Toyota's Troubles

In our automotive research experience, we’ve learned that just as Volvo is associated with “safety” and Mercedes-Benz with “luxury,” the Toyota brand carries incredibly strong connotations with “reliability.” Furthermore, many consumers agree Toyota’s sterling reputation for trouble-free ownership is worth a premium over other more “stylish” or performance-oriented brands.

Now, Toyota’s reputation for dependability is under siege. And from our perspective, the company mas made some crucial mistakes in addressing consumer anxiety.

In Jury Impact President Chris St. Hilaire’s upcoming book, The 27 Powers of Persuasion, three chapters specifically apply to Toyota’s current situation:

*Go on the Offensive
*Take Responsibility—It Will Be Assigned Anyway
*Release Bad News—All of It—Quickly

One of the most essential elements of any messaging campaign is going on the offensive. Whether presenting at trial, selling a product, or addressing public relations nightmares, we always stress to our clients the importance of going on the offensive. Toyota, on the other hand, seemed until recently to be taking a reactive approach to criticisms.

In September 2009, after concerns surfaced about accelerators sticking under floor mats, causing four deaths, Toyota recalled 3.8 million autos (this followed a 55,000-vehicle recall in 2007 for the same issue).

The first apology from CEO Akio Toyoda, when he reassured the public “we guarantee [our customers’] safety,” was on January 29 of this year. That four-month delay is hardly going on the offensive.

From a PR perspective, Toyota has seemed content trying to isolate its issues to a few specific models and fighting fires only as they flare up. Specifically, since the floor mat and sticky accelerator issues surfaced, a Toyota Prius and Lexus HS250h recall has been issued related to faulty brakes, and reports are now surfacing about steering problems with Corollas. Making matters worse, Toyota now admits it was fully aware of these braking problems yet chose not to issue a fix or recall.

This failure to act (including an early refusal to fix accelerators already at the dealership because, according to its U.S. Safety spokesperson, “Toyota continues selling models involved in the recall, expecting that they work fine because they are new and the throttles don't seem to begin sticking until the vehicle ages”) has led to yet another PR-horror show as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened an investigation. Toyota’s piecemeal approach to revealing problems it was well aware of has drawn out what could have been one really bad news week into a months-long cascade of bad press.

This stresses the importance of releasing bad news—all of it—quickly. Toyota’s reactive, after-the-fact strategy for addressing problems puts the company at a disadvantage for several reasons: 1) It is spending too much time responding to new criticisms to get ahead of the bad news, 2) waiting for the attacks to come in before addressing known issues makes the company seem defensive instead of preemptive, and 3) there is a growing perception Toyota is are not proactively monitoring vehicle safety, and only addressing things for which it is “caught in the act.”

By waiting too long to go on the offensive, being slow to address new concerns, and failing to put all of the bad news on the table at once, Toyota has allowed the media to control the message, resulting in public relations nightmare and a piling-on effect.

In a February 9 Washington Post op-ed, Toyoda explained what the company is doing to prevent issues like these from arising in the future, specifically a "top-to-bottom review" of Toyota's global operations. That’s great news, but a bit late. This apology, in which he concedes Toyota needs to investigate consumer complaints more quickly, comes after months of failing to investigate consumer complaints more quickly.

However, the company should be credited for finally taking responsibility. Some would say it’s a bold move, but based on our experience, responsibility will be assigned anyway—so if you’re aware of problems, it’s always better to admit mistakes as early as possible.

Which brings us to another crucial element to a successful communication campaign: presenting a cohesive, consistent message. Instead of creating new messages for each new problem, from early on Toyota could have been playing to longstanding predispositions about its product quality and presented a broad message to address the safety and reliability of the larger brand.

Consumers don’t care which models have steering issues, which are prone to floor mats jamming under the gas pedal, the parts supplier responsible for faulty pedals, or the intricacies of the dealership and factory fixes—they just want to be reassured the car they’re driving is safe. And that’s the big picture message that seems to only be coming out now in recent mea culpas, press releases, and television ads.

Considering Toyota lost $21 billion in market share in just one week, these blunders clearly aren’t minor. Instead, they highlight the consequences of failing to go on the offensive with a cohesive, consistent message. However, they will have fresh opportunities to apply these messaging principles, as CNN reports the lawsuits have already started in earnest.

We hope that Honda, which just issued a major recall related to airbags, will learn from Toyota’s missteps.

-Todd Fairbanks

ARTICLE: Jury seated for Marianna home-invasion, murder trial

From David Angier at the Panama City News Herald, we learn of a juror dismissed because she might have, possibly, just maybe, had a wee bit of trouble remaining unbiased:

A prospective juror Monday in Howard Sullivan’s murder trial had a startling revelation about a potential witness in that case.

Prosecutor Greg Wilson was asking if anyone on the panel knew Lionel Crawford when a woman raised her hand. He’d gone through a list of potential witnesses and wanted to know if familiarity with a witness would bias a juror for or against their testimony.

"How do you know Mr. Crawford?" Wilson asked.

"He shot me in 2004," the woman replied.

"He shot you?" Wilson asked. After a long pause, he said, "Would it be safe to say you’d have a problem judging his credibility in this case?"

Congratulations, Mr. Wilson, you've just been nominated for Understatment of the Year!

CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE...

'Extremely Bored' Runaway Juror Faces Jail Time

According to the Denver Post, a juror came down with a case of "I'm boooooooooored-itis" and, well, just went home:

HILLSBORO, Ore.—A man who left jury duty after lunch because he was "extremely bored" will be back at the courthouse Tuesday to be arraigned on a charge of contempt of court. A police report said officers found the 25-year-old man near his home earlier this month and asked why he skipped out. He said he was bored, and "just couldn't take it" anymore.

Washington County Judge Gayle Nachtigal issued a warrant for his arrest.

Though she wouldn't discuss the specific case, the judge said the maximum penalty for missing jury duty is six months in jail. Penalties, however, are generally waived if the person agrees to perform their civic duty.

We've posted before about the tendency for younger (especially web-savvy) jurors lacking the attention span to make good jurors, but this kid is taking it to a new level.

Okay...

From The Smoking Gun, we learn of one Montana resident's particular--and quite graphic--aversion to serving on a jury. This desire to avoid his civic duties prompted him to whip up a signed affidavit explaining to the court just exactly what he would rather do with his time than sit in a jury box.



Says TSG:

Slye's caustic affidavit, which he prepared with help from his wife Jennifer, can be found below. The document, of course, did not sit well with court officials and led a judge to threaten to jail Slye. But after being summoned to court, Slye apologized for the affidavit and avoided being cited on a criminal failure to appear rap. And he also was excused from serving on a jury.

Success!

CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE (AND THE UNEDITED AFFIDAVIT)...

ARTICLE: Turbulence Blamed for Paralyzing Woman in Continental Flight

In a frightening story from the Brownsville Monitor, a woman was paralyzed when her Houston-to-McAllen, TX plane encountered turbulence during the (very short) flight.

The woman, 47, was using the plane's bathroom when the aircraft encountered turbulence and descendent [sic] rapidly, throwing her against the ceiling, said Dr. Trey Fulp, an orthopedic spine surgeon treating her at McAllen Medical Center.

He said the woman suffered a fractured neck and was scheduled to undergo surgery on it Monday.

Doctors spent 6 hours operating on her back after the plane landed.

The back injury left her paralyzed from the chest down, Fulp said.

Although some patients recover from this sort of injury, it's unclear whether she will ever be able to walk again, Fulp said.

"Anytime you're dealing with a paraplegic, only time's going to tell," Fulp said.

He did not release the woman's name, citing privacy concerns, but he said she is a local resident.

As of Monday morning, the woman was on a ventilator. He said she is alert, talking and has been visited by family members, but she remains very scared.

...

The lawsuit is pretty much inevitable, but a personal-responsibility-oriented Texas jury would likely find this interesting:

Clark said the flight left Houston late at night after being delayed. The seatbelt signs were illuminated when the plane experienced "sudden turbulence," she said.

ARTICLE: More Workers File Lawsuits Over Popcorn Flavoring

CINCINNATI (AP) -- Dozens of plant workers who claim their health was damaged by exposure to a chemical used to give a buttery flavor to microwave popcorn have filed lawsuits in Cincinnati against makers of the flavoring.

At least 43 workers have filed lawsuits that claim their lungs were damaged by inhaling fumes from the chemical. Some work at a local plant of Givaudan (ZHIV'-uh-dahn) Flavors Corp. of Cincinnati, which supplies the flavoring to food manufacturers. Many others are from a plant in Marion, Ohio, owned by ConAgra Foods, which is based in Omaha, Neb.

Last month, a jury awarded $7.5 million to Ronald Kuiper of Sioux City and against Givaudan. The verdict came a day after the man died.

Kuiper filed suit in 2006 against four companies that made popcorn flavoring used at the American Pop Corn Co., where he worked. The Sioux City company wasn't named in the lawsuit and the other cases were resolved earlier.

As if that wasn't scary enough, last year a man settled a lawsuit (favorably) against a popcorn maker after contracting "popcorn lung." But he wasn't a worker at a large popcorn factory--he was a consumer making microwave popcorn!

Yikes.

ARTICLE: Austin ERs got 2,678 Visits from 9 People Over 6 Years

According to the Austin American Statesman, there appears to be a bit of ER abuse in its fair city. And by "a bit of ER abuse" I mean "rampant, out of control, why-has-taken-you-six-years-to-put-a-stop-to-this ER abuse."

In the past six years, eight people from Austin and one from Luling racked up 2,678 emergency room visits in Central Texas, costing hospitals, taxpayers and others $3 million, according to a report from a nonprofit made up of hospitals and other providers that care for the uninsured and low-income Central Texans.

One of the nine spent more than a third of last year in the ER: 145 days. That same patient totaled 554 ER visits from 2003 through 2008.

"We looked at frequent users of emergency departments ... and that's the extreme," said Ann Kitchen, executive director of the Integrated Care Collaboration, the group that presented the report last week to the Travis County Healthcare District board. "What we're really trying to do is find out who's using our emergency rooms ... and find solutions."

...

The ICC staff, meanwhile, has been gathering data so its members could learn more about the kinds of patients who use the ER.

The report that mentioned the nine high-frequency patients didn't include reasons for all of those ER visits and didn't identify the patients because of privacy laws. But Kitchen, a former state legislator from Austin, gave a sketch: All nine speak English; three are homeless; five are women whose average age is 40, and four are men whose average age is 50. Seven have a mental health diagnosis and eight have a drug abuse diagnosis. Kitchen said she did not know their citizenship status.

...

In a report last year, Austin-Travis County Emergency Medical Services said that 10 patients made up more than 1 percent of the system's 130,000 contacts with patients in two years. The patients' most common ailments were stomach or chest pains, injuries or respiratory problems.

In the comments section of this blog, a reader adds, "This means that, on average, each of the nine people visited the ER about once a week." Wow.

Ask any juror in any city what their number one complaint about emergency rooms is, and you'll hear "long waits." And it goes without saying that these negative experiences reinforce predispositions about the quality of health care in the local area.



CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE...

ARTICLE: As Jurors Turn to Web, Mistrials Are Popping Up

Remember when we said technologically-proficient, web-savvy people tend to make worse jurors?

Well, by way of the New York Times, here's another example:

Last week, a juror in a big federal drug trial in Florida admitted to the judge that he had been doing research on the case on the Internet, directly violating the judge’s instructions and centuries of legal rules. But when the judge questioned the rest of the jury, he got an even bigger shock.

Eight other jurors had been doing the same thing. The federal judge, William J. Zloch, had no choice but to declare a mistrial, wasting eight weeks of work by federal prosecutors and defense lawyers.

“We were stunned,” said the defense lawyer, Peter Raben, who was told by the jury that he was on the verge of winning the case. “It’s the first time modern technology struck us in that fashion, and it hit us right over the head.”

It might be called a Google mistrial. The use of BlackBerrys and iPhones by jurors gathering and sending out information about cases is wreaking havoc on trials around the country, upending deliberations and infuriating judges.

Last week, a building products company asked an Arkansas court to overturn a $12.6 million judgment against it after a juror used Twitter to send updates during the civil trial.

And on Monday, defense lawyers in the federal corruption trial of a former Pennsylvania state senator, Vincent J. Fumo, demanded that the judge declare a mistrial after a juror posted updates on the case on Twitter and Facebook. The juror even told his readers that a “big announcement” was coming Monday. But the judge decided to let the trial continue, and the jury found Mr. Fumo guilty. His lawyers plan to use the Internet postings as grounds for appeal.

Jurors are not supposed to seek information outside of the courtroom. They are required to reach a verdict based only on the facts that the judge has decided are admissible, and they are not supposed to see evidence that has been excluded as prejudicial. But now, using their cellphones, they can look up the name of a defendant on the Web, or examine an intersection using Google Maps, violating the legal system’s complex rules of evidence. They can also tell their friends what is happening in the jury room, though they are supposed to keep their opinions and deliberations secret.

A juror on a lunch or bathroom break can find out many details about a case. Wikipedia can help explain the technology underlying a patent claim or medical condition, Google Maps can show how long it might take to drive from point A to point B, and news sites can write about a criminal defendant, his lawyers or expert witnesses.

“It’s really impossible to control it,” said Douglas L. Keene, president of the American Society of Trial Consultants.

...

The technological landscape has changed so much that today’s judge, Mr. Keene said, “has to explain why this is crucial, and not just go through boilerplate instructions.” And, he said, enforcement goes beyond what the judge can do, noting that “it’s up to juror 11 to make sure juror 12 stays in line.”

It does not always work out that way. Seth A. McDowell, a data support specialist who lives in Albuquerque and works for a financial advising firm, said he was serving on a jury last year when another juror admitted doing a Google search on the defendant, even though she acknowledged that she was not supposed to do so. She said she did not find anything, Mr. McDowell said.

Mr. McDowell, 35, said he thought about telling the judge, but decided against it. None of the other jurors did, either. Now, he said, after a bit of soul searching, he feels he might have made the wrong choice. But he remains somewhat torn.

Here is my favorite part:

“I don’t know,” he said. “If everybody did the right thing, the trial, which took two days, would have gone on for another bazillion years.”

Forget about the law, America's Next Top Model is on tonight! And we end on this gem:

Mr. McDowell said he planned to attend law school in the fall.

Off to a great start, pal!



CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL ARTICLE...

ARTICLE: Confessions of a Hotel Housekeeper

The title of this article alone gave me the heebie jeebies, so naturally I'm going to share it with the rest of you!

I cut corners everywhere I could. Instead of vacuuming, I found that just picking up the larger crumbs from the carpet would do. Rather than scrub the tub with hot water, sometimes it was just a spray-and-wipe kind of day. After several weeks on the job, I discovered that the staff leader who inspected the rooms couldn't tell the difference between a clean sink and one that was simply dry, so I would often just run a rag over the wet spots. But I never skipped changing the sheets. I wouldn't sink that low, no matter how lazy I was feeling.

...

I was disgusted by the many guests I came in contact with through the things they left behind: the hairs on the pillow, the urine on the toilet seat, the half-eaten cookie, the stained sheets. One woman had soiled her sheets so thoroughly that we had to toss them in a biohazard bag—they could never be used again. Rooms where young kids stayed were the worst, with food ground into the carpet and piles of used diapers in the trash. That kind of demoralizing mess could take 45 minutes to clean up. Most maids wore rubber gloves when they worked, but mine were too big, so I discarded them. Unsurprisingly, I got the flu twice.

When you travel as much as we do, a clean, decent hotel room is high on the priority list. I remember one particular trip to Baltimore there was a mix-up at the [REDACTED] hotel. Due to a Red Sox game (we love Baltimore, but there are few things more depressing than the meager turnouts for Orioles games. Only when a "good" team comes to town would there be anything approaching a half-full Camden Yards) all the rooms were booked.

And because we got in so late due to flight delays, the hotel had torn up our reservations in favor of early-bird New Englanders. Unfortunately for us, the entire city was booked solid--we couldn't rent a utility closet if we had $1,500 and an infectious smile. Anyhow, the only place the [REDACTED] hotel could put us up was across town in an incredibly shady area. Having no choice, we drove over and were faced with our worst nightmare.

We're talking long hairs on the shower walls, the stench of cigarettes complimenting (an impressive number of) cigarette burn holes in the comforter, a lumpy, saggy mattress, stained, damp carpet, running toilet, police sirens all night--take my word for it, all it was missing was a chalk outline next to the air conditioner. Needless to say, none of us slept well that night.

The [REDACTED] hotel did the right thing and gave each of the three of us a heaping of hotel points for our troubles, but I'll never forget that particular experience.

And just in case you weren't properly nauseated, I want you to think about the one thing in a hotel room that probably gets the most use: the TV remote control. Consider the sheer number of filthy mitts that have come into contact with that remote before your arrival, and the incredible amount of bacteria and who-knows-what-else clinging to that thing.

Now, within the context of the above article, think about how often the housekeepers hit that thing with a little Formula 409.

Article: Jurors Kicked Off Case For Romance

Just in time for Valentine's Day TheDenverChannel.com(via Fark.com) we are treated to a wonderful story of two jurors falling in love while serving on a jury...for a child-abuse trial.

According to the story, the man and woman were dismissed from the 16-member jury on Tuesday, after people reported seeing them walking arm-in-arm together and giggling with each other.

The former jury showed up Wednesday and sat in the spectator section of the courtroom but he refused to answer questions when approached in the hallway by a reporter.

Here are some details of the child-abuse trial that inspired such romance:

Twenty-nine-year-old Alex 

Midyette is accused in the 2006 death of 11-week-old Jason Midyette. Prosecutors say Jason had 37 broken bones.

Midyette's attorneys say Jason had a metabolic disease and wasn't abused. A doctor testified that Jason had bone abnormalities that were misidentified as fractures.

A doctor testifying for prosecutors said Jason's skull was fractured before he died.

Jason's mother, Molly Midyette, was convicted of child abuse for failing to get medical attention for her son. She is serving a 16-year sentence.

Yikes.

Article: Lawsuit Blames Injury On Lowe's Bathroom Door

Oh, Florida.

According to Tampa Bay Online, a man has filed suit against Lowe's for an unfortunate injury sustained in the loo.

Tommy Rassier says he was using a toilet stall at a Lowe's Home center in Pinellas Park on Aug. 18th when something terrible happened.

According to a lawsuit filed in Pinellas Circuit Court, Rassier was about to sit down when a person unknown to him pushed open the stall door knocking Rassier "in the head and neck with the door," pushing him "back into and against the toilet."

Overall, I'd say this is a pretty crappy situation. RIM-SHOT!

Rassier thought the stall door was locked and faults Lowe's for failing to maintain the door's locking mechanism. The suit says Lowe's was negligent in permitting a dangerous condition.

His lawyer, Joshua Chilson, said it's an unusual case but a valid one. "Bizarre things do happen and that doesn't mean the case is without merit," Chilson said [sounding exactly like a man who believes this case is without merit].

Chilson said Rassier suffered dramatic neck pain when the bathroom stall door hit him and suffered "a herniated disc in his spine." No one called 911 to report the incident.

The person who knocked Rassier in the toilet didn't stick around to leave his name and there were no other witnesses to the mishap, Chilson said.

Chilson said he does have photographs of the broken lock that show several holes indicating the mechanism might have been moved around previously in a failed attempt to make it work properly.

Not for nothing, but you'd think a home-improvement store would have the wherewithal to install a functioning lock on a bathroom door. Just sayin'.

A few questions a jury might pose that could significantly impact the plaintiff's credibility:

-Why was no police report filed?
-There are no witnesses?
-Nobody can track down the most-forceful-bathroom-door-opener-in-the-world?
-A 3/4" door was enough to cause "dramatic neck pain" and a "herniatic disc in his spine"?

Something stinks here.

We are curious if any litigators out there have noticed an increase in frivolous civil suits as the economy worsens. Thus far it's probably anecdotal, but we would love to hear from you if you've noticed a pattern.

Personal Responsibility is Dead

According to Naples Daily News out of Naples, Florida, a man is suing Marriott for injuries he sustained while drunk at their Marco Island hotel.

Michael Fenton admits he’s an alcoholic. He went on a two-day bender at the Marco Island Marriott Resort and Spa last January. In an inebriated state, he then plunged over a stairway some 100 feet. Now, he’s suing the hotel for serving an addict and causing his brain damage.

Fenton...is suing Marriott International Inc. and Marriott Hotel Services Inc., claiming that the bartender knowingly served a person who was addicted to alcohol, despite pleas by his family.

The lawsuit says Fenton got wasted in the hotel bar on January 17, 2008, and his family told the bartender to stop serving him. The bartender complied and Mr. Fenton went to his room to sleep it off.

But the next day, the lawsuit says, he went to the bar and was again served a substantial number of drinks and drank most of the day into the evening.

“The bartender continued serving him even though he was visibly intoxicated,” the lawsuit says. “Family members found Michael Fenton in the bar that evening and requested the bartender to stop serving him. The bartender ignored the request and continued serving him.”

Fenton then went to the “large, double-sided grand open stairwell” on the second floor to go to the bathroom on the first floor. As he tried to negotiate the first several steps, he fell over the handrail to the ground floor and suffered severe and permanent brain damage.

And just for good measure, the plaintiff is claiming the staircase "did not meet state and county building codes or industry standards."

Marco Island's chief code compliance officer, Eric Waddle, sums up my thoughts exactly:

“A building couldn’t have been approved if it didn’t meet code."

One of the accusations against the hotel is, I kid you not, "serving an alcoholic." If you could sue hotels in small towns every time they served an alcoholic in the bar, hotels would cease to exist. Alcoholics and hotel bars go together like Jack and Coke--ERRRRR, I mean, peanut butter and jelly.

Given the strong underlying theme of personal responsibility here, I have a feeling the first question jurors (especially Florida jurors) would ask is: If the family is so concerned about this severe alcoholic, why are they leaving him alone, unsupervised, in a hotel bar for "most of the day into the evening?"

That's like claiming you're terribly concerned about your suicidal teenager, but not bothering to clear the house of guns, knives and rope.

Study: 50 Percent of Smokers Keep Puffing After Cancer Diagnosis

According to a Fox News article:

Even though smoking is a risk factor for multiple types of cancer, more than half of smokers diagnosed with the disease keep using tobacco, and doctors aren't doing enough to help them quit.

A West Virginia University survey published in the Journal of Oncology Practice found that 44 percent of smokers quit after being diagnosed with cancer.

Now, what was your first reaction upon reading that lede? I'm guessing something along the lines of, "What a bunch of bloody fools!"

And that is precisely the reaction we encounter from focus group jurors when discussing smoking habits. In medical malpractice cases, we've observed how a patient's decision to smoke typically illicit strong opinions about personal responsibility. However, it's nothing compared to the vitriol jurors unleash on patients who continue to smoke or resume poor health choices after a bad diagnosis.

Which brings us to the next finding of the study: "doctors aren't doing enough to help them quit."

Less than two thirds, 62 percent, say they received advice from doctors or nurses about quitting the habit.

Dr. Jame Abraham, the study's lead author, says the survey shows there's a need for intervention programs to help cancer patients quit tobacco.

Really? Being diagnosed with cancer isn't enough to make someone quit, but a nurse's stern words and a colorful pamphlet are? Talk about a personal responsibility deficit.

Especially in more conservative jurisdictions, a perceived lack of personal responsibility on the patient's part can heavily influence a jurors' desire to award money.

Meat + Booze + Cash = Marry a 14-Year-Old!

Straight from the oh-man-why-did-it-have-to-be-in-California file, CNN treats us to a story of a father, Jesus Martinez, who sold his underaged daughter's hand in marriage to an 18-year-old boy in exchange for cash, tasty beverages and meat. (So that's what 14-year-olds are going for these days?)

That's not even the worst part. The worst part is the future son-in-law, who had already absconded with the minor Martinez, couldn't even come up with that pitiful dowry! An irate Mr. Martinez called the cops, and hilarity ensued.

Marcelino de Jesus Martinez, 36, of Greenfield, California, was arrested Monday and booked into the Monterey County Jail, Greenfield police said in a statement.

Martinez had arranged through a third party to have his daughter marry the older teenager, identified by authorities as Margarito de Jesus Galindo, of Gonzales, California. In exchange, Galindo was to pay Martinez $16,000 and provide him with 160 cases of beer, 100 cases of soda, 50 cases of Gatorade, two cases of wine, and six cases of meat, Greenfield Police Chief Joe Grebmeier told CNN.

The official felony charge is "receiving money for causing a person to cohabitate." I presume California law doesn't have a provision for receiving carne asada.


But before your fervent head-scratching breaks the skin, we're told this is TOTALLY, COMPLETELY, 100% NORMAL in Mr. Martinez' hometown of Oaxaca, Mexico.

In Oaxacan culture, the food and beverages are provided by a prospective bridegroom for the wedding...

Who am I to argue with culture? And then there's this little gem:

Authorities believe the young girl went with Galindo willingly, and no coercion was involved, he said. However, the girl is four years younger than California's age of consent, although the law does allow 16-year-olds to marry with parental consent.

Wait, what? Is it just me, or is California slowly starting to become Florida?

And just in case people weren't satisfactorily nauseated, the article slips in this little nugget:

He said his department has long heard rumors of children as young as 12 being sold or offered for sale. The Greenfield police statement said arranged marriages between young girls and older men "have become a local problem."

Yeah, I'd say when 12-year-olds are getting hitched to adult males, "local problem" is a fair assessment.

CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE...

Article: Dennis Quaid and His Wife Settle with Hospital

According to the Associated Press:

Documents show Dennis Quaid and his wife have agreed to a a $750,000 settlement with a hospital that gave his newborn twins an overdose of blood thinner. A petition filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Monday shows the Quaids and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center have agreed on the parents' damages, but can still pursue claims for their children.

The documents state Cedars-Sinai is not admitting wrongdoing as part of the settlement.

Documents show the Quaids sued drug maker Baxter Healthcare Corp. in Illinois over the drug's packaging, but that case has been dismissed. The petition filed Monday indicates Baxter may also sue Cedars-Sinai, which administered too much Heparin to several patients in November 2007, including the Quaids' twins.

If you recall, the Quaids' twins, along with another newborn at Cedars-Sinai, were accidentally given 1,000 times the normal dosage of heparin. Instead of administering vials with a 10 unit per millileter concentration, the infants recieved 10,000 units per milliliter . According to the lawsuit against Cedar-Sinai, the adult and newborn medications were allegedly stored in the same place, providing opportunity for this very outcome.

The lawsuit against Baxter was a product liability case regarding the labeling and packaging of the vials, which it is alleged were strikingly similar for newborn and adult dosages. Baxter, which used a blue label for both the 10 and 1,000 unit vials, claimed Cedars-Sinai was responsible for improper use of their product.

When the suit was filed, Baxter spokeswoman said, "While we strive to clearly differentiate our products and dosages, no amount of differentiation will replace the value of clinicians carefully reviewing and reading a drug name and dose before dispensing and administering it."

Importantly, and thankfully, none of these infants suffered permanent damage. Sadly, three of six infants given the same 10,000 units in Indianapolis in 2006 were not as fortunate and passed away.

When They Make This Into a Movie, I REALLY Hope They Do a Better Casting Job

According to the Associated Press, Doreen Giuliano, whose son was convicted of murder in 2003, decided to go undercover in search of information that could possibly result in a repeal of his conviction.

And by undercover, I mean:

...blonde dye job, fake tan, sexy wardrobe, phony name -- and began spying on jurors. She befriended one juror to root out any possible misdeeds at the trial, and for nearly eight months, they drank at bars, smoked marijuana and shared meals in her tiny Brooklyn hideaway.

Apparently it worked, because the juror she zeroed in on as a target, Jason Allo, started singing like a canary.

Among other things, the motion accuses the 33-year-old Allo of concealing that he had personal knowledge that Giuliano's son, John Giuca, ran with a rough crowd, and of defying orders to avoid news coverage once the highly publicized proceedings started. It argues that Allo "admitted the outside information he obtained about the case prejudiced him against Mr. Giuca."

In addition to mentioning the rarity of murder convictions being overturned, the article also provides some information about Mrs. Giuliano's son's conviction:

A jury deliberated only two hours before convicting Giuca of second-degree murder in 2005. He and the gunman were sentenced to 25 years to life in prison by a judge who told them that because the killing was callous, "my sentence will be callous."[emphasis added]

Yeah, I somehow don't think that one's going to be overturned, regardless of what Mr. Allo offered up.

The thing that bothers me about this story is the claim by both Mr. Allo and Mrs. Giuliano that there was no physical contact. I'm just wondering how someone can be "seductive" if they never actually seduce anyone. And, well, I submit a photo for further discussion:



You're telling me vegan Vin Diesel started yapping to this supposedly "seductive" older woman because they were BFF and nothing more? Just pals who share joints, tabs at bars, and the cozy confines of small Brooklyn apartments? Really?

Definitely a Thing That Makes You Go Hmmm...

CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE...

CNN: Juror who vanished from Stevens trial went to California horse race

Your jury system at work, everyone:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A woman who had been a juror in the criminal trial of Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens told a judge Monday she made up a story about her father dying, so she could go to California for a horse race.

The judge last week initially accepted her story about a family emergency, but was later unable to reach her to learn when she would return.

Here's where it gets good:

"I feel bad about missing the last day or two of the trial," [Marian] Hinnant said following Monday's hearing. "I do not feel bad about going to California."

...

"I couldn't think of a, well, on Thursday afternoon, they'd not finished deliberating, so I thought by then we would be through, and I came home and I thought, 'Well, I'm going,'" she said. "My plane leaves at 6 o'clock in the morning, so I called him (the judge) up and told him my father died, in
California."

Sullivan closed the matter without any punishment against the woman for her absence.

It's not as if this is a trial centered on someone being slandered on the internet--this is a political corruption trial of a major, extremely powerful U.S. Senator.

Look, I understand jury duty is the butt of a lot of jokes and very few people are genuinely excited about getting $5 a day and a brown bag lunch, but it is a civic duty. And just because it isn't Disneyland, it doesn't give people--especially those who have already committed to serve--the right to play hooky with no consequences.

By the way, check out the Comments section of the article to gauge America's reaction. CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE...

Cut it Out

Straight from the Waking Nightmares file comes the story of a 61-year-old man who went in for a circumcision and came out with an amputated penis (for those of you wondering what would make a man suddenly decide to have a circumcision after 61 years, according to MSNBC the circumcision was intended to treat inflammation).

Phillip Seaton, 61, and his wife are seeking unspecified compensation from Dr. John M. Patterson and the medical practice that performed the circumcision for “loss of service, love and affection.” The Seatons also are seeking unspecified punitive damages from Patterson and the medical practice, Commonwealth Urology.

A woman who answered the phone at Commonwealth Urology would not take a message for the doctor Thursday. But the Seaton’s attorney said the doctor’s post-surgical notes show the doctor thought he detected cancer and removed the penis. Attorney Kevin George said a later test did detect cancer.

The lawsuit filed earlier this month in state court claims Patterson removed Seaton’s penis without consulting either Phillip or Deborah Seaton, or giving them an opportunity to seek a second opinion.

The couple also sued the anesthesiologist, Dr. Oliver James of Shelbyville, claiming he used a general anesthesia even though Seaton asked that it not be administered.

There are certain cases in which no matter how good the medicine or the expert testimony, the odds of a positive defense outcome are slim. Focus group participants have consistently demonstrated that any case involving the loss of private part use--or especially the loss of private parts--results in a near-automatic desire to award money.

To that point, the article casually mentions:

The Seatons’ suit is similar to one in which an Indianapolis man was awarded more than $2.3 million in damages after he claimed his penis and left testicle were removed without his consent during surgery for an infection in 1997.

However, in this case cancer was confirmed in the penis, making the "medical emergency" argument at least plausible. However, the consent issue will likely be a significant obstacle in making arguments about medical necessity. Brutal.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL ARTICLE...