Ward v. Arm & Hammer: What Do You Think?
Remember this great lawsuit, which we wrote about last week? In case you don't, here's a quick recap:
Summary: Pro se litigant George Allen Ward is suing Arm & Hammer and its corporate parent, Church & Dwight, for $425 million. His theory of liability: failure to warn. The company failed to warn him that if he cooked up THEIR PRODUCT, baking soda, with cocaine, he might end up serving a 200-month prison sentence on crack cocaine charges. You can read the full pleading here.
Opinion among ATL commenters was deeply divided. Some found the lawsuit almost offensive in its frivolousness, while others viewed it as presenting a colorable claim.
What do you think? We'd like to know (because commenters aren't always representative of our entire readership). Time for a quick poll:
| Make Free Online Polls |
Earlier: The Fine Line Separating Pro Se Litigants, Plaintiffs' Lawyers, and Law Professors
Comments
You are aware that this suit was filed, and dismissed, over two years ago, right? 341 F. Supp. 2d 499 (D.N.J. 2004).
Given that fact, the smart money is on "most frivilous lawsuit ever."
Posted by: anonymouse | December 18, 2006 03:33 PM
Yes, hold your horses. About to link to Ted Frank's post at Overlawyered (which discusses and links to the opinion).
But as you'll see from Ted's post, the court didn't view the case as TOTALLY frivolous (and Arm & Hammer had to retain counsel to fight it).
Posted by: David Lat | December 18, 2006 03:39 PM
Thanks David. Wasn't trying to sound condescending; just wasn't sure if people knew that the case was a few years old.
Posted by: anonymouse | December 18, 2006 04:03 PM