’t think there is any interest from the general public.

‘You probably couldn’t get school kids there because they’d sue the bus driver on the way’ Mr. Stebbins joked. And the kids ‘might not get out of the parking lot,’ he added, suggesting young people might not be thrilled by a museum about torts.

According to The New Yorker, Stebbins may be right. At least one young lady, who happened to be sporting blue hair, a nose and lip ring, and a hat displaying the hashtag “biteme,” found the museum “boring.” Only time will tell whether the museum will accomplish its mission or whether the hottest item in the museum’s gift shop will be the flaming rat t-shirt or Prosser, Wade, and Schwartz on Torts.