Finding Good Faith and Fair Dealing In Entertainment and Sports Relationships
August 30, 2005
Contractual interpretation can be a thorny business. Yet it pales in comparison to the treacherous waters that surround supposed duties nowhere to be found in the language of a contract -- and that may never have been negotiated or discussed by the parties. For many entertainment and sports professionals, the most significant and far-reaching of these implied duties is the duty of good faith and fair dealing that courts read into every contract. As straightforward as the obligation sounds when described in general terms, it can be vexing to determine what particular conduct it may require in specific situations. What's more, the reported decisions construing the obligation tend to be highly fact-dependent, thus providing only limited guidance.
Cameo Clips
August 30, 2005
Recent cases in entertainment law.
Sports Report
August 30, 2005
This occasional column covers court rulings on sports-related issues of interest to the entertainment industry.
Decision of Note
August 30, 2005
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decided, in a ruling of first impression, that a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a suit against a foreign defendant under the Lanham Act only if the protested activities have a substantial effect on U.S. commerce. <i>McBee v. Delica Co. Ltd.</i>, 04-2733.
First Vioxx Ruling
August 30, 2005
Merck & Co., founded in 1891, has a slogan -- what it calls its "guiding philosophy." That philosophy is, "patients first." In the first of many Vioxx trials expected to be litigated in state and federal courts across the country, the jury wasn't buying it. On Aug. 19, after a month-long trial, ten out of 12 jurors -- the number needed to return a verdict of guilty -- found Merck liable to the plaintiffs, survivors of a man who took Vioxx for pain relief. The damages award was staggering: $24.5 million in economic losses and compensation for mental anguish and $229 million in punitive damages.
Wrongful Death Suit Allowed over Embryo
August 30, 2005
Earlier this year, a Chicago judge ruled that a husband and wife will be allowed to proceed with a wrongful death suit against a fertility clinic that allegedly inadvertently discarded their fertilized egg. Lawyers say courts have previously considered cases involving embryos to be property rights or negligence claims, but a wrongful death action presents a new issue that could affect abortion law, stem cell research, genetic testing and a wide range of other issues. "Calling this a wrongful death is a new frontier for the judiciary," said Andrew Worek, a medical malpractice defense lawyer with Philadelphia's Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby. Worek has written about the legal issues surrounding pre-embryonic human cells. "In the past, they have been handled as property or negligence cases."
Physician and Medical Device Defendants
August 30, 2005
Politics make strange bedfellows," is an election-year maxim. Sometimes, bitter rivals in primaries become allies after a convention, or forge alliances to get favored bills and "pet" proposals approved. But while politics may make strange bedfellows, it has nothing on personal injury litigation. Perhaps nowhere is this more true than in the realm of medical liability lawsuits involving doctors and medical device companies as co-defendants. The intersection of medical malpractice and product liability litigation often pulls together two distinct but interrelated entities, which can both end up as defendants in complaints incorporating allegations of medical malpractice and product defect.
Brain-Dead Woman 'Gives Birth'
August 30, 2005
A few weeks ago, the media was all over a touching story: A 26-year-old pregnant woman, suffering from a fast-moving malignant melanoma, tragically died when the tumor attacked her brain. Unlike the Terri Schiavo case, the woman's grieving husband and family all accepted that she was dead. But, believing that she would have wanted them to save her baby against all odds, they arranged for her to stay on life-support until the fetus was viable enough to be taken from its brain-dead mother.
The Double Blind Placebo Controlled Trial
August 30, 2005
The blind allegiance to what I call the "fool's gold standard" lives on. Anyone with even a passing interest in bioethics knows it is unethical to conduct a double blind placebo controlled trial where standard therapy exists, except under limited circumstances. The exceptions are where: 1) there is no risk of harm if the patient forgoes treatment during the placebo phase such as in a trial for a drug that seeks to cure hair loss or impotence; 2) the standard therapy carries such severe side effects that patients might choose to avoid it; or 3) the standard therapy is otherwise of questionable efficacy.
