Yep, that Pokemon Go; its been trending in the news. From proponents: it's good because it gets the tech nerds, the "twitchers" among us, out and about burning calories. From detractors: it's bad because it places hoards of techies where they otherwise would not be, including private property, and presents a high level of distraction for drivers and pedestrians alike.

This cell phone app has swept the country, if not the globe, with over 10-million downloads and counting. It is an augmented reality game where players present themselves at pinpoint locations, usually but not always some form of local or significant landmark, in order to capture a wide variety of creatures familiar to those that have sampled the Pokemon wares.

Of course, the service agreement for the app attempts to disclaim liability for Niantic, the game's software developer, and Nintendo, which owns a one-third stake in the game, if a user is injured or laws are broken during play. Nintendo's stock has soared since the game's release in early July.

Pokemon Go is a free app that can be downloaded to your cell phone; a Google account is sufficient to get registered, select and customize an avatar. Then its all about using the bare-bones Google-style map -which does not label streets or other landmarks and only indicates true North- to locate PokeStops and to capture creatures like Pikachu, the long-serving ambassador for the Pokemon franchise.

The media has reported on more than one vehicle collision caused by a driver distracted by the game. Private property owners have complained, and one California couple has sued the producers of the game in federal court, for creating a nuisance on or near their property. The plaintiffs' theory of liability is that the game makers have intentionally embedded GPS coordinates near their home without their permission resulting in property damage, trespass and other disruptions to the quiet enjoyment of their property.

For their part, the game makers have developed a user agreement that warns players to obey laws, to maintain their own insurance, and to avoid inflicting "emotional distress" during play. The agreement also contains this warning:

To the extent permitted by applicable law, Niantic, The Pokemon Company and TPCI disclaim all liability related to any property damage, personal injury, or death that may occur during your use of our Services, including any claims based on violation of any applicable law, rule, or regulation or your alleged negligence or other tort liability.

Considering the trend in courts throughout Michigan to uphold contracts as they are written, these terms may be difficult to overcome.

Participation in the game causing injury to a player also raises issues of comparative fault. If a player is injured by a driver, for example, while playing the game, the driver's insurance company can assert that the cause of the pedestrian's injury was due, in part, to the distraction of the augmented reality game.

As the popularity of the game increases along with the enthusiasm of the players, the lawsuits cannot be far behind. We here at the Law Blogger plan to keep an eye on the situation.

Post #554

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

According to Bryant Walker Smith, a fellow at Stanford's Center for the Internet and Society, automated vehicles have been "just 20-years away" since the 1930s.  Lately, however, data giant, Google, and some of the OEMs have started taking the concept seriously.

So serious, in fact, that automated vehicles are now out there folks. 

This has led Mr. Smith to publish a comprehensive study on the legalities of automated vehicles.  Smith concludes that, although automated vehicles are "probably" legal from the national regulatory prespective of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, state laws will "complicate" the transition to automated vehicles.

Why automated vehicles anyway?  Many motorists enjoy, at least to some extent, the driving process.  Smith's answers are: safety and saved lives.  If done correctly, there are also long-term cost savings embedded into the notion of automated vehicles; savings of fuel and time.

Smith's comprehensive study takes a detailed look at the three states [California, of course, Florida, and Nevada] that already have included "automated vehicle" provisions in their motor vehicle codes.  The study even includes a comprehensive model bill for progressive state legislators to consider.  Apparently, New Jersey, Arizona, Hawaii (?), Oklahoma, and the District of Colombia all have bills under active consideration.

One legal issue that comes to our simple mind over here at the Law Blogger is the actus reus [i.e. intentional bad act] requirement that a criminal law must contain to pass constitutional muster.  While we do understand the philosophy behind the "implied consent" concept underpinning many provisions of a motor vehicle code, we are compelled to ask, can a human be cited for acts undertaken by a machine?

This could be a small town lawyer's dream.  Imagine the cornucopia of defenses available for any potential automated motor vehicle code.  And if the legislatures go the "strict liability" route, the deep thinking consitutional lawyers will be well-fed.

Also, we cannot forget the product liability inquiry of who is responsible when [not if] something goes wrong, and someone is injured or killed.  Automated vehicles, if they proliferate, will produce a brand new branch of products liability tort law.

It will be interesting to see how far these fancy cars get along the respective legislative highways of the fifty states.  One thing is for sure: the process has begun.

www.waterfordlegal.com
info@waterfordlegal.com

What is it about Cooley Law School's reputation that makes the folks over there so hyper-sensitive about how that veritable lawyer factory is portrayed?  Cooley just cannot seem to avoid repeatedly shooting itself in the foot on the Internet.

Yesterday, Cooley Law School President Don Leduc announced defamation lawsuits against a New York City law firm and several John Doe bloggers.  The lawsuits are splashed all over the law school's website.

The complaint against the bloggers (apparently a disparate group of highly dissatisfied former students) alleges the unknown defendants published false statements that Cooley law school representatives were committing fraud and other criminal acts in order to induce prospective students to attend the law school; that the business purpose of the school is to create, then transfer "securities" out of the robust stream of student loans coming into the school; and that the law school is under investigation by an undercover government task force for Title IV violations.

The complaint against the law firm alleges that Kurzon Strauss, a small New York City law firm, published false information relative to the law school's post-graduation employment rate and the school's student loan default rate in an apparent effort to attract litigants for a planned class action law suit against Cooley and other law schools.  This complaint sets out a series of business torts including defamation, interference with the law school's business relations, breach of contract, and "false light".

There is no doubt Cooley is taking this litigation seriously, hiring Michigan's premire "biglaw" firm: Miller Canfield.  The complaints were filed in the Ingham County Circuit Court on the basis Cooley's business injuries occurred in Lansing, MI, where the school is located.

Cooley apparently operates under the ancient Hollywood adage, "there is no such thing as bad publicity."  This blog wryly noted when Cooley purchased the rights to name a minor league baseball park (the former Oldsmobile Stadium; now known as Cooley Law School Stadium) and when the school's website shamelessly touted itself as the #2 law school in the country; second only to Harvard Law School.

These marketing gaffs come straight from the top of the law school's administration.  They do not advance the legitimate goals of Michigan's fifth law school, nor do they serve the interests of the legions of Cooley law graduates that have passed bar exams across the nation at historically higher than average rates.

Stay tuned for interesting developments on this one.  After Miller Canfield has earned about a half million in fees to conduct plenty of discovery, one of the sides will be filing dispositive motions sometime in 2013.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com