Disgraced former megachurch pastor and man-penis/methamphetamine enthusiast Ted Haggard is no stranger to this blog. Soon he will be no stranger to fans of the syndicate judge show Divorce Court, either.
Ted and his lovely wife, Gayle, continued their relentless efforts at restoring shine and functionality to the Haggard money making machine by sitting for an interview a few days back with Divorce Court “Judge” Lynn Toler. The show airs on April 1.
Lest there be any doubt about the matter, Gayle says:
Biblical principals of forgiveness, compassion, steadfastness and her husband’s genuine repentance helped Gayle through the darkest hours, she said, and she believes his struggles have deepened his Christian walk.
“I think he is better equipped to minister to people than ever before,” she said.
That’s right: better equipped to minister than ever before. It’s amazing what a Schedule I controlled substance and a dick up the ass will do for ya, eh Ted?
In any event, this teevee appearance comes hot on the heels of Haggard’s HBO documentary and the shitstorm of publicity accompanying that little venture. The Denver Post article linked above reveals that Ted and Gayle received an “undisclosed amount” for their Divorce Court appearance, and that Ted has multiple speaking engagements scheduled at “prominent U.S. evangelical churches.” Expect fleecing of the faithful and stupid to begin in earnest very soon.
Today the Supreme Court of Colorado granted cert. in Boles v. Sun Ergoline, Inc., No. 08 SC970. The issue is:
Whether the public policy of Colorado allows enforcement of an exculpatory agreement purporting to release a manufacturer from liability for possible future injuries caused by the manufacturer’s defective products.
The Court of Appeals didn’t designate its opinion for official publication, so that opinion isn’t publicly available.
Exculpatory clauses are nominally “disfavored” in this state, but they’re generally enforceable on some ridiculous freedom-of-contract theory absent some truly horrific disparity of bargaining power. Colorado also adheres to the near-universal rule that excupatory clauses are enforceable as against negligence claims, but are void as against public policy as applied to claims arising from willful and wanton conduct or some higher level of misconduct.
One of the issues in Boles will surely be what rules apply to enforcing exculpatory clauses as to “strict liability” claims. Strict liability means liability without proof of fault. In the product context, the idea is that someone injured in a product-related accident needn’t show that the manufacturer was negligent in designing, making or marketing the product. All the plaintiff has to do is prove that the product was defective and that the defect caused the plaintiff’s injuries. As a practical matter, though, proving that a product is “defective” under the applicable legal standards often involves proving fault on the manufacturer’s part.
In other states, the enforceability of exclupatory clauses as to strict liability claims often boils down to the identity of the plaintiff. If the person bringing the claim is a sophisticated commercial entity and the clause is contained in a contract entered into by the plaintiff and the defendant, the clause is likely enforceable. If the plaintiff is some poor schulb who got hurt by a defective product and lacks any direct contractual relationship with the defendant, courts won’t enforce an exculpatory clause. Time will tell just how “business friendly” our Supreme Court wants our state to be.
Subject to Complete Defeasance 