My Photo

Disclaimer

  • The opinions expressed on this blog are my own, and in no way represent those of the staff, management, or clients of the Pacific Legal Foundation.

Reviews

  • "I wish I were a tenth as smart as that guy. People like [Tim Sandefur] and Sarah Palin intimidate me."--Jack Armstrong, Armstrong & Getty

    "The always insightful Tim Sandefur"--Randy Barnett

    "Timothy Sandefur...is a leader in the Darwinist crusade to censor balanced discussion of evolutionary theory in science classrooms."--Michael Egnor

    "Sane writers like Timothy Sandefur..."--Little Green Footballs

    "Really smart and interesting.... [A] counterexample when people start griping about attorneys."--Ed Brayton

Comments policy

  • People wishing to post comments should instead send me an email at tmsandefur@gmail.com and I may post pertinent comments with replies. I won't use your name unless you say otherwise.

Links

Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 05/2004

Powered by

  • Libertarian Blogs

Amazon

« The true motives of “unequal bargaining position” | Main | More on my UFO sighting »

September 15, 2004

Prop 64

Ah, yes, only big evil greedy faceless corporations could possibly endorse 17200 reform, you see. The obvious answer to this is to see how much the plaintiff's bar is going to spend to oppose 17200. (Well, no; the obvious answer is to address the question on its merits, rather than on who contributes to what.) But in any case, it is not big business that suffers the most from 17200 abuse. Big businesses can afford the lawyers and the time that it takes to defend against wrongful 17200 cases. Small businesses, however, suffer far more, particularly because their cases tend to end in settlement, without being reported. But in reality, businesses earning less than $10 million per year in this country pay $150,000 per year on average in tort liability. Businesses earning less than a million per year pay $17,000 per year. All this talk of greedy corporations buying off politicians is a smokescreen to protect the cashflow of plaintiffs lawyers who like to sue the Kwikset Corporation for millions of dollars for saying their locks are made in America when it turns out that “the products contained either ‘a screw or pin made “entirely…outside of the United States,”’ or had a ‘latch assembly that was sub-assembled in Mexico....’” Benson v. Kwikset Corp., 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 407, 414 (2004).

Update: More on Prop. 64 here, here and here.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834528cde69e200d834214d9a53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Prop 64:

» Proposition 64 from PointOfLaw Forum
Gail Heriot at the Right Coast has a posting on Governor Schwarzenegger, in particular his recent endorsement of California's Proposition 64. As Heriot explains, the proposition seeks to return the "standing" principle to California's notorious section... [Read More]

» Proposition 64 [reprint] from PointOfLaw Forum
Another reprinted post, this one from Jim Copland Sept. 20:Gail Heriot at the Right Coast has a posting on Governor Schwarzenegger, in particular his recent endorsement of California's Proposition 64. As Heriot explains, the proposition seeks to return... [Read More]