• 20 percent of injury crashes in 2009 involved reports of distracted driving.
• In 2009, 5,474 people were killed in the U.S. roadways and an estimated additional 448,000 were injured in motor vehicle crashes that were reported to have involved distracted driving. (FARS and GES)
• The age group with the greatest proportion of distracted drivers was the under-20 age group — 16 percent of all drivers younger than 20 involved in fatal crashes were reported to have been distracted while driving. (NHTSA)
• Drivers who use hand-held devices are four times as likely to get into crashes seious enough to injure themselves. (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety)

See the video below. And remember to avoid distracted driving and to drive safe all summer long.

In the past year, we’ve written a bunch about television lawyers, through our list of Seinfeld lawsuits, list of lawsuits in The Simpsons, our list of good, bad, & criminal lawyers, the most unlikely courtroom dramas, and the most hilarious and unlikely courtroom comedies. These have included about half of the candidates on the ABL bracket, so I’m going to take a crack at predicting their winners in all four categories.

Long-Running Lawyers Region

Jack McCoy v. Alan Shore

Jack McCoy, of Law & Order fame, is the clear winner here. He’s got the triple whammy: his show was on TV forever, people loved it, and he was awesome in it. The character, played by Sam Waterston, also has the superlative of appearing in the most consecutive television episodes of any fictional character, 333. He’s truly the example for great modern TV attorneys.

That’s not to say that he has no competition. In fact, the 2/7 seeds are both formidable opponents. Clair Huxtable could have been the dark horse challenger, since the powerful wife of Bill Cosby was a partner at her law firm, a great mother, and was shown skillfully representing her daughter against dishonest car repairs. But Huxtable has the misfortune of being matched up in the first round against the great Alan Shore of Boston Legal, played by James Spader. He’ll take that round and likely go on to lose to Jack McCoy in the quarter finals.

Comical Performances Region

Lionel Hutz v. Jackie Chiles

This region is a bit more tricky. Number one seed Lionel Hutz from The Simpsons could take it, since his level of ineptitude is simply unparalleled in TV history, and he was voiced by the hilarious Phil Hartman. And despite his lack of solid legal knowledge, Hutz was able to scrape by with a few wins. He even famously represented Homer against an all-you-can-eat buffet by calling it “the most blatant case of false advertising since The Neverending Story.” Check out our list of Simpsons lawsuits litigated by Lionel Hutz.

But I think we’ll see a surprising upset in this category, courtesy of Seinfeld’s Jackie Chiles, the number 3 seed. Though Seinfeld wasn’t on the air as long as The Simpsons, it still logged nine full seasons; Chiles probably appeared as many times as Hutz, and is just as remembered. Actor Phil Morris also reprised the role last fall for Funny Or Die. For these reasons, I think he’s likely to overtake Lionel Hutz in the quarter finals to face Jack McCoy in the semis.

Forget-Me-Not Region

Elle Woods v. Barry Zuckercorn

This is a tough call, but I think number two seed Elle Woods from Legally Blonde is the heavyweight here. Though not nearly as prolific as number one seed Ben Matlock, Woods was in two very successful, and recent, films and even turned in to a pretty fantastic lawyer thanks to her ability to improvise. Her fans are likely to be much more vocal than Matlock’s.

That’s not to say that she is without competition. In fact, dual entry Barry Zuckercorn and Bob Loblaw of cult hit Arrested Development could surge ahead from the six seed. Arrested Development is an incredibly popular show that’s soon to be a movie, and its fans could come out strong in their favor. Though at the end of the day, I don’t think the combo is a match for Elle Woods, who should soar through to the semi finals.

Tour-De-Force Region

Vinny Gambini v. Patty Hewes

To me, this is the most difficult region to predict. Though some of the contenders are incredibly memorable, none have reached the cultural recognition of McCoy, Hutz/Chiles, or Woods. That said, Vinny Gambini of My Cousin Vinny deserves his number one seed just by virtue of wearing a purple valour suit to court. Joe Pesci was hilarious in the role, and will probably win the region.

But my two favorites of the whole list face off in the same region in the first round: Damages’ Patty Hewes (seed two), and Saul Goodman from Breaking Bad (seed seven). Both actors, Glenn Close and Bob Odenkirk, do an outstanding job portraying these attorneys with, well, questionable ethics. In fact, they were both included in our prestigious list of most criminal lawyers. But at the end of the day, neither will prove strong enough to conquer Vinny. Unless, of course, they call in a few favors.

So to sum up, here’s what I think we’ll see in the semi finals (winner in bold):

• Jack McCoy v. Jackie Chiles.
• Elle Woods v. Vinny Gambini

And in the end, I think we’ll see a final victory for longtime Law & Order attorney Jack McCoy.

Okay enough about me. Who do you think will win?

Bart v. Mr. Burns

Lionel Hutz first appears in the show’s second season, after Bart gets hit by a car while riding his skateboard through Springfield. Hutz greets the Simpsons in the hospital room and suggests that they sue Mr. Burns, the driver, even though Bart only suffers from a broken toe and a bump on the head. Burns offers to pay Homer $100 to prevent a potential lawsuit, but Homer refuses, noting that it would barely cover Bart’s medical bills. He then hires Hutz, who promises a $1 million cash settlement, of which he would receive a standard 50% fee.

Of course, the jury feels sympathy for Bart, who has been coached on what to say by hack Dr. Nick. This prompts Mr. Burns to offer a revised $500,000 settlement, which Homer refuses on advice from Hutz. Fortunately, Marge’s morals get in the way of a major pay day for the Simpsons. After Mr. Burns overhears Marge speak ill of “phony doctors,” his attorney calls Marge to the stand, where she testifies that the accident’s monetary hardships totaled $5. Marge’s testimony deflates Hutz’s case, and the Simpsons lose the lawsuit.

Marge v. Mr. Burns

The Simpsons’ house is sinking, and is in dire need of foundation repair. Fortunately, a job has just opened up at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, and Marge decides to apply to help pay for the house renovation project. Mr. Burns quickly falls in love with Marge and attempts to woo her by playing Tom Jones music over the plant stereo system. Mr. Burns takes this a bit too far when he abducts Tom Jones and makes a full-fledged pass at Marge. When Marge turns him down, mentioning that she is married, she is promptly fired. Marge then threatens Mr. Burns with a wrongful termination lawsuit with the help of Lionel Hutz. Of course, Hutz is little help, and flees the scene after viewing Mr. Burns’ team of accomplished lawyers. Burns eventually has a change of heart, and makes it up to Homer and Marge with a personal concert, performed for them by a still-imprisoned Tom Jones.

Homer v. Frying Dutchman

This might be the most famous lawsuit in Simpsons history (fun fact: the episode was written by Conan O’Brien). Renowned glutton that he is, Homer convinces Marge to visit the Frying Dutchman seafood restaurant all-you-can-eat buffet after seeing an ad for it on TV. Homer proceeds to eat way too much food, and is eventually kicked out of the restaurant by the Sea Captain. Furious, Homer hires Hutz to sue the Frying Dutchman for false advertising, claiming that even an appetite as large as his should never be turned away from an all-you-can-eat buffet. Hutz famously called the situation “the most blatant case of false advertising since The Neverending Story.” In a change of pace, Hutz wins the case, and the Sea Captain agrees to display Homer as “Bottomless Pete: Nature’s Cruelest Mistake.”

Kwik-E-Mart v. Marge

There are lots of reasons that buying bourbon for Grandpa Simpson is a dangerous idea. But after most of Springfield is infected with an airborne flu from a shipment of juicers sent from Japan, leaving Marge in a germ-induced stupor, buying bourbon is even more dangerous. As a result, Marge forgets to pay for the bottle at the Kwik-E-Mart and is arrested for shoplifting. Hutz is unable to get Marge cleared of the charges, and she is forced to serve a month at Springfield Women’s Prison, sending the Simpson home into disarray. “Marge in Chains” also includes one of the show’s best Lionel Hutz quotes: “Well, he’s kind of had it in for me since I kinda ran over his dog. Well, replace the word ‘kinda’ with the word ‘repeatedly,’ and the word ‘dog’ with ‘son’.”

Bart v. Krusty the Clown

Bart is inflicted with an awful stomachache after eating a piece of jagged metal in a bowl of Krusty-O breakfast cereal. Since Bart must take a test at school that day, his parents don’t believe that he is sick, and send him to school anyway. After Bart convinces Mrs. Krabappel that he is sick, he collapses and wakes up at Springfield General Hospital, where he is treated for appendicitis. Bart sues Krusty and quickly receives a $100,000 settlement, but due to Hutz’s exorbitant legal fees, Bart only takes home $500. A bit of real-world legal pop-culture makes it’s way into this episode, as Hutz’s team of hack lawyers are named Robert Shaporo and Albert Dershman, pseudonyms for Robert Shapiro and Alan Dershowitz.

Itchy & Scratchy v. Itchy & Scratchy

While attending a parade for The Itchy & Scratchy Show, Bart meets Chester J. Lampwick, a homeless man who claims he is the show’s original creator. After showing Bart irrefutable proof that his idea was ripped off, the video is destroyed by the projector, leaving Bart scrambling for a scheme to earn Lampwick his rightful compensation. When the CEO of Itchy & Scratchy Studios refuses to pay Lampwick $800 billion, the crew hires Hutz to take the studio to court. Their case is a long shot until Bart remembers an original Itchy and Scratchy drawing for sale by the Comic Book Guy. The new evidence convinces the judge that the studio plagiarized Itchy and Scratchy from Lampwick, and he is awarded $800 billion, sending the studio into bankruptcy. Despite their victory, Bart and Lisa are distraught about the loss of their beloved show, until a set of mirror siblings win the studio a major cash settlement in a plagiarism lawsuit against the post office. Lampwick is rich, and Itchy and Scratchy is saved.

Also see our blog post on lawsuits in Seinfeld episodes, and our list of the best and worst TV lawyers.

On a related note, a study conducted last  year found that the second most dangerous driving day on California roads is February 14. This could be because February is typically marred by bad weather in the form of rain and snow. But as it coincides with Valentines day, I can’t help but wonder whether kissing-related distractions are causing some of these accidents. See our California Motor Caution Calendar for more on road safety and local awareness events.

So this comes as a needed reminder that while it’s great to be romantic on Valentines Day, remain careful on city streets and highways, and always avoid the temptation to kiss behind the wheel.

Photo credit: www.photographybyjoelle.com

Legally Blonde

Elle Woods (Reese Witherspoon) abandons her major in fashion and merchandising and applies to Harvard Law School to follow her ex boyfriend. With the help of an application video, the admissions committee accepts Woods under the guise of “diversity,” but really because she’s hot. Woods excels at Harvard partially because she is smarter than anyone expects, and also because she’s hot. Elle eventually takes an internship with a professor and works on a high-profile case with her ex and his new girlfriend. Elle shines in the courtroom by building on what she knows best: fashion and people. The plaintiffs allege that Elle’s client, a fitness instructor, murdered her husband after having an affair with the house cabana boy. But when he compliments Elle’s shoe style, she deduces that he is a homosexual (there are other signs), and that he could not have had an affair with the defendant. Elle uses the same technique later to discredit the plaintiff’s claim that she was taking a shower at the time of the murder, which Elle points out would have ruined her perm. Overall, the film makes you wonder why fashion isn’t taught in law school.

My Cousin Vinny

New Yorkers Billy Gambini and Stan Rothenstein are driving through the south when they stop at a convenience store and forget to pay for a can of tuna. Shortly after they leave, two men matching their description rob the store and murder the clerk. When they are stopped by state troopers down the highway, Billy and Stan admit to stealing the tuna, not knowing they are admitting to murder. Billy is forced to rely on his cousin Vinny Gambini (Joe Pesci), a Brooklyn personal injury lawyer with no trial experience who passed the bar exam on his seventh attempt in seven years, for representation. As far as accuracy goes, this film’s saving grace is the fact that Vinny has no idea what he is doing, which explains his disrespect for the judge and trial procedure. The final courtroom scene is less forgivable, as Vinnie calls his girlfriend Mona Lisa Vito (Marissa Tomei), a lifelong automobile expert, to the stand to discredit the FBI’s claim that Billy and Stan’s car was the getaway vehicle. She testifies that although the two vehicles were different, the tire marks at the scene show that it could not have been Billy’s Buick Skylark due to “positraction!”

A Fish Called Wanda

British barrister Archie Leach (John Cleese) falls into a life of crime somewhat by accident. Until he meets Wanda Gershwitz (Jamie Lee Curtis), he lives a boring life with a semi-successful legal career. Trying to double cross her partner in crime George Thomason, Wanda tries to seduce his lawyer (Leach). Though they never have sex, Leach is clearly enamored and lets his guard down enough for Gershwitz to confuse his line of questioning in court and even calls her “darling.” This sets off a massive courtroom brawl as George attacks Archie, whose wife later decides to divorce. With no marriage or career to hold him down, Archie resolves to flee to South America with Wanda where they can live from stolen jewel money.

Intolerable Cruelty

It’s amazing that this 2003 legal comedy by Joel and Ethan Coen involved the work of 6 Oscar winners including the Coens, George Clooney, Catherine Zeta Jones, Geoffrey Rush, and Billy Bob Thornton. Zeta-Jones’ character, Marylin Rexroth, is a kind of modern Hello Dolly, focused only on finding rich men to marry and later divorce for their fortune. She is successful with Rex Rexroth until he hires the best divorce attorney in Los Angeles, Miles Massey (George Clooney), who gets his client off without having to pay a dime, despite video proof that he had repeated affairs. Massey enjoys the win but is clearly taken with Ms. Rexroth and maintains a crush for years to come. This changes when a newly divorced and apparently filthy rich Rexroth (different divorce) approaches Massey and returns the affection. The two agree to marry, protected by a Massy prenuptial agreement, the best, most indestructible prenup around. In a fit of passion, Massey lets Rexroth rip up the prenup, believing that she is more wealthy than him. Massey later learns that Rexroth’s second marriage was a sham and that she is worth nothing, meaning that she can now take half of Massey’s fortune.

Liar Liar

A career-focused lawyer is physically unable to tell lies due to a wish his son made at his birthday party. The premise of this 1997 Jim Carrey comedy alone designates it as completely unbelievable. It gets more absurd as Carrey slowly realizes that he can’t lie through unfortunate circumstances like telling his boss/lover that he’s “had better” sex. But the climactic courtroom scene makes a farce of legal procedure writ large. In order to win a divorce case, Carrey has counseled his main witness to commit perjury. But unable to tell lies, Carrey is also unable to get the desired response from the witness, and flails around the courtroom, beating himself out in an attempt to lie. Fortunately, Carrey learns at the last minute that his client had lied about her age, and signed the prenup while a minor, rendering it invalid. Once his client wins, taking the children from their caring father, Carrey has another crisis of confidence and screams at the judge to reverse the decision. This hastens the only believable part of the film, when the judge holds Carrey in contempt of court and throws him in jail.

Jury Duty

The most unbelievable thing about this 90s Pauly Shore flick is that it is based on Twelve Angry Men, one of the best legal films around. Jury Duty comes at the best time for Tommy Collins (Shore), a semi-employed stripper who lives in his parents mobile home. When they take the RV on a month-long trip, Collins and his Chihuahua Peanut need a new place to stay. Fortunately, it’s a big case that will take weeks, and the court puts the jurors up in lavish hotel rooms. To keep the room, Shore prolongs discussion on what the other 11 jurors believe to be a slam dunk conviction. Right when others are the most frustrated, Collins makes a major discovery which points to the defendant’s innocence. Justice is served, but once again, Collins is out on the street.

Trial and Error

Who says Michael Richards had no career after playing Kramer in Seinfeld? Not someone who saw this 1997 legal comedy, in which Richards impersonates a defense attorney to cover for his friend (Jeff Daniels) in a class action fraud suit because Daniels got too drunk at his bachelor party the night before the trial began. The problem, of course, is that Richards, an actor, knows nothing about law. This leads to scenes in which Richards fumbles around the courtroom, making absurd objections and outwardly asking witnesses to perjure themselves to help his case. Chiding Richards at one point, Daniels says “I don’t pose, I don’t preen…I don’t make a mockery of the American legal system,” to which Richards replies “You’ve got your style, I’ve got mine.”

Bananas

In this 1971 comedy, Woody Allen does what any self-respecting man would do to impress a woman: move to South America and become a revolutionary. After the leader of the revolution goes crazy, Allen’s character reunites with his girlfriend (who is impressed!) and tries to come back to the United States, only to be arrested and charged with a number of outlandish crimes, including treason. This inspires a classic courtroom scene in which Allen defends himself, running in and out of the witness box as he acts as both attorney and witness while the judge offers an occasional weak warning like “that’s enough.” Finally, the judge orders the court marshal to bind and gag Allen, which doesn’t stop his unique legal style. In the next scene, Allen cross examines a witness with a sock in his mouth and bound to a chair. Though we can’t hear a word he says, he gets the witness to admit “It’s true! I lied!”

Ghostbusters II

Clearly, this isn’t entirely a legal comedy. But it has perhaps the most absurd courtroom scene in any movie, comedy or drama, so I could not exclude it from this list. The prosecution’s case was pretty simple: the Ghostbusters covered New York City in slime, caused a citywide blackout, and violated repeated restraining orders to stop fighting ghosts. Regardless, the team settles for representation from their friend, a tax lawyer played by Rick Moranis, who concludes his opening argument with a plea to let them off the hook because “one time I turned into a dog and they helped me.” Later on, Bill Murray feeds lines to his lawyer, calls the prosecutor “kitten,” and proclaims “sometimes shit happens, someone has to deal with it, and who you gonna call?” The most important part of this scene is that a jar of slime really hates the judge (who does not believe in ghosts). When he finds the Ghostbusters guilty and goes on a rant about their destruction and absurd belief in ghosts, the slime bubbles up and releases the ghosts of two men the judge put to death years before. To fix the problem, the judge dismisses the case and lets the trio bust some ghosts. Just…watch it:

Chicago

The title city’s reputation for being corrupt is well known, but in this popular musical (which was re-imagined in 2002 to major Academy Award success) there appears to be little rhyme or reason to the courtroom scenes besides an insatiable appreciation for fame. When Roxie Hart’s lover fails to make her a Vaudeville star, she overreacts a tad and shoots him three times. Hart’s husband later decides not to take the fall, so she turns to Richard Gere, who returns to one of his most familiar roles: morally corrupt defense attorney. Gere represents Hart in what is somehow established as a foolproof tactic that has worked for many past clients: boosting their fame factor in order to arouse public sympathy and get them exonerated. The public learns to love Hart and (though this is hardly explained), their sympathy ends up getting her exonerated of all charges. Oh, and attorneys and witnesses are known to burst out into song…without being held in contempt.

Miracle on 34th Street

By itself, the premise of this classic Christmas film is unbelievable: Santa Claus is on trial in New York City. Still, one wonders if writer/director George Seaton considered injecting the classic Christmas story with realistic legal details. It appears not, as the film’s climactic courtroom scene is chalk full of bizarre legal assumptions and judicial antics. This begins when the incompetent district attorney rests his case against Kris Kringle when he states that he is, in fact, the real Santa Claus. When the case heats up due to popular support for Mr. Kringle (mostly thanks to a few cute kids), the DA then appeals to the conventional wisdom that Santa Claus is not real. This point falters when Kringle’s shrewd lawyer calls the DA’s son to the stand, who asserts that Santa Claus is real because his dad said so, and “my daddy would never tell a lie.” The DA appears to favor his child’s innocence over winning the case, because he concedes the point, which leads the judge to rule in Santa Claus’ favor on Christmas Eve.

Sleepers

This 1990s tense legal drama focuses on childhood friends who were arrested after robbing and almost killing a hot dog vendor in 1960s New York City. They are sent to juvenile detention and repeatedly abused and raped by the guards. As grown-up ne-er-do-wells, the Rod Eldard and Billy Crudup characters kill one guard on the street. This leads another friend, now an assistant District Attorney played by Brad Pitt, to fight for their freedom by manipulating the court system. This battle requires the perjured testimony of their childhood priest, played by Robert De Nero, who gives the killers an alibi for the night of the murder. After the film hit theaters, the Manhattan District Attorney’s office denied that events in the film actually took place. Clearly, they have an interest in making this claim. But taking the unlikely events and courtroom scenes into account, it’s safe to bet that the film fudged factual details…or the whole story.

Bonfire of the Vanities

This pretty-good, sprawling Tom Wolfe novel was turned into an awful film by Brian De Palma. A multi-plot story about class and racial tensions in 1980s New York City, the film adaptation of Bonfire was bound to have social implications. Behind-the-scenes squabbling about the film’s portrayal of black and Jewish characters was documented in The Devil’s Candy by Julie Salamon. But these complaints also impacted the film, and led to one of the most bizarre judicial speeches in courtroom drama history. Worried that the judge’s racially insensitive ruling would upset an already disgruntled audience, the studio replaced actor Alan Arkin with Morgan Freeman and added a moralistic monologue that would make your kindergarten teacher blush. The speech culminates with Freeman’s reminder “decency is what your grandmother taught you… so go home and be decent people.”

The Devil’s Advocate

This mid-nineties legal thriller starring Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves takes the plight of the disgruntled worker too far, as it depicts a young associate who soon finds out that his boss is the devil himself. The devil is attracted to Reeves’ character’s work decimating the credibility of a rape victim in order to let his guilty client go free. At the devil’s firm, he is swayed by absurd salaries and other perks to ruthlessly defend a corporate billionaire accused of murdering his family, and a voodoo sorcerer who regularly sacrifices animals. From there, it gets more absurd, as Pacino pushes Reeves to more morally decrepit depths, culminating when he asks the young associate to have a child — the anti-christ – with his half sister. Citing free will, Reeves commits suicide, which jolts him back to the initial trial in which he was defending the pedophile. Despite threats of disbarment, Reeves refuses, which leads to Pacino looking into the camera and asserting “vanity, definitely my favorite sin.” …What?

Wild Things

If you know anything about this film, you probably know that it should not be taken seriously in the first place. Wild Things, the story of a high school guidance counselor accused of raping two students, is packed with awful acting, bad writing, and predictable plot twists. But its courtroom scenes take special liberties with legal procedure and acceptable human interaction. This culminates with perhaps the most unlikely courtroom scene of all time, which The Onion describes as “a hilarious free-for-all, with Bill Murray in a phony neck brace, Richards hurling a glass of water across the room, and Robert Wagner emerging from the gallery to step up to the prosecutor’s table.” Better yet, the scene ends with a furious Richards hurling expletives at Neve Campbell across the courtroom. The scene is not to be missed.

The Juror

You know in films, when an unfortunate action seems like the only option simply because Alec Baldwin said it? That’s the case in the 90s Demi Moore flick The Juror, which involves a pre-30 Rock Baldwin threatening Moore’s character to convince a jury to acquit a well-known mob boss. Frightened, Moore’s character obliges, and the mob boss is let free. This is unlikely for a few important reasons. First of all, juries consist of a dozen people and are (unfortunately) easily swayed by public opinion. So even if she votes to acquit the mob boss, convincing a majority of the other jurors that he is innocent is a much more daunting and unlikely task. But she succeeds, supposedly saving the life of herself and her child (who later became that kid from 500 Days of Summer). Next, a lot of crazy things happens that involve Baldwin killing a lot of people and [spoiler alert] Moore killing Baldwin.

Guilty as Sin

Jennifer Haines, a young Chicago attorney is on top of the world. But of course, in the tradition of all bad legal dramas, that only means she has a longer distance to fall. This process begins when she inexplicitly takes the case of David Greenhill (Don Johnson!), a suave defendant accused of murdering his wife. Haines’ investigator looks into him, and strongly cautions against taking the case. Haines doesn’t like Greenhill any more, but also doesn’t like being told what to do. So she takes the case… just because she feels like it. Inevitably, Haines finds her new client’s skeletons: that he has a history of seducing older women and murdering them. This leads Haines to plead with the judge to let her drop the case, and even plant evidence in Greenhill’s house that would get him put into jail. Greenhill is eventually let go, but threatens Haines, knowing that she planted the evidence. The film culminates with a struggle that leaves both Greenhill and Haines falling from a building. Greenhill was on the bottom so, of course, he was the only one who died. The film ends with the best possible one-liner: “it was a tough case, but I beat him.”

Here at GJEL, we take injuries very seriously. But for the purpose of this blog post, we thought it would be fun to step back and look at some of the more humorous holiday mishaps. For more, see our blog post on the most common holiday injuries.

Thanksgiving Parade of Horror

Each year, thousands of families nationwide gather around the television to enjoy traditions like watching football and/or the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. Watching the former, you’ve got to expect to see some serious athletic injuries. But parade-related injuries are likely much more surprising. But then again, when you send gigantic helium-stuffed plastic monsters on a crusade over the streets of New York City, you’ve got to prepare for the worst.

Lampposts have been a consistent worry for Thanksgiving parade floats. In 2005, for example, a M&M candy balloon hit a lamppost, knocking it over into a crowd of people. Two women sustained minor head injuries. The next year, the M&M float was replaced with a salute to Broadway musicals.

On a more serious note, in 1997, a Cat in the Hat balloon knocked over a lamppost, which fractured a woman’s skull, left her in a coma for over a month, and caused permanent brain damage. The woman’s family sued the city, Macy’s, and the lamppost manufacturer for nearly $400 million on compensatory and punitive damages. In 2001, the city settled the lawsuit for an undisclosed sum.

Shop Til You Drop

Every year, the media becomes obsessed with stories about mall mishaps resulting from overcrowded stores, consumer stampedes, and disputes between customers. 2008 was the most dangerous consumer holiday in recent memory, as a Wal-Mart employee was killed on Black Friday as consumers flooded the store. Two shoppers also injured by the mob later filed a $2 million lawsuit against New York’s Nassau County Police Department for its insufficient crowd control. Wal-Mart was also criticized for its lack of security monitoring the crowds. The event inspired Wal-Mart to abandon the moniker “Black Friday” in favor the more innocuous “The Event,” though if you ask me, the new nickname sounds much more ominous.

A scuffle in a Palm Desert, California Toys “R” Us that same year proved that accidents aren’t the worst of our problems when it comes to holiday injuries. An argument spiraled way out of control when two men took out their guns and began firing at each other. Both were killed. Toys “R” Us was careful separate the event from Black Friday itself. “We are outraged by the act of violence that occurred,” the company said in a statement. “Our understanding is that this act seems to have been the result of a personal dispute between the individuals involved. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to associate the events of today with Black Friday.”

Wrap Rage

This is a real thing, and it affects everyone. We’ve all received gifts that are simply impossible to open without an axe, blow torch, or divine miracle. But what results in annoyance for most, leads to minor (and even serious) injuries for others. In 2008, a British study found that difficult packaging put 60,000 people in emergency rooms each year due to cuts, sprains, bruises, and muscle extensions. A 2004 report by the Consumer Product Safety Commission found that 6,500 Americans go to the hospital each year trying to open gifts.

Wrap rage has become something of a pop phenomenon. In 2006, Consumer Reports Magazine launched the “Oyster Awards,” attempting to pinpoint “America’s hardest-to-open packages.” The magazine tested 237 nominations to determine the country’s most frustrating product packaging. That same year, Stephen Colbert highlighted the emerging problem on his “Report.” Colbert pulled out a calculator to determine the number of Americans injured each year based on England’s data, but hit a wall when he could not release the calculator from walls of plastic.

Distracted Driving

Seinfeld immortalized a problem associated with distracted driving when Kramer crashed his car because he was staring at a shirtless Sue Ellen Mishke. Of course, there are many problems associated with distracted driving, but during the holiday season, elaborate (and some might say gaudy) Christmas light decorations are often cited as a cause. This issue became especially contentious in 2005, when Ohio’s Carson Williams coated his home with 25,000 lights, shining bright and set to music. (The songs were Frosty the Snowman, God Bless the USA, and Wizards of Winter.)

For a week, Williams’ display received national media attention, and attracted hoards of viewers, who lined the streets trying to sneak a peak. But the attention grew dangerous when this traffic led to a car accident outside Williams’ house. In response, the Dayton Sheriff’s office asked Williams to shut down the $10,000 Christmas display. Williams complied, but the incident didn’t stop him from creating new elaborate Christmas displays in 2006 and 2007, photos of which can be seen here.

Tree Defenestration

Over in Germany, one man sustained holiday injuries even after the holidays were all over. Hoping to get rid of his Christmas tree, the man threw it out the window. Unfortunately, he became tangled with the tree and flew out of the window with it, falling 22 feet from his third-story apartment. He was later rushed to the hospital in critical condition with a severe head injury after witnesses saw the fall.

Police spokesman Willy Thevessen summed the injury up perfectly when he said “There’s a TV advert showing people having fun throwing their old Christmas trees out the window…But you’re not supposed to jump out with them.”

Have a great holiday season! But remember to be safe.

Photo credit: juliejigsaw

The Good

Though he’s been off TV for 15 years, Perry Mason is without a doubt the greatest TV lawyer of all time. The character, created by Earl Stanley Gardner in a series of legal novels, was the Los Angeles defense attorney and hero of the self-titled CBS legal drama, which ran from 1957-1966, the longest running and most popular show ever at the time. Between 1985 and 1995, actor Raymond Burr reprised his role as Mason in 30 made-for-TV movies. During the Senate confirmation hearings for SCOTUS Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Senator Al Franken referred to her favorite childhood television show when he asked “What was that one case in Perry Mason where he lost?” When Sotomayor said she could not recall, Franken responded “You don’t remember that case? Didn’t the White House prepare you for that?”

When Law & Order, the decades-running New York City criminal justice drama went off the air, it wasn’t because of Jack McCoy. The character, played by Sam Waterston, is just as reliable as his tenure on the show, appearing in 333 consecutive episodes, the longest record of any fictional television character. McCoy’s morality always comes first, but he will do whatever it takes to put known criminals behind bars, even if it means risking the reputation of his office. His defiance of conventions and impassioned closing arguments have cemented McCoy as the example of great modern television attorneys.

Levy definitely isn’t likable. He has made a career of defending drug dealers (most of whom he knows are guilty), and he seems to take a unique pleasure out of seeing even the most heinous criminals go free. But he fulfills an important role of our judicial system: guaranteeing the right of every defendant to a fair trial with skilled defense. He wins almost every time, and contrary to the criminal lawyers listed below, he does so while adhering to ethical judicial conduct.

To any huge fan of The Cosby Show, it’s a surprise that the creators originally intended Clair Huxtable to be a housewife. The powerhouse wife to Bill Cosby was also a partner at her law firm, and once skillfully represented her daughter against dishonest car repairs. Huxtable embodies the difficulty some mothers have navigating their personal and professional lives. In one episode, Bill senses her frustration and anxiety and takes her out for a “You’re Not a Mother Night” in the city. Huxtable was also recently crowned the winner of “The Battle of Television’s Greatest Lawyers.”

You rarely get to see these great lawyers once they’ve past their primes. That’s why Denny Crane, played hilariously by William Shatner, is such a great character. Crane is the legendary founding partner of Crane, Poole, & Schmidt. He refers to himself as the best lawyer of all time and boasts an impeccable record of 6,043-0. Although Crane’s attorney skills declined considerably as he aged, the firm still uses him in the courtroom occasionally as a sign of strength and intimidation thanks to his strong reputation. Even when Crane takes the lead, he often ends up winning, due mostly to his lucky streak. Crane is way past his prime, but personifies the phrase, “it’s better to be lucky than good.”

The Bad

The world’s worst lawyer. Zuckerkorn, played by Henry Winkler, represents George Sr. against charges that he defrauded investors and engaged in “light treason.” Zuckerkorn doesn’t even live up to his modest advertisements (“He’s very good”); he’s never prepared, constantly puts his dating life above his clients, and once advised George Sr. to put Lucile in charge of The Bluth Company because a court cannot find a husband and wife guilty of the same crime. (They can.) He’s definitely one of the worst TV lawyers.

Chiles’ incompetence is no doubt partially due to the idiocy of his client: Seinfeld’s Kramer. At times, Chiles personifies the ambitious-at-all-costs attorney. In one episode, Kramer starts smoking cigars, which leave him with a hideous leathery face. When Kramer approaches Chiles for advice, he concludes “your face is my case.” Chiles is known for such quotables. When Kramer accepts an absurd settlement offer from Coffee World, he exclaims “I am outraged!” and calls the settlement “lewd, lascivious, salacious, outrageous.” The disappointment adds up, and when Kramer accepts another absurd settlement offer, Chiles calls it “the most public yet of my many humiliations.”

What do you expect from someone whose firm is called “I Can’t Believe It’s a Law Firm” and located in a shopping mall? Hutz, who once represented Marge in court without wearing any pants, also tries his hand at real estate, fireplace repair, and babysitting. He loses the vast majority of his cases, but once won a case against the Flying Dutchman restaurant for cutting Homer off at the “all you can eat” buffet, calling it “the most blatant case of false advertising since The Neverending Story.”

Dan Fielding, played by John Larroquette, is the court’s prosecutor, who embodies just about every negative stereotype of lawyers. He’s extremely arrogant, even though he doesn’t appear to be an especially adept lawyer, and is usually depicted doing anything he can to get a woman into bed. Larroquette’s portrayal of Fielding was popular, leading the actor to multiple Emmy awards. But Fielding wasn’t lying when he said “I’ve stood next to death, and people liked him better.”

The Criminal

When Jesse and Walt need some legal advice, Jesses aptly advises, “we don’t need a criminal lawyer, we need a criminal lawyer.” Saul Goodman (of late-night infomercial fame) steps way past ethical lines when he hooks the duo up with drug distributors and helps them launder illegal drug money, all on the billable hour. In one ad, Saul promises multi-million dollar law suits and asks “who can you sue?” followed by a grocery list including neighbors, family members, and your church.

Actress Glenn Close has said she loves her character in Damages, notorious attorney Patty Hewes, because she represents “the head of her own law firm…in a male-dominated world.” Unfortunately for Hewes, that occasionally means bribing judges and manipulating evidence. Starting in season two, Hewes is under investigation by the federal government for her, well, unorthodox ways, but continues to dominate in the courtroom.

When the show’s protagonist Nancy Botwin decides to set up her own drug dealing operation, she pulls from her most loyal clients to assemble a multi-faceted team, including neighbor Dean Hodes, a philandering attorney who loves her product. Dean provides legal advice for Nancy’s drug empire and even, in a later season, hits the streets as a dealer. His crossing to the criminal side is not a major blow to the legal industry… when push comes to shove, Dean simply isn’t a very good lawyer in the first place.

Let us know if we missed any major characters!

Sanctioned Lawyer v. Transparency

Let’s start with Avvo. When the company gave Florida attorney Joe Davis a “3.7 Caution” warning due to the fact that he had been sanctioned by the Florida state bar association, Davis sued the company for “publishing false and misleading information about attorneys” and damaging his reputation. Davis was, in fact, sanctioned, so the Avvo rating is hardly false or misleading, which is why Avvo CEO Mark Britton refuses to back down. “We will not be bullied into censoring important information. Our mission, since day one, has been to provide more information and better guidance for consumers seeking help with legal matters,” he wrote. “By publishing sanction information in particular, we are shining a flashlight in some very dark corners of the legal industry, and some are not going to like that.”

Dentist v. Yelp

Speaking of trying to avoid bad press, a New York judge ruled this month that a dentist did not have the right to sue Yelp, the social networking and community rating website, for providing a forum on which users can post negative and potentially defamatory reviews. The dentist, Glenn Reit, claimed that the negative experience of anonymous commenter “Michael S” was false and had a negative effect on his business. Reit also claims that Yelp tried to coerce him into buying advertisements on the site and improperly removed positive reviews about Reit from his page. New York Supreme Court judge Jane Soloman dismissed the complaint under the federal Communications Decency Act. “Congress granted interactive computer services immunity from liability for publishing false or defamatory material so long as the information was provided by another party,” she wrote.

Yelp Reviews v. Ad Buys

There are a number of disgruntled business owners who have sued Yelp, alleging illegal business practices. Christine LaPusky, owner of California’s D’Ames Day Spa has sued the company for engaging in extortion, alleging that a marketing executive removed 13 of 14 positive reviews from the spa’s page after she said she would not buy adspace on the website. And last month, a California veterinary clinic alleged that another marketing executive offered to bury negative reviews in return for a $300 per month ad buy. “This suit, like the other, is without merit, we will fight it aggressively and we believe we will win,” wrote Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman on the company’s blog. So far, no business owner has been able to prove that Yelp did, in fact, engage in extortion.

“Like” v. Dislike

The massive social media website Facebook faces a class action lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court for allegedly misappropriating the names and personal information of minors for a profit. The issue is the website’s “like” buttons, which allow users to indicate entertainment, media, and companies of which they are fond. But Facebook also uses this information to suggest that others “like” something based on their friends’ interests. Plaintiffs say this is illegal and that “the use of the name and/or likeness of the child as an endorsement of the advertiser’s product can increase marketing returns by 400% compared to advertising that does not include an endorsement from the name or likeness of a child,” without even getting the user’s consent. Facebook has maintained that the lawsuit is bogus, saying it “misunderstands the law, its intent and the way Facebook works.”

Face v. “Book”

Pulling a page from the “bold” category, Facebook has launched a trademark lawsuit against Teachbook, a small social networking website for teachers, for using the word “book” in its name. Facebook doesn’t own the word “book” but claims that use of the word in connection to a website that serves a similar purpose and even bills itself as “Facebook for teachers,” violates trademark laws. Facebook likely hopes that the outcome of this lawsuit will inform future lawsuits against websites using the word book. “If others could freely use ‘generic plus BOOK’ marks for online networking services targeted to that particular generic category of individuals,” the complaint reads, “the suffix BOOK could become a generic term for ‘online community/networking services’ or ’social networking services’.”

Facebook v. “Montreal Spammer”:

Don’t mess with Facebook. Because they will probably win and you will be screwed. Montreal-based internet spammer Adam Guerbuez learned this lesson the hard way after using the login information from a couple of fake websites he created to flood Facebook users with spam for porn, drugs, and the ever-notorious “male enhancement pills.” Facebook sued Guerbuez (most known for selling videos of people beating up homeless people) under the CAN-SPAM (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing) Act and was awarded a whopping $873 million. For David Fincher’s sake, I’m hoping they don’t choose to sue the makers of “The Social Network” too…

Major Corporation v. Pirate Warehouse

These days, having a current and active MySpace is essential for a musician’s success. That’s why many artists likely viewed a recent lawsuit launched by Universal Music Group as a major buzz kill. Universal sued MySpace, the massive social networking website, for allegedly making copyright infringement easy, and turning “MySpace Videos into a vast virtual warehouse for pirated copies of music videos and songs.” Universal filed their complaint immediately after MySpace improved their “fingerprinting technology” to help prevent unauthorized music from being shared on the site. But Universal claimed they didn’t go far enough. The conflict had a unique outcome which is likely to be beneficial for both sides. MySpace created a new entity, MySpace Music, with collaboration from all major music labels and a whopping $120 million investment from Universal parent company News Corp.

Tenant v. Mold

No one wants to get stuck sleeping in a moldy apartment. But it’s likely preferable to being slapped with a $50,000 lawsuit by your landlord. That’s what happened when Chicago resident Amanda Bonnen tweeted last year “Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon really thinks it’s okay.” Horizon Group Management, which oversees 1,500 tenants in the Chicago area, said the tweet was “obviously false.”

“We’re a ‘sue first, ask questions later’ kind of organization,” said Horizon’s Jeffrey Michael about the lawsuit. Odd quote aside, it looks like the company’s lawsuit may have been a bizarre form of legal retaliation. After moving out of her apartment in June, Bonnen sued Horizon for refusing to fix the mold problem. Michael said the company uncovered the offending tweet while preparing for the lawsuit and “acted to protect our reputation just as we would for any other related comment made in a public forum.”

Tweeps Shall Overcome v. Police:

At first, communicating with fellow protesters over Twitter sounds like a brilliant way to stick it to the man without the risk of getting caught. Elliott Madison and Michael Wallschlaeger thought this plan had worked out until police knocked down their door and arrested the housemates for “communicating with various protesters, and protest groups…[via] Internet based communications, more commonly known as ‘Twitter’.” The pair used the popular micro blogging forum to inform urban renegades taking part in the Tin Can Comms Collective, which described itself as “collection of communication rebels,” during the G20 conference in Pittsburgh, PA last year. For Madison, the full-time social worker with no criminal record, the series of tweets cost $30,000 in bail money. Wallschlaeger had to post $5,000 for bail.

Tea Party v. Common Sense

On April 16, 2009, Daniel Knight Hayden, a 54-year old Oklahoma City resident passionate about tax law became the first person arrested for tweeting. At a tax-day protest the day earlier, Hayden had posted threatening tweets including “START THE KILLING NOW!” and “Locked AND loaded for the Oklahoma State Capitol. Let’s see what happens.” The FBI charged Hayden with making interstate threats, the same charge he’d receive if he had made death threats in a fax transaction. A federal court later sentenced Hayden to eight months in prison for the offending tweet.

US Open for Lawyers. Last time, I linked to a personal injury law firm’s Battle of Television’s Greatest Lawyers. The competition has been fierce, and beginning next week, two finalists will face off for the honored title of greatest TV attorney. From the looks of it, the battle will come down to Cosby’s Clair Huxtable vs. Will and Grace’s Will Truman. If past match ups are any indication, I’d say Huxtable has an edge. She sailed past Ally McBeal in the first round and is currently dominating Ben Matlock with 78% of the vote in the semis. Truman also had an easy first round against Bob Hunter (Desperate Housewives), but is currently in a close race with Law and Order’s Jack McCoy. It promises to be a close call right to the finish.

Edward Would Have. As usual, some of the funniest items this week aren’t even made up. Over at Lowering the Bar, Kevin Underhill highlights some hilarious real law suits, including a (rejected) push-up contest settlement offer between werewolf actor Taylor Lautner and an RV dealer. The Twilight star sued the dealer for neglecting to deliver his RV to the movie set on time, claiming the mix up cost him up to $3,000 per week. In response, the dealer challenged Lautner to a push up contest. The Lautner camp rejected the offer immediately, but Underhill wishes they hadn’t. “The push-up contest was simply a ‘facetious suggestion,’ [Lautner's lawyer] said, and maybe it was, but it is also a awesome suggestion and seems to me like a perfectly good way to settle a lawsuit. The parties can agree to whatever they want, it seems to me, so why not throw down, werewolf?”

Running the Table. I’m sure this next item, from the blawg Legal Juice, is relevant to many holiday weekend plans. In a real lawsuit, the plaintiff’s attorney asked the defense to “describe how ‘beer pong’ is played, including the needed equipment and/or materials.” The plaintiff’s attorney responded that the request was “overly broad [and] unduly burdensome” since “the term ‘beer pong’ appears to refer or relate to at least two different activities, each of which require different equipment and/or materials, and both of which are subject to substantially varying ‘house rules.’” The attorney then attached a lengthy description of the popular college party game from Wikipedia, complete with images, strategies, and variations.

Have a wonderful weekend — and remember to drive safe!

Photo credit: Bounce!!!!