OA31: More on the McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Lawsuit

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:01:18 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 31. I am so excited, Andrew Torrez, because this is the first week of our double episode. Two episodes a week from here on out. How exciting is that?

0:01:33 Andrew: Yeah, no, I'm really excited, I know we're both looking forward to it, and it's really thanks to all of the support that we've gotten from this was a Patreon goal that we both saw get that threshold crossed, I think, a lot sooner than either of us really expected. It's going to be a lot more work for us. The show is a labor of love. It's a lot of fun.

0:01:49 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah.

0:01:55 Andrew: And I'm looking forward to it.

0:01:56 Thomas: And part of the work that's put into this show, though, is getting it shorter because we only get to do one a week. So actually, in some ways, it's going to be more work, but it's also going to to be a bit of a relief. We don't have to like constantly be rushing everything. I'm really excited because there's just so much content to get out there to people. Now we get to do twice as much of it. So can't wait. So just a couple of little announcements related to this now twice a week schedule we're on. First off, the release days are now going to be Tuesday and Friday. And that means, of course, that you'll get Tuesday's episode sometime, you know, Monday in the late AM or Tuesday in the early, early AM or whatever. And then same with Friday, it'll be Thursday night or maybe Friday early AM. So that'll be our release days. We wanted to pick, we wanted to separate them out.

0:02:42 Thomas: So there's nice enough time between them and also, you Know, so that they didn't conflict with any other podcasts you or or I might be doing. So Those will be our new release days. And the Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, now what we're going to do with that, I think it's a great idea, is we're going to have the answer to the previous week's question in episode one for the week. So that would be today's episode, for example. And then the question will be in episode two for the week, so Friday's episode. And those segments, you'll have to make sure you tune in all the way to the end because those, the segments are going to be the last thing we do, going out strong on each episode. So just some little scheduling cleanup there in terms of what to expect going forward. And with that said, unless I missed anything, Andrew, I I think think we can do that.

0:02:51 Andrew: Yep.

0:03:32 Clip: He who questions training, only trains himself at asking questions. What?

0:03:40 Thomas: So, John Reynolds asks, what would happen if something happened and Trump didn't take the oath of office in the 20th, such as he wakes up and realizes he's so far in over over his head. He can't see sunlight and refuses. So not, not likely of course, but just one of those what ifs that can be interesting. What if a president just doesn't take the oath of office for some reason?

0:04:03 Andrew: I thought this was a great question because as it turns out, it is a constitutional requirement to take the oath of office. Right. So Article two, which governs the power of the president, says before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation. I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the united states. So if Trump refuses to take the oath of office, which let's be honest, this is this is a fun question, right? This is not going to happen.

0:04:39 Thomas: Yeah. Right.

0:04:42 Andrew: But if a president were to refuse to take the oath of office, he would not be eligible to enter on the execution of his office. So what happens? Under the 20th Amendment, Section 3 says, says, if at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of a president, the president-elect shall have died, the vice president-elect shall become president. Okay, not an issue. If a president shall not have been chosen before the time mixed for the time of the president, for the first time fixed, for the very beginning of his term, or if the president elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice-president-elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified, right? So that seems to be the operative provision here. This, Obviously, this goofball scenario has never occurred, so there's no precedent for it. But it certainly looks like a case where the president has not qualified, the president-elect has not qualified to assume the office because he hasn't taken that constitutionally required oath.

0:05:37 Andrew: So the vice president-elect would then get sworn in as vice president and immediately become the acting president. Um,

0:05:44 Thomas: I've got a lot of little questions for just you. Some fun things are coming to mind for me. Like for one, I'm wondering then what happens if he changes his mind? Is it, is it some weird limbo or is it that once he's not qualified, then the vice president is president and Trump is nothing.

0:05:46 Andrew: Yeah.

0:05:59 Andrew: No, that, that it, the way I read this, right. The next half of the clause says, then the vice president shall act as president until a president shall have qualified. Right. So I take that to mean that Trump could literally hold acting President Pence in limbo for the entirety of the next four years that, you know, by saying, oh, hey, look, like I can still take that oath at any time. I can qualify and I'll come in and kick you out.

Because vice president Pence, uh, would be the acting president and would not be, uh, would not, would not assume, he would not get to pick his own vice president, right? So the office of the vice president would, um, well, actually it would be the office of the presidency would remain vacant. The vice president, he would be he would be vice president and acting president. Now, whether that also means, again, something that has absolutely no precedent in in our nation's history. If Mike Pence is both the vice president and the acting president, does he still get to fulfill the duties of vice president? Right. That That is casting the tie breaking vote in the Senate that the way I read it, I think he would. Right. Because we would have no he would still be the vice president. It would actually make him a kind of super president. Right.

0:06:46 Thomas: What he would just be acting president.

0:07:17 Thomas: Yeah.

0:07:17 Andrew: Like he would have all the powers of the presidency by acting, but also the one power of the vice presidency. It would be it would Be a truly unique and bizarre situation. Situation and uh that's why I picked the question right because

0:07:29 Thomas: Yeah, this reminds me of when Obama first assumed office and they got the wording slightly wrong. What's your opinion on that? Because I know that they actually were scrambling and did redo it. They actually redid the oath just in case, I think. What's what's your take on that.

0:07:37 Andrew: Yeah that's well that's That's why they redid the oath, because the provision has never been used. But it is a constitutional requirement that you deliver the oath in the form described in Article two.

0:07:48 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah.

0:08:00 Thomas: Yeah, that's funny. I have another question. Just just random thing occurred to me when when you talk about, you know, becoming qualified. Qualified, you have to be 35 to be president, right? But does that count the day of inauguration or does that account for being elected president? And I was thinking that sounds kind of interesting. Could you be elected and then say you're turning 35, again, it would never happen. Say you're tuning 35 in, I don't know, July. Could the vice president be president until you qualify?

0:08:29 Andrew: That's really I've never thought about that. But but but certainly the question there is that each state is going to have different rules for ballot access. And so if any state has a rule that says you have to be 35 to be on the ballot for president, then, you know, that candidate, if if they got the nomination, would be ineligible to appear on the bullet in a particular state. That being said, I don't know how many states have that requirement. And I know that a lot don't because, you know, well, and crazy crackpot candidates have appeared on state ballots all the time as, you sort of protest votes or again, you know, just sort of vanity votes who are not of age. So I think when Joe Walsh ran for president in 1980, he was only 31.

0:08:53 Thomas: Okay. Well, they wouldn't have bothered, right. They would just think like, well, oh, okay.

0:09:23 Andrew: He ran on the platform of changing the national motto of changing the national anthem to life's been good. So but I don't know if he ever got any ballot access either. But but but yeah, so so that would be the first place I would look. But no, I mean, yeah.

0:09:34 Thomas: Interesting. But let's say, but let's say you can get on the ballot. What would you think then?

0:09:41 Andrew: If he can get On the ballot, remember that the 35 requirement was written into Article II of the Constitution, and then the 20th Amendment was passed 150 years later. So my view, that supersedes, and it certainly makes it possible. I would love to be contradicted if there's something that I'm missing. But it certainly strikes me as possible that uh you know if you had a 34 year old superstar that everybody agreed uh you know you wanted that person to be president for the next three and a half years uh but didn't mind that he had to you know sort of sit in apprenticeship for six months um I it would be I mean it would be a tough sell on the American people you know but

0:10:04 Thomas: Wow.

0:10:19 Thomas: Training program. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah I mean it would never happen but but it's funny that it's interesting that it might actually, Yeah, yeah It's interested that it actually, for once, one of these crackpot things I just thought up to ask you about, for once maybe actually, even though it wouldn't happen, is maybe how it would work. That's kind of funny. I like it. Once again, more bar extra credit. I need it. I just need the extra credit, okay? There's got to be a way to talk my score up a little bit.

0:10:26 Andrew: Um right but none of this would ever happen so yeah yeah Yeah, I I agree. I agree now.

0:10:53 Thomas: All right, cool. Okay, on to our main topic for the day. Now, Andrew, this is a bit of a revisit, uh, of a previous topic that we've covered the hot coffee lawsuit, but it seems as though we've had a lot lot of general questions about it. And we've also had a lot of Eli Bosnick questions about it. Is that true?

0:11:17 Andrew: That's right, uh, both of those are true, yeah

0:11:19 Thomas: Yeah. So I guess it's sort of a revisit, but it sounds like there's maybe enough, I don't know what the word is, confusion or clarification needed to be made, or maybe we're even expanding into new territory. Let's find out plaintiff's lawsuits and the hot coffee issue. So

0:11:35 Andrew: We we received a lot of comments and a lot of Eli comments, and uh, and I kind of lumped them into into three areas. So the first was um a number of people, you know, asked us, but you know, look, wasn't wasn't the old lady still negligent, right? I mean, she's she's the one who spilled it after all, and if she'd been paying attention, you know, she wouldn't have dumped the coffee at all. So it's it's kind of her fault. Right. And and and the answer to that is a call back to. Yeah.

0:12:01 Thomas: Interesting. B. Oh no, sorry.

0:12:05 Andrew: No. Well, to a previous Thomas takes the bar exam where We discussed the difference between comparative negligence and contributory negligence, right? And so in the old regime, which is still operative in a couple of states, comparative negligence says if the would-be plaintiff was also negligent in causing the accident or injury, that that acts as a bar to recovery. And so under a comparative negligence scheme, that that would be absolutely correct. We would say, nope, even if the coffee was served too hot, you're the person who dumped it on yourself. You're negligent. So too bad, you get nothing. Thing. But the reason that almost every state has moved to a contributory negligence scheme is that that seems to cause the same windfall problem in reverse, right?

0:12:07 Thomas: Oh yeah.

0:12:55 Andrew: Like if a company is massively negligent and then you also happen to screw something up, right, it doesn't seem to make sense to allow the company to continue to go on engaging in potentially dangerous behavior just Because, yeah, right,

0:13:09 Thomas: Well, well let me draw a little analogy too. Uh, and you can tell me if this makes sense or if it's accurate. Just because something, the product might be used slightly incorrectly. There's a big difference between, let's say it's a toy for my toddler or something that I don't have. But if I I did. Let's say it's a toy where if, uh, if I misuse it normally, maybe it causes a little bit of a bruise or so, whatever it might be. Maybe it causes the tiny little mark or, or almost nothing, but because of whatever negligence the company is responsible for, I misused the toy. It actually just kills the toddler. I mean, there's a big difference there.

0:13:44 Andrew: Right. So what happened in this case was doctrine of comparative negligence was invoked, and comparative negligent says that you apportion the fault as a percentage basis. The jury gets to decide this, and then you reduce the damage award to the plaintiff by whatever percentage you found her to be contributory negligent. And so.

0:14:06 Thomas: Right. So I would think that would be like, uh okay. They don't have to pay for her shirt. You know, like that way she would, either way she had a stained, you know, shirt and maybe, maybe the car, a little little bit of car damage but she wouldn't have had these horrific burns and this horrific uh, you know, these medical bills, so is that kind of where they went? That's

0:14:11 Andrew: Right. Right, well, no, what they do actually in contributorial negligence is just decide how much of the accident, how much of the injury was your fault as a percent, and then they reduce it by that number. So in this case, they found that the accident was 20 percent her fault. So the damage award was reduced by 20 percent. And that's a very standard way to to make that happen.

0:14:47 Thomas: Weird that seems weird to me. Do you, like, is that, does that not, does that satisfy you, Andrew Torrez, lawyer, legal expert, because like, she's a hundred percent responsible for the accident, the the hotness of the coffee did not cause her to spill the coffee. So that, I, I guess, that way of framing it, maybe I was thinking it with something else in my mind. But is that just a matter of that's the practicality of being able to try to apply it? You have to come up with a

0:14:51 Andrew: I it it well it's you right yeah I Yeah, I think this is a really good point. The doctrine of comparative negligence was designed as an equitable change to the rules that sort previously of required you to track down, you know, kind of exactly who was at fault last. Right. So I think that they wanted to get away from the notion of figuring out sort who's the proximate cause of what, and rather just say, like, in a situation with mixed fault on both sides, we'll try and it down to sort of the economic harm and then apportion that economic harm on a numerical basis. I agree with you that there's kind of an artificiality to it.

I've never really thought about, you know, I've never really thought about it the way that you put it, which is, that's one of the fun things for me in doing the show is, you know, hearing things that, you know, were sort of taught to me in law school, as just kind of an article of faith of like, yeah, everybody knows contributory negligence is sort of the, the battle, you know, rigorous days and, and comparative negligence is, you know, sort of the the fairer new way that doesn't keep you out of court as a plaintiff just because you've, you've screwed something up, um, but but you're absolutely right that that there's still a level of of arbitrariness to it, so, um,

0:16:31 Thomas: Yeah OK.

0:16:31 Andrew: So I found it really interesting

0:16:31 Thomas: So that's that handles the first sort of objection or question that you've gotten. Now I love number two okay

0:16:32 Andrew: Yep yeah so why don't you read, why don't you read number two

0:16:40 Thomas: I'll read number two Eli B asks listener Eli B asks if Dave's lava emporium I already know it's an Eli Bosnick question when it starts like that that's already you don't even need to the rest of it do I need to if Dave's lava emporium insufficiently seals their containers and I accidentally crawl in the truck I know that it's lava and spill lava all all over myself, which we all agree is terrible and wish didn't happen. Isn't it still my fault? Like, doesn't the temperature being the fault of McDonald's ignore that she made the mistake? And more importantly, doesnít it set precedent for me to find any business that does something that isnít according to safety standard, injure myself with it, and demand payment? So I would say the first part of that question was you kind of have already covered, but the second part maybe you havenít totally addressed yet, so thatís interesting.

0:17:05 Andrew: Yeah.

0:17:29 Andrew: So, so that's right. So the the deliberateness of the activity, I think, is already subsumed by the first part of of our answer. Right. If you are 100 percent response, it's it is perfectly reasonable for a jury to find that the plaintiff is 100 percent responsible for the injury. Right? Right. So if you crawl into the tub of lava, right, and they can prove that you did that on purpose, then, you just the doctrine of comparative negligence alone will will reduce your recovery by 100 percent, which is down to zero. But but the other part that I thought, I thought this had an interesting twist to, is the notion that that there's kind of one uniform standard of negligence and that it applies sort of everywhere.

0:18:18 Andrew: So, you know, you just find the most dangerous activity and, you know, and do that and kind of put yourself in harm's way as a way of gaming the system and getting millions of dollars. But that's not what negligence is. Negligence is, as a legal matter, it's a failure to exercise the appropriate level of care that somebody, of, usually it's it's theoretical average reasonable person would have exercised under the same circumstances. OK.

0:18:51 Thomas: If there's anything we know, it's that Eli is not a theoretically average, reasonable person. So maybe that's why he's confused by this.

0:18:58 Andrew: And, and, and so that's why the right, the internal safety documents were crucial in the, in the McDonald's hot coffee case, because, right, how do you go and prove what an average hypothetically reasonable person would do in those circumstances? Well, one of the things you can do is you can point to, you know, the safety studies and you can point to what are the best practices in the industry. And so the point here is that the safety practices for handling coffee are likely to be very, very different than the safety practices for handling lava. Not that there's, there's not a huge commercial, right?

0:19:34 Thomas: Yeah, you're not going to hand your customers a cup of lava, most likely. Paper cup.

0:19:38 Andrew: Yeah. There's not, There's not a huge, you know, commercial lava distribution business to begin with.

0:19:43 Thomas: Not until we get in business.

0:19:46 Andrew: Ooh, new Patreon goal. Get us to $1,500 an episode and we will start Thomas and Andrew's lava emporium.

0:19:46 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Start selling the lava that the market demands. Yeah.

0:19:55 Andrew: Right. Right. The lava company is going to have higher standards of care because that, that's what a reasonable person in that situation handling lava as opposed to handling coffee is going to have to engage in, you know, a higher level of safety protocols. And again, the intentionality portion we've, you know, we've already talked about. So I think that covers that.

0:19:56 Thomas: Yeah.

0:20:19 Thomas: So that leaves sort of the third part of what you wanted to address. I'm not totally sure what legal question is in this, but Eli also asked coffee snobs will will note that ideal brewing temperature is 200 Fahrenheit. And then I think you had said what it was like one hundred and seventy something. I'm blanking on the numbers, but

0:20:39 Andrew: Yeah, it's like 165 to 170 for McDonald's, and they were serving it at 190. And so Eli points out that there are coffee snobs that I didn't – really know this. I don't consider myself to be a coffee snob. I don't know if you do, Thomas, but fair enough.

0:20:44 Thomas: Interesting. So so what's at issue here? Yeah, a little bit in a different way. I'm I'm Not like scientific about it. I'm just like, I'm not, I don't go to Starbucks. That would be the way that I, yeah. Anyway.

0:21:05 Andrew: Um, but apparently, uh, and I'm just going to take him at his word for this, that, uh, the ideal brewing temperature for really good coffee is 200 Fahrenheit, and when it brews at a lower temperature, Eli says, or even drops below that temperature before serving it, it becomes acidic, and that's why cold coffee tastes terrible. And so the the implied legal question here is, suppose I I want my coffee really, really hot. I want it lava hot, 200 Fahrenheit, because that's the best way to drink coffee. Now, how Eli is going to drink coffee at 200 Fahrenheit? I have no idea, because that is going blister his tongue, is my understanding. But who

0:21:41 Thomas: Yeah. It sort of makes me doubt the whole, maybe, maybe that's a good brewing temperature, but I might, I would suspect that you're not serving it at that temperature, but anyway, but we'll, we'll assume we are.

0:21:51 Andrew: Knows? And in that situation, when, right, you have an activity that has some danger associated with it, there is a doctrine called assumption of risk. Right? And so the notion of assumption of risk is, if you are appraised and advanced of the fact that an activity can be harmful and you choose voluntarily to do that activity anyway, then you have essentially waived your cause of action for negligence. Right. So the classic example of this is, can sue me if I beat the crap out of you and cause physical damage to you, but not if we're both boxers. Right. Like, you know, the sport of boxing means that we're going to get in the ring and throw punches at each other.

0:22:39 Andrew: And you have assumed the risk of being punched when you get in The Ring with with me as a boxer. Not, you know, I'm a terrible, yeah, you know, I'm, a terrible boxer. So you're, you're not assuming a lot of risk, uh, but nevertheless, uh. I might punch you, uh, once. Uh, but, um, but no, right.

0:22:46 Thomas: I was going to say, well, yeah, yeah.

0:22:57 Thomas: You've assumed a small amount of frizz. Anyway, sorry. Sorry.

0:23:00 Andrew: Yeah. But the crucial aspect here is you assume the risks that are inherent in the activity, right? So, um if if we're, uh boxing and I, you know, as happened with Mike Tyson and George Foreman, and I bite off a chunk of your ear, right, you can sue me for that, right? And I believe he did sue Mike Tyson for that.

0:23:21 Thomas: That's Evander Holyfield, I think.

0:23:23 Andrew: Evander Holyfield, you're absolutely right.

0:23:24 Thomas: Yeah. Because it's because it's not assumed that's not part of the normal. Yeah, if we're in a boxing ring and I pull out a knife and stab you, it's not like, well, you know, it was a boxing match.

0:23:26 Andrew: Right. You're not assuming you when, right.

0:23:34 Thomas: Things happen.

0:23:34 Andrew: Yeah. You assume the risk that is inherent in the activity. You don't assume All risk. Right. So, yeah, it's yeah. For example, a lawsuit brought by, I believe it was Keith Olbermann's mom against the Minnesota Twins, right?

0:23:40 Thomas: There's like a reasonable level of risk, I'm

0:23:51 Andrew: Because when you go to a baseball game, you assume some level of risk of being struck in the stands by a foul ball. Ball. But Keith Olbermann's mom was not struck by a foul ball. She was struck by the twins' second baseman, Chuck Knoblauch, picked up the ball at second base and turned and threw it into the stands and hit Mrs. Olbermann in the nose.

0:23:50 Thomas: What oh wow

0:24:16 Andrew: And so, you know, you expect, right? So think of the assumption of risk doctrine, right, like you expect when there's a foulball, foulballs go back You don't expect when the second baseman picks it up that he might throw it in your face. Right. So it's all the the the question is, I believe they settled. Right, but right.

0:24:16 Thomas: Yeah so that so was she successful? Do you know? Okay. Yeah Because I, so an analogy I think of in that case is like, go back to the boxing match. Let's say the other fighter, during the, I intermission between rounds, goes over and just starts beating the crap out of you during that. It's not as though that's, even though it's still punching, it's still part of boxing, but it's kind of against the rules. So, would that be kind of an equivalent there, like a good analogy for that?

0:24:58 Andrew: Yes, Yes, that's an excellent analogy. I think those questions were illustrative of a lot of the comments that we got that sort of pushed back a little bit on our, our coverage of the, of the hot coffee case that, yep, sure.

0:25:06 Thomas: Yeah. Well, okay. But let me ask you another thing on assumption of risk. There was some labeling, right? There was some labeling prior to this. I think it got bigger and more attention grabbing, I'm guessing, after this case. But it's not like the cups didn't say hot or something, right.

0:25:13 Andrew: Sure. Right. Right, and so there the question is, what level of risk is that communicating to you when it says hot, right? So that's why the practices, yeah, well, no, no. That's why the best practices are relevant, right, like so if people don't go into McDonald's and buy coffee and have a thermometer with them, right. So it's not like you are expecting that, difference but But between hot, I'm thinking of hot, and I mean 165 Fahrenheit, and hot, I mean 190 Fahrenheit, right? So the fact that the cup said, caution, this is hot, right, is not a sufficient warning when you're outside of the spec of what they mean by hot, right? Right. They have been leading customers to believe that hot is hot is hard. It's it's, you know, 165. It's the temperature you get the coffee when you drive through McDonald's or Starbucks or Burger King or whatever. And then all of a sudden you go the you go to this McDonald's and it's not hot. It's scalding hot. It is 25 degrees hotter than that. Right. So, you know, that's it. It's why it becomes, you know, an insufficient

0:25:36 Thomas: Maybe that's why it it was the 20%.

0:25:50 Thomas: It's

0:26:40 Andrew: Warning, because your expectation of what that word means is colored by its use within that community, right? The community of McDonald's coffee, fast food, coffee drinkers.

0:26:53 Thomas: Quite a community. Those are, those are, uh, contrary to Eli. Those are not coffee snobs. I'd say that the community of McDonald's coffee drinkers is not coffee stuff.

0:26:54 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah, probably not coffee. So no, and that's why I wanted to take that that third Because you could imagine, right, a coffee shop that says serve our coffee at 200 Fahrenheit because this is the appropriate. It's going to be hotter than the coffee you get at Starbucks. Please behave appropriately. And in theory, there's nothing wrong with a business doing that, setting up and saying this is a riskier activity than your run-of-the-mill coffee joint. And as long as you've advised your customers of the fact, my judgment, you'd be fine so long as you don't get into the level where you are engaging in an inherently unreasonably dangerous activity. If you do that, then we move over into an area of the law known as strict liability, where just causing the injury is sufficient to prove the tort, because you're doing an activity that is just so inherently dangerous that somebody can't consent to it, right?

0:27:08 Thomas: We

0:28:10 Andrew: So distributing cups of hot lava, right, like there's no safe way, right. And that's the way to think about it is remember that negligence is a failure to abide by the appropriate standard of care. Well, there's no standard of care whereby I can hand you a cup of hot lava and you're not going to burn yourself. Right. So the law says, guess what? Dave's Lava Emporium is an is an inherently unreasonable, unreasonably dangerous activity. And so everything associated with Dave's Lava Emporium is going to wind up being, you if they're selling cups of lava to the public is going to wind up resulting in their and they're paying out massive lawsuits.

0:28:51 Thomas: So is that why things can never be, uh, like fatally dangerous? So like, is that way we can have a reality show that's like, okay, two people fight to the death, uh, you can't just say like, well, you know, they assume the risk, they knew going into it that two men enter one man leaves. Is that, is that kind of why that is, like, there's a, there's a level of risk where it's like, now this is too, you can't assume it, like, it's not, there's no

0:29:03 Andrew: Right. Right. Yes, there are. That's exactly right. Exactly right. That would that's what prevents us from having Thunderdome, the TV show, which I would watch, by the way.

0:29:22 Thomas: Yeah, yeah. I was gonna say, it's just too bad, you know, because they, they would make a a lot hell of money on it and maybe they could afford the payouts, you

0:29:33 Andrew: Well, that gets us back. I mean, maybe we should, as long as we're talking about torts, we had, so Wyatt Castle, uh, sent us a a lengthy email and a paper that he wrote that looked at some of the issues, uh, in the Ford Pinto case. And a lot of his, we don't have the time to go through, um, all of his, uh, uh, paper, it's a 12 page paper. Nice, nice job, by the way. And thanks for, thanks for reaching out to us. But a lot of the, a lot of the points that were made actually came from a Malcolm Gladwell article. And I like, I don't know if, if, if you're a fan of Malcolm Gladwell, I, I like a lot of his stuff. I think that he's almost always a good read, even, even when I think he's wrong. But, you know, I mean, Gladwell sort of tries to give a, he tries to do a lot, lot of what we do, right?

0:30:22 Andrew: He's giving an unconventional take. And the take that Gladwell had on the Ford Pinto example was, there were really sort of two points that he made. The first was that the Ford Pinto, from various statistical measures, didn't seem to be any more dangerous in in terms of having accidents than any other small car, right? That just compact cars, you know, are in the 1970s that, you know, that you were shoving a whole lot of stuff into a small space. And then the second point was that Ford, and this is not from Gladwell, this is from another source, that Ford stated as its reason for using the cost benefit analysis that they were were required to do that analysis by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

0:31:17 Andrew: And so that than inferring a nefarious purpose that, they had to do the study. And so I wanted to talk sort of briefly about about both of those points. I mean, the first is that, and they're related. Right. So the first is that the punitive damages in the Ford Pinto case arise not from the fact that the Ford Pinto was appreciably worse than other cars, but from the decision that the company made following its internal analysis not to fix the problem when they knew there was a significant, it was brought up and discussed internally, and they knew that there was a significant risk of a rear end collision resulting in an explosion that would cause far more damage than just an ordinary rear end collusion.

0:32:08 Andrew: And so, you know, it's saying other small cars suck too, right? It doesn't really speak to what makes the Ford Pinto case significant, right, which is not that the Ford pinto is maybe the worst car ever made. And, you know, well, the comparison was to like the AMC Gremlin, the Chevrolet Vega and the Dodge Colt. This is from the Malcolm Gladwell article. And coming from a family, being just slightly older than you, not much, but just slightly, we owned an AMC car in the early 1980s. And there's a reason that the American Motor Company went out of business. Those cars were just gigantic pieces of garbage.

0:32:53 Andrew: And I mean, they were terrible. So, you know, saying the Ford Pinto was on the same orders, the AMC Gremlin, which is also regarded as one of the worst cars ever made, is not exactly a rousing defense of either vehicle.

0:33:08 Thomas: Well, maybe not in car quality, but in terms of like criminal negligence, is it, and

0:33:08 Andrew: Um, yeah, Well, and and so, right, so that's the issue, is that there was never any allegation, right, the, the, as far as we know, AMC just was terrible at building cars, right? They built the best subcompact they could in building the Gremlin, and it just turns out to be terrible because AMC, he is terrible at building cars. That's different from Ford, who knew how to reposition the axle. And I was always taught with this case that there was actually a particular part that was crucial to the construction of the Pinto, but that Ford's marketing was, and I might be getting the number wrong, they wanted to sell the car for under $3,000. It was crucial for them to sell it at $29.95, right?

And $2,995, not $29, and I could be, you know, it could be under $4,000, but whatever. They had to just miss – their marketing department told them they had to just miss a certain target, and including this $15 part was going to put them into a point where they couldn't profitably sell the car at $2,995. And so that also went into the cost-benefit analysis, right? Right. Like the cost benefit analysis also looked at, in the the construction of the vehicle, how, because, you know, there's, they're rolling model years. Right. Like, they can continue to to adjust it over time. So, so there's that component as well. But but but but really kind of turns on the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.

0:33:33 Thomas: Yeah yeah, yeah,

0:34:51 Andrew: And here I can't corroborate the requirement. What I can say is Ford raised that as an argument in its briefs. Right. They said, hey, look, this document doesn't mean what you think it means. Right? It is just we were required to do an analysis of the potential harms of a car being involved in a rear-end collision. But what the NTHSA did not do was they didn't require Ford's internal management to then do a stark tradeoff. So even if they required them to quantify what is the harm to human life of a rear-end collision, no government agency required Ford to then say, oh, look, turns out it's much cheaper to pay off lawsuits than it is to fix our car.

So it's that internal management decision. It's not the document itself that's the problem. Running a cost-benefit analysis is a perfectly responsible thing for a large company to do. That's what the company should be doing, is figuring out what's the level of danger here and what's it going to cost us to fix it. Right. Like that's how you are responsible to your shareholders, for example, at the end of the day, somebody had to sign off on. Well, no, we're not going to incur this cost to our shareholders. We're going to take the least costly option of just continuing to roll the dice. Place

0:35:44 Thomas: Hmm. Yeah.

0:36:28 Andrew: So the way I come out on all this, uh, I appreciate, uh, sort of the hot take, uh, I really appreciate the work that that Wyatt did in sending us this, um, no

0:36:37 Thomas: He write a 12-page thing just to send to us, or was this for something else that he, oh, okay, yeah,

0:36:39 Andrew: I think he did this in another I think you did this another class but um, if he did this just for us, it is, it is without a doubt the most well-researched, uh, question we get at Open Arguments at gmail.com um, so I, I, I appreciate the hot tape, I appreciate the the desire to kind of want to look back and say, uh, there are elements of of this case that are sensationalized, that's certainly the case, uh, but fundamentally I think it still stands for the the um the principle that, uh, when a company, uh, engages, knows that it's it's engaged in dangerous behavior, uh, and decides to, uh, go ahead with them

0:36:50 Thomas: Do it anyway, because it's cheaper to pay people out than, than still, so the fundamentals of the case, you think, hasn't really changed, just maybe some of the details could be exaggerated or, or mischaracterized over time, yeah.

0:37:16 Andrew: Yeah yeah that that's that yeah yeah Everything that gets reported, I mean, this is why I'm bringing it up in connection with the hot coffee case, because whenever a case enters the public consciousness, um, it's going to get distorted. And we remember the emotional impacts of it. So I certainly think that those are valid points, but I would draw a dividing line. I think the public perception of the McDonald's hot coffee case is largely wrong for the reasons that we said in episode 29 and are repeating here today, expanding upon here today. And I think the public perception of the Ford Pinto case is largely right. So and I stand by that.

0:38:09 Thomas: Okay, nice. Well, I just want to mention that Eli Bosnick asked us all those those questions. You know, if you want to hear more of Eli's humor, which, you know, Dave's lava important. I'm still laughing at that. Make sure to check out Miracle on 34th Street was our Law'd Awful Movies for December. And I know a lot of you looking at the numbers, Andrew and I were kind of blown away. A lot of people really enjoying Law'd Awful Movies number one, which was The Firm. And we just wanted to take the chance to point out if you'd like to check check out another one of those legal movie breakdowns, become a patron, patreon.com/law. There's another one out for December, and we'll have one out for you every month.

0:38:49 Andrew: And I want to say we've been asked the question. Did want to give away a gift to our fans for the holidays. So we made a Law'd Awful Movies one available to everyone. It seems to be really well received. But that's it, it, uh, we, we are, there will not be, um, freebies, uh, in the future. We, we, we believe, look, I mean, you know, that we love giving away the free show, um, uh, but we do want to reward, uh, our patrons and the people who've been supporting us, and so the only way to get Laud Awful Movies going forward is to, uh, is to pony up a couple bucks. So that's, we, we won't do any more of the hard sell on that. I have to say, I love doing it's a lot of fun. I swear during it, which I held off on this one because I try and run a nice safe for work show at least on my answers

0:39:31 Thomas: Yeah, it's really fun. Yeah, we run a clean, tight ship until it's Law'd Awful Movies and then everything goes out the window.

0:39:44 Andrew: And then we're truly horrible. We took apart Miracle on 34th Street, which is, that's just

0:39:51 Thomas: Yeah, we ruin several childhoods, I'm pretty sure. All right. Right. Well, awesome stuff. Thanks for for clarifying and for expanding those issues a bit there, Andrew. All Right, let's go to everybody's favorite intro, intro, breaking down the law. Okay. Credit to Ken Aldred for asking this one. Andrew, break down the difference between legalizing something and decriminalizing it. I'm guessing this is coming on with the marijuana laws and all that kind of thing. What's the difference there?

0:39:52 Andrew: Yeah. So

0:40:09 Clip: The law breaking down

0:40:28 Andrew: Yeah, this is pretty much, I like the way the question was worded, as what's the difference between legalizing something and decriminalizing? Because, you, pretty much there's only one thing we're talking about here, Ken. We all know what you're up to.

0:40:40 Thomas: Hey, well, maybe he's planning on trying to get that done for more drugs. Maybe he's thinking in the future too.

0:40:46 Andrew: And the distinction is is pretty straightforward. When something I'm sticking with it, when when marijuana was decriminalized, as happened in multiple states, including California prior to this election. What that means is that regardless of what statutes are on the books, declaring a decriminalization is state saying, as a policy, we are no longer going to enforce this law against the personal possession of marijuana within our borders. What that leaves open is you could still be guilty of a federal prosecution. If you were part of a drug cartel, that's still a charge that they would leave open and be able to bring against you.

0:41:33 Andrew: It would still be illegal to distribute, to sell marijuana. So, so decriminalizing is, is exactly what the root of the word sounds like. Um, it is removing the criminal penalties that are associated with it. There are still a lot of problems, right? Like there's the problem of, um, if you are a drug dealer, uh, even in marijuana, statutes would still be open. You would still be vulnerable to, as just a user, you could still be charged with a federal crime if, for example, you were driving across the border from into California, for instance. So means removing the criminal penalties. Legalization is the regime that California just passed, which is, uh, and that that is, uh, the case in Colorado, which is moving to, uh, this is a recognized legal activity, uh, it is now an affirmative defense, uh, to say that you are acting under color of law if you are, um, smoking marijuana and then, um, you know, there were some sort of federal offense. Yeah, go ahead.

0:42:36 Thomas: Does legalizing take out other laws? Like, does it officially, you know, override or kind of strike down other previous laws that made it criminal?

0:42:47 Andrew: Yeah. It, it, it. So it doesn't, uh, a state law cannot override a federal law, right? So, so marijuana is still a, uh. Controlled. I think it's still a schedule one substance, but it is still, it is a controlled, uh, substance under federal law. Uh, but, uh, when there is, uh, so in Colorado, you know, you are still technically guilty of a federal offense when you are, you know, possessing and using marijuana for your personal use. The difference is that you now have a defense to that federal criminal charge, which is that you are acting under the color of state law, right? State legal authorities told you that it was OK. And so we have a doctrine that says we will not prosecute and convict anybody for a crime if a legal authority said it's OK to do that.

0:43:36 Andrew: Right. So, you know, a classic example of this that occurs all the time that you probably don't even think about is if you're in a city and you're at a busy intersection and there's a police officer directing traffic through the intersection and he points to you and says, you walk this way. Right? Like you could be guilty of jaywalking because you're walking against the red light. But if another officer came by to issue you a ticket, it, you would say, hey, look, like I was acting under color of state law, like this officer here told me to walk across the street. That's so that's really the distinction in, you know, in practical terms between this is still illegal, but we're not going to arrest you for it versus this is fully legal. Yeah.

0:44:13 Thomas: That's interesting, but sorry if this is a rabbit hole, but what is the line there? I mean, if a police officer tells you to jump off a bridge, are you going to do it, Andrew? If a police office tells you, no, it's okay, go ahead, shoot that guy right now. You know, like, what is the line There? Because I know that sounds like hyperbole, but in some ways, it's sort of like that when you're saying with drugs, like, oh, no, it's fine. You can smoke that joint. Don't worry about it. It's totally OK. You know, like what is what where what is the line there?

0:44:16 Andrew: Yeah, that that's a good question. And I'm going to have to punt on on that because, um, you know, as I, I mean, I'm not a criminal lawyer, so, um. You know, I can't, I see that potential as I'm thinking about the way other doctrines would play in. I mean, I feel like you are to always be on relatively solid ground if you are following the direct instructions of somebody with the authority to give them, right, who's acting on behalf of the state, right? Because even if you've, even if you wander into the territory of, you know, the cop says, "Hey, shoot that guy," right. Like now, you know, it's a rough analog, but I'm thinking about, you know, what little I know about the entrapment defense, right? Right. And so, you know, that scenario really does happen when you're talking about, you know, undercover officers that

0:44:44 Thomas: Oh, OK. But are you a criminal lawyer?

0:45:33 Thomas: Oh yeah.

0:45:34 Andrew: Are, you know, infiltrating, gangs or, you or, know, other criminal organizations where, you know, they've developed a series of protocols because, you know, if, if if the cop is really instigating.

0:45:34 Thomas: Good point.

0:45:44 Thomas: So if they infiltrate, yeah, yeah, and then they kind of make people commit a crime, like have them sell this drug or have it, then in some ways, I guess that does answer the question, because in those cases, is the, the the defendant would have that, a entrapment defense.

0:45:46 Andrew: Yeah. Right.

0:46:00 Andrew: Right. And again, now that's going to be an affirmative defense. So, you you know, you, you as the defendant bear the burden of proof on that. Um, and you know my understanding is that, that not a lot of cases come through, uh that, uh yeah, it's raised a lot, uh and fails a lot.

0:46:00 Thomas: Hmm.

0:46:16 Thomas: No, because people try to use it to get out of everything. Yeah.

0:46:17 Andrew: Um right, right. And, and my, my um recollection of entrapment law comes from, uh my, my criminal law professor, I mentioned this before, was, was Alan Dershowitz. And so, yeah, so we we focused several weeks on entrapment defense in Dershowitz's 1970s pornography cases, which generally involved, you know, undercover officers going into, you porn shops in New York City and, gently hinting about maybe you've got something a bit more, you know, risque here and trying to get, you know, them to violate statutes that were in place at time at the time, criminalizing certain seedier aspects of pornography. And then, you know, they would do the, oh, by the way, like I live in New Jersey. Can you mail that to me?

0:46:28 Thomas: You might've mentioned it a couple of times, but that's okay.

0:46:58 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah,

0:47:14 Andrew: You know, so that now you're shipping it so you can get the federal offense and that sort of thing. Those stories typically came from a position of Dersh being frustrated about having lost on the entrapment defense.

0:47:14 Thomas: Sure.

0:47:27 Andrew: So that's my history with it. But again, that's a little bit of a rabbit trail in terms of giving you sort of multiple angles by which to attack a criminal prosecution where you have been directed by a law enforcement official or a government official to to engage in the behavior. That's but sort of the general framework that you would that you would use to to analyze it.

0:47:49 Thomas: All Thanks for breaking that down for us. And now's that time where we need to thank our amazing patrons. Once again, we find ourselves in the greatest predicament there is, which is so many people to thank. And now that we're doing two shows a week, we'll thank our top patrons on Friday's show. So we'll do new patrons today, top patrons Friday. And that begins with Paul Freelend. Thank you so much. Erin Freund, RJ Rautio, Marie, Stephen Boyd, Kacey, Daniel Titley, Trish Barron. I'd like to thank also Zabby with a big pledge edit from 20 to 25. Thank You So Much. Zabbie, big supporter of ours. Pamela Kendall, the N-E-T-S-E-C, Heathen. Or is that something? What is that? I don't know what that is.

0:48:09 Andrew: I Don't know either.

0:48:38 Thomas: The the N-E-T-S-E-C Heathen, Christopher Weschler, John Jungers, Michael Mahoney, David Smalley's Bruised Ego, uh, Sifford. Oh, man, these, you guys are making so hard on us, but that's okay. Frank, George Self and Darren Holmes, thank you guys so much. Did

0:48:51 Andrew: Yeah.

0:49:01 Andrew: And thank you to Anne Elizabeth, to Dennis Bourne, Rebecca Oxford, Malachi Constant, Donovan 'Ravenhull', Thomas Achilles, Carl Guillot, Reverend Bill, Scott Wilcox, Brad Brown, Emily, Liz Staten, John Brownell, and Cass Dedert. Uh, thank you all so much

0:49:20 Thomas: You guys give Andrew the easier names on purpose? I feel like they did.

0:49:22 Andrew: Yeah. I think I think that that one in leet speak is meant to be ciphered too, it's C1ph3rd. Or yeah, so, um, I think I'm just better at figuring these out than you are times

0:49:29 Thomas: Oh, okay. You know what? You probably are. This is why I can't pass the bar.

0:49:37 Andrew: You yeah.

0:49:37 Thomas: Yeah. Thanks, everybody.

0:49:38 Andrew: I'm

0:49:38 Clip: Oh, no associate of this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.

0:49:44 Thomas: And now here it is, the moment of truth, Andrew. Okay. Oh, man. I'm, I'm currently one for three. We're about to find out whether I even it up at 50-50, or if I am just going to have to resign and just quit and take my toys home and stop trying to live in a get, get ahead in a, in a lawyer's world. Let's find out.

0:50:05 Andrew: So, Uh, this, uh, question was a homeowner buying a new leaf blower, uh, blows a large amount of garbage into his neighbor's yard, uh, and it caused damage to the plants. And the question was, neighbor sues for the suit for the tort of trespass. Homeowner files a motion to dismiss because the neighbor cannot prove that the homeowner acted with an intent to trespass or to do harm. Will the court grant the motion to dismiss? And Thomas, you answered B, which was no, because trespass is based on an intentional act of entering the land or sending something onto the land, and the actor does not have to intend harm to be liable for the tort. And that is absolutely correct, so Congratulations, back up to 500, we're gonna get the next one right. You, you, uh, are are back on a solid footing. Um, we got a lot of uh, a lot of answers, um, including one that said you were definitely wrong, I enjoyed that one, um, uh, that really

0:50:51 Thomas: Oh my God. Oh, geez. Wow.

0:51:07 Thomas: You know what? I, I, I don't blame that person though. I think that that's a, that's, that was the safe bet to go with. But, uh, but yeah. Wow, I'm really blown away. I was, I was so, so used to it. I just was was ready for you to just tell me that my, my chances at this firm were over. Like there was no way I was possibly going to be able to work at, uh, Covington Burlington coat factory anymore. Uh, but it sounds like maybe I, maybe I have a chance, you know, cause I only need to get just to refresh for new listeners. I only needed to get, we were guessing maybe like 60%, 65%, something like that.

0:51:14 Andrew: Um, Yeah.

0:51:40 Andrew: I think I think we're, we're shooting for, for 65 percent, so. So, no, this was good. This question was asking a straightforward principle if you went to law school, which is, in order to sue somebody for the tort of trespass, do you have to prove that they had the specific intent of coming on to the property of trespassing, or is the generalized intent to do the thing that caused the trespass enough of a proof of intent? Does that make sense?

0:51:41 Thomas: Ooh. All right.

0:52:12 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah, That's kind of what I had in mind. I just felt, felt like what I thought, and you can tell me if I just accidentally stumbled upon the correct answer, which is pretty much always going to be the case. But I was thinking, well, you know, if you just accidentally totally screw someone over on their property, or like you cut down a tree and it just on your property and it just demolishes their house or something like that, I just think you don't need that intent. I was thinking in the back of my mind, or while in the front of my head, I was thinking, you don't, that doesn't sound right. So that's why I was thinkin' that answer. But I certainly wasn't 100 percent sure.

0:52:13 Andrew: Yeah.

0:52:44 Andrew: No, that's that's excellent. That's exactly the right way to think about it. So the most popular wrong answer on Twitter was C, which was yes, because the homeowner had no practical way of controlling where the material went and he acted without malice or ill will. But but as you point out, right, if you chop down a tree branch, the intent is I intend to do the action. I've intentionally chopped down the tree branch. And then when the tree bench intrudes onto your property, that's a trespass. Right. So it doesn't matter. I'm not maliciously chopping down the three branch. Uh, as long as I intended to do the action that I did, that's enough of an intent to prove, uh, the, the civil act.

0:53:02 Thomas: Right. Yeah. And the and the only doubt in my mind. And this is this has been something that's happened in a couple of these questions was, well, is it going to be the case that you do need intent, but there's some other legal remedy you would have sued for that wasn't that, you know, like that's what I've thought for two of these. He's like, well, is trespass the way to go as opposed to some other tort that you would try to Sue for? And I've had this a couple of times, but it seems like that's not usually how they get you with these questions, but we'll see.

0:53:54 Thomas: Maybe I'll, maybe I'll get gotten in the future. Did anyone answer C because that was Thomas's second choice and the second choice is always the correct choice. Did anyone, another safe bet?

0:53:50 Andrew: Hmm. And we will say, yes, some some people did do that. And the other Thing, the other thing that that was interesting, and we had some C answers, we had some A answers, I don't think anybody picked the D answer, which to me was the most interesting, attractive distractor. D was yes, because the homeowner expected the wind to carry the debris away and did did not think it would accumulate on the neighbor's property.

And the reason that I thought that that was an interesting answer is because trespass, really, changed the law of the tort of trespass has changed in the past 50 years.

Now that we understand that particulate matter, that really, really tiny particles can intrude on your property and can, you know, have a significant, so, for example, I handled a case about 15 years ago in Omaha, Nebraska, where the underlying issue was there was a company called Asarco, which is the American Smelting and Refining Company, that had a smeltering facility with a smokestack on the top. And it was, there's an internal memo that basically showed, like, every 20 or 30 years that local residents would complain that the lead in the air was kind of thick. And so the instruction would come down, you know, we'll build add another 30 feet to the top of the smokestack, which, that's this is my client, that's, but what we call a bad document when that comes up in discovery, you know, because obviously adding another 30 feet to the smokestack just means you're dispersing the

0:55:36 Thomas: Yeah.

0:55:36 Andrew: Lead fumes over a wider area.

0:55:37 Thomas: It's going a little further. Yeah.

0:55:40 Andrew: This was brought as a class action, which has, you know, some of the elements that we've talked about in a previous show. And also, the underlying torts was trespass. And the idea is it is now recognized today that invisible particulate of lead accumulating on your property can be a trespass, even though like 100 years ago, nobody would have thought that. Like trespass meant coming onto your property or throwing something onto your – that like you could physically see. But the law has evolved a little bit because the idea is there's nothing else that quite captures what the harm is the property other than trespass when you're talking about pollutants and stuff like that. And so the modern rule really does allow you to, you know, supports a trespass even if the physical component of the invasion is, microscopic, so long as you can show a harm. So I thought that might have been an attractive distractor for some, but apparently it wasn't. So, I was overthinking

0:56:07 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah.

0:56:45 Thomas: Well, I don't think any of us were smart enough to know that that would be an attractive distractor. So that, that's why we were all safe. So Andrew, who was our lucky winner or, or sorry, who is our skillful winner of, uh... I'm the lucky winner this week, but who's ours? Who, utilized, skill, humor, analysis, something, eye-catching, whatever it was that we picked for our winner this week.

0:56:47 Andrew: It. Yep.

0:56:59 Andrew: Yeah, we picked we the is this real life podcast which is at R. E.E.-l life Chicago on Twitter, uh, who put together an unbelievably dense, uh, answer and included it, uh, in the, um, quote of, of our episode that, uh, that says, "We select option B, no, because trespass is based on an intentional act of entering the land or sending something onto the land, and the actor does not have to intend harm to be liable for the tort." Um, there's also, there's like a six sentence long Long, citation to a case.

0:57:38 Thomas: Yeah, they They filed like an amicus brief

0:57:40 Andrew: And yeah, no, it was really, this was really good. So, uh, this was, uh. This was, this is definitely serious legal work. So we, uh we picked that one out, uh, as the winner. There were a lot of, there were a lotta great answers. Uh. I think this is a, a segment that, uh it looks like a lot you are enjoying. And, uh keep it up, keep playing along for our fabulous prize which gets, which includes being, uh uh called out and uh and hopefully we're directing our our legions of fans to your Twitter account so thank you very much

0:57:40 Thomas: On, yeah, getting that shout out. Yeah, yeah. Absolutely. Well, I certainly enjoyed the segment this episode, but there's varying levels that I enjoy it. Sometimes a lot, sometimes not. I'm looking forward to, so look forward to Friday's episode where we'll have question number five, and then you'll have all weekend to kind of mull it over, answer it, and you'll hear the answer on next Tuesday's episode. So that's how it's going to work. And with that said, that's all we have for you today. That was a lot of fun. Thanks so much, Andrew. Great episode as always. Great work. For my part, I will say see you guys on Friday and stop breaking the law.

0:58:18 Andrew: Yeah all right

0:58:55 Clip: This has been Opening Arguments with Andrew and Thomas. If you love the show and want to support future episodes, please visit our Patreon page at patreon.com/law. If you can't support us financially, it'd be a big help if you could leave us a five star review on iTunes, Stitcher, or whatever podcast delivery vehicle you use. And be sure to tell all your friends about us. For questions, suggestions, and complaints, email us at openarguments@gmail.com. The show notes and links are on our website at www.openargs.com. Be sure to like our page on Facebook and follow us on Twitter at OpenArgs. Until next time. This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC. All rights reserved.