Randy Barnhart

John Grisham Wins First Harper Lee Prize for Legal Fiction

John Grisham's The Confession, a novel that chronicles the gut-wrenching politics of a last-ditch death penalty appeal in Texas, has been named the winner of the inaugural Harper Lee Prize for Legal Fiction.

The 2011 Prize will be awarded at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 22 in conjunction with the Library of Congress National Book Festival. Grisham will receive a copy of To Kill a Mockingbird signed by Harper Lee.

The prize, created by the University of Alabama School of Law and the ABA Journal, honors Lee for the extraordinary and enduring influence her novel has had in the public perception of the legal profession. The prize will be awarded annually to the published book-length work of fiction that best exemplifies the role of lawyers in society.

via www.abajournal.com

Target Recalls Children's Lamps - Laceration and Fire Hazards

Hazard: Lamps can overheat, causing the adhesive inside the lamp socket to melt and migrate into the bulb area of the socket. The cooled glue can adhere to the light bulb base and make the bulb difficult to remove which can result in a broken light bulb, posing a risk of laceration to consumers. Melted flammable glue that migrates onto the electrical components of the lamp poses a risk of fire.

Incidents/Injuries: Target has received six reports of glue on the lamp socket melting and migrating into the bulb area of the socket. No injuries have been reported.

via www.cpsc.gov

Podcasts on US Supreme Court Landmark Cases

The US Courts Website now has a series of podcasts on landmark cases by the US Supreme Court which have shaped our  history and continue to affect American political and legal life. Each podcast briefly discusses a different case with a law professor. The case's background is explained, the key arguments summarized, the ultimate decision is discussed, with comments on why the case remains relevant today.

Thus far, two podcasts are up, one on Mapp v Ohio (1961), and another on Texas v. Johnson (1989). More podcasts will be added in the coming months. An excellent resource, and you can download the podcasts and get them on your iPod.

Colorado Products Liability - The Innocent Seller Defense, Part 2

Defendants will likey assert, erroneously, that as a matter of law, a seller cannot be subject to a product liability action unless it can be deemed a “manufacturer” under the Act. Let's take a closer look at the Act, with an emphasis on the clauses actually relevant to the claim of a culpable service provider:

“Product liability action” means any action brought against a manufacturer or seller of a product, regardless of the substantive legal theory or theories upon which the action is brought, for or on account of personal injury, death, or property damage caused by or resulting from the manufacture, construction, design, formula, installation, preparation, assembly, testing, packaging, labeling, or sale of any product, or the failure to warn or protect against a danger or hazard in the use, misuse, or unintended use of any product, or the failure to provide proper instructions for the use of any product.

C.R.S. § 13-21-401(2). Thus, the Act comprehends those product liability actions, and only those product liability actions, wherein the claim is predicated on damage, whether personal injury or death, caused by, or resulting from, a product. See Carter v. Brighton Ford, Inc., 2010 WL 4361379 (Colo. App. 2010)(“product liability actions are those tort actions which seek damages for injuries and collateral damage caused by defective products”) (underscoring added).

The clauses in the Act which delimit the scope of the Act cannot be ignored. Petron Dev. Co. v. Washington County Bd. of Equalization, 91 P.3d 408, 410 (Colo. App. 2003) (“when interpreting a constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision, we look to the ordinary and common meaning of its language, giving effect to every word and term whenever possible”). When the words and terms on causation in the Act are given effect, the correct conclusion is that not every action, whether denominated as a products liability action or otherwise, is precluded by the Act.

Thus, when the causal allegation or element on the claims against a supposed innocent seller are not based on any allegation of a defective product as the cause of plaintiff’s damages, but on the failure, for example, to execute, effect, or implement a recall of a defective product in a reasonable manner or with ordinary care, as the cause, then the Act should not apply.

The firm is committed to ensuring that trial judges are apprised of this correct application of the law.

Part 1 here.