If you read the complaint, there is clearly some support in the literature for the idea that one of the ingredients in this concoction does just that. Will that be enough? Remains to be seen.
Agreed, Will Kemp is about the best products liability attorney in town. And I hardly think Justice Abbi Silver is a vexatious litigant.
This case presents the most credible possible plaintiff, a highly respected plaintiff’s attorney, and a defendant who KNOWINGLY PUT ROCKET FUEL IN BOTTLED WATER. I’m amazed any attorney can see that and just decide it will “fail miserably.”
In this town the district court will say it’s a question of fact and refuse to rule on it. Then you have your average clark county resident deciding. Who can tell what those yahoos will do?
Do you know that Real Water wasn’t just bottled water? It was bottled water processed through an ionizer that ended up contaminating the water with hydrazine, a component of rocket fuel. It’s caused numerous deaths including a Boulder City restaurant owner and a 3-month-old baby. These deaths involved catastrophic liver damage so I have no idea whether it could cause ALS but that’s for the experts to determine.
It is a horrific disease, but I will be interested to see how the causation issue plays out. As you would expect from Will Kemp, he has done his homework in terms of the journal articles, etc. that he cites in the complaint, but will this be enough to demonstrate general acceptance, etc.
My thoughts were on whether this would be collectible even if successful. I see they also mentioned other defendants, not sure if the liability impugns them however
This is also my question. Can someone explain how any Plaintiff can recovery from Real Water on these claims given the BK and multiple other verdicts against the company.
Can anyone credibly speak to how Kemp intends to collect if this goes to judgment? Are there accompanying solvent defendants? If not, will this simply be a vanity verdict?
I would assume that’s why Sprouts is one of the defendants in this one. And the other new Real Water complaint filed last week or the week before included Costco as a defendant.
In state court this is a lay-up for Kemp. Having already hit Real Water several times over with his “bellwether” cases, no state court judge is going to apply Hallmark so harshly so as to not let it get to a jury. Which is all Will needs with these defendants. Collection is a whole other matter.
Federal court, maybe a different story. But savvy trial lawyers like Will don’t allow their cases to cross Las Vegas Blvd.
Real Water was insured by Liberty Mutual who blew it and created bad faith claim that Kemp has the rights to from the BK. There is a reason Liberty Mutual pulled out of the state. They are going to pay at least $500 million, if not a billion. They screwed up badly. They refused to tender the $10 million policy. Also, with products all those in the chain are strictly liable. Just as with every other case, they have put up real money to avoid trial. I trust Will Kemp on this one.
Wow; that was not a good move, but also not the first time I’ve seen this foolishness from that company. Where is Will going to keep the emu that he’s going to get?
Guest
Anonymous
September 17, 2025 10:36 am
The Mom’s for Liberty’s political attack on teachers is a dystopian, McCarthy-era tactic that should be vigorously opposed. JD Vance encouraged groups like theirs to report on fellow Americans for the exercise of political speech. This cannot continue. They will only succeed in dividing us to the point of no return.
Maybe I don’t fully understand the thwackage standard, but the 10:36 post seems directly related to the topic of CCSD teachers getting disciplined based on “controversial” statements about Kirk’s death.
I hope I’m corrected if I’m wrong, but the thwackage standard isn’t whether the post is political/partisan, it is whether it is political/partisan AND unrelated to local legal topics.
Yes, you don’t understand the thwackage standard. No one truly does because it is never applied equally. I can state as a fact that if your post is pro Trump or embarrasses the left in anyway, it will be thwacked regardless of how factual or on topic it is.
In other words, the mod just confirmed the blog and the moderation thereof is biased. I.e. this is just an echo chamber. Thanks for doing so. Appreciate the honesty.
Dudebro,
I’m a registered Republican, although I’ve long since realized the party has drifted far, far, far to the right of me. It’s to the point where I’ve considered dumping it altogether. Of course, MAGA would consider me a leftist. From time to time, I’ve made posts here on political topics that are diametrically opposed to MAGA-lovers. I’ve been thwacked on multiple occasions, and I and the topic being discussed at the time probably deserved it.
The point being that if you think dawg is only thwacking your viewpoint, you are abysmally wrong and simply self-centered.
So, I’m self centered for spouting facts and pointing things out? Okay, whatever “dudebro”. 🙄 like you said, you’re pretty much a leftist so that’s why you’re welcome in this echo chamber.
It concerns me that any actual attorneys (regardless of political affiliation) would see the recent developments in the current administration as supporting a continuation of democracy in our country. All of our rights are going to be greatly affected (i.e. impaired) unless current Republicans start pushing back against Trump’s policies.
political attack on teachers
Agree with your sentiment, but where is your distaste for the attacks of that crazy woman who is president of the teacher’s union?
Guest
Anonymous
September 17, 2025 11:23 am
My condolences to Justice Silver.
Guest
Anonymous
September 17, 2025 4:38 pm
You just keep thwackin’, Law Dawg. That’s what you’re good at.
Guest
Anonymous
September 17, 2025 5:33 pm
At the risk of being too political, I wanted to get feedback on the removal of Jimmy Kimmel (who is a Las Vegan, at least initially) from ABC. My question is what is the actual case for governmental sanctions and is there a meritorious argument to be made. This is a real question and asking for an actual argument.
The statement of Kimmel at issue:
“The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said. “In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving,” he added.
FCC Chair Brendan Carr stated that there was a “strong case” for action against ABC and Disney (owner). I know public airwaves are regulated, but I cannot see what the strong case would be. Please don’t get into partisan arguments, or why the pending merger of a large station owner might be leveraged, as I see that.
The Trump administration has been intimidating outlets for the last few months, many have begun to fire journalists. There are dozens of examples—please google it. Even if you don’t agree with everything they publish, it’s time to support the 4th Estate.
As the great Stephen Miller said, “cancel culture is fascism.” I have no doubt MAGA will say it is great, but like a boiling frog, you don’t realize it until it is to late.
Do you think there is a distinction between canceling a celebrity due to a popular outcry about the celebrity’s personal behavior and firing journalists because they were critical of Trump (or the Trump admin suing media outlets because they were critical of Trump)?
Not sure about the “popular outcry” or what celebrity is being referenced. So it would depend. But refusing to support a celebrity who does something wrong is very different that fiiring journalists for being critical.
Then you would agree that the Trump Administration’s interference in the media’s reporting is more troubling than a man being fired because his employer didn’t want to deal with the social fallout of a sexual harassment scandal?
Couple points here, first off, what kimmel said was enormously stupid. Secondly, Late Night TV is dead. We’ve gone from Carson averaging something like 17 million viewers a night, to leno averaging something like 5, so today’s hosts who get a million maybe. So the format is dying. It’s not relevant anymore and a good portion of the country finds the current hosts personally distasteful. So this, tied with the fact that the studios were probably getting USAID money to support the shows in order to air certain segments (remember Colbert’s dancing vaccines during covid?) which has now dried up. I think the studios don’t need much motivation to get rid of these guys. This gives them the perfect excuse to fire them for cause. So is he really being canceled? or are his corporate overlords being opportunistic?
1) Why was this stupid? Its a comedy show. its not news.
2) What does the viewership of late night tv matter?
3) Show proof of the USAID money? USAID is the agency for foreign aid. This is crazy.
4) On the motivation, if they didn’t need it, why wait until now?
Most importantly, what does this have to do with the original question. Is there a articulable case for why this is permissible? We can have our beliefs, and we can make a judgment, but sometimes there is an argument to be made. I don’t think there is one, but I would like someone to make a “steelman” case for why a broadcast network would incur government “thwacking” for this conduct (as opposed to certain clear “obscene, indecent and profane content”)
Im not sure why this was downvoted. I think the calculous on low viewership with high production of costs (comparatively) absolutely played a part in the cancellation. Sure he said something distasteful and possibly erroneous, but it late night tv was still the cultural zeitgeist and pulling millions of viewers there would have been a canned apology, maybe a guest host the next day and then business as usual.
Guest
Anonymous
September 17, 2025 11:34 pm
I will never forgive the Trump administration for making me agree with Tucker Carlson.
Tucker Carlson Calls Out Leaders Using Kirk’s Death to Further Their Cause
Didn’t Silver’s husband have ALS?
Yes. The claim alleges that the ALS was caused by Real Water.
This lawsuit will fail miserably. ALS is not caused by bottled water.
If you read the complaint, there is clearly some support in the literature for the idea that one of the ingredients in this concoction does just that. Will that be enough? Remains to be seen.
You must not know Will Kemp. I would never bet against Will.
Agreed, Will Kemp is about the best products liability attorney in town. And I hardly think Justice Abbi Silver is a vexatious litigant.
This case presents the most credible possible plaintiff, a highly respected plaintiff’s attorney, and a defendant who KNOWINGLY PUT ROCKET FUEL IN BOTTLED WATER. I’m amazed any attorney can see that and just decide it will “fail miserably.”
But is it caused by rocket fuel?
In this town the district court will say it’s a question of fact and refuse to rule on it. Then you have your average clark county resident deciding. Who can tell what those yahoos will do?
Not the OP, but why down check? ALS is not caused by bottled water (unless you also believe the earth is flat).
Do you know that Real Water wasn’t just bottled water? It was bottled water processed through an ionizer that ended up contaminating the water with hydrazine, a component of rocket fuel. It’s caused numerous deaths including a Boulder City restaurant owner and a 3-month-old baby. These deaths involved catastrophic liver damage so I have no idea whether it could cause ALS but that’s for the experts to determine.
It is a horrific disease, but I will be interested to see how the causation issue plays out. As you would expect from Will Kemp, he has done his homework in terms of the journal articles, etc. that he cites in the complaint, but will this be enough to demonstrate general acceptance, etc.
My thoughts were on whether this would be collectible even if successful. I see they also mentioned other defendants, not sure if the liability impugns them however
This is also my question. Can someone explain how any Plaintiff can recovery from Real Water on these claims given the BK and multiple other verdicts against the company.
Can anyone credibly speak to how Kemp intends to collect if this goes to judgment? Are there accompanying solvent defendants? If not, will this simply be a vanity verdict?
I would assume that’s why Sprouts is one of the defendants in this one. And the other new Real Water complaint filed last week or the week before included Costco as a defendant.
In state court this is a lay-up for Kemp. Having already hit Real Water several times over with his “bellwether” cases, no state court judge is going to apply Hallmark so harshly so as to not let it get to a jury. Which is all Will needs with these defendants. Collection is a whole other matter.
Federal court, maybe a different story. But savvy trial lawyers like Will don’t allow their cases to cross Las Vegas Blvd.
Real Water was insured by Liberty Mutual who blew it and created bad faith claim that Kemp has the rights to from the BK. There is a reason Liberty Mutual pulled out of the state. They are going to pay at least $500 million, if not a billion. They screwed up badly. They refused to tender the $10 million policy. Also, with products all those in the chain are strictly liable. Just as with every other case, they have put up real money to avoid trial. I trust Will Kemp on this one.
woah
Wow; that was not a good move, but also not the first time I’ve seen this foolishness from that company. Where is Will going to keep the emu that he’s going to get?
The Mom’s for Liberty’s political attack on teachers is a dystopian, McCarthy-era tactic that should be vigorously opposed. JD Vance encouraged groups like theirs to report on fellow Americans for the exercise of political speech. This cannot continue. They will only succeed in dividing us to the point of no return.
They’d be real happy in East Germany. An advocate for free speech, but don’t you dare quote his actual words.
Where’s the thwackage on this obvious partisan post that has no value and does not contribute to the discussion?
Maybe I don’t fully understand the thwackage standard, but the 10:36 post seems directly related to the topic of CCSD teachers getting disciplined based on “controversial” statements about Kirk’s death.
I hope I’m corrected if I’m wrong, but the thwackage standard isn’t whether the post is political/partisan, it is whether it is political/partisan AND unrelated to local legal topics.
Yes, you don’t understand the thwackage standard. No one truly does because it is never applied equally. I can state as a fact that if your post is pro Trump or embarrasses the left in anyway, it will be thwacked regardless of how factual or on topic it is.
you really should get a productive hobby, my friend.
In other words, cry harder, sis . . . .
In other words, the mod just confirmed the blog and the moderation thereof is biased. I.e. this is just an echo chamber. Thanks for doing so. Appreciate the honesty.
Dudebro,
I’m a registered Republican, although I’ve long since realized the party has drifted far, far, far to the right of me. It’s to the point where I’ve considered dumping it altogether. Of course, MAGA would consider me a leftist. From time to time, I’ve made posts here on political topics that are diametrically opposed to MAGA-lovers. I’ve been thwacked on multiple occasions, and I and the topic being discussed at the time probably deserved it.
The point being that if you think dawg is only thwacking your viewpoint, you are abysmally wrong and simply self-centered.
So, I’m self centered for spouting facts and pointing things out? Okay, whatever “dudebro”. 🙄 like you said, you’re pretty much a leftist so that’s why you’re welcome in this echo chamber.
It concerns me that any actual attorneys (regardless of political affiliation) would see the recent developments in the current administration as supporting a continuation of democracy in our country. All of our rights are going to be greatly affected (i.e. impaired) unless current Republicans start pushing back against Trump’s policies.
Please, do tell, what actions exactly are threatening democracy? Try to share facts, not talking points.
You are concerned because you cannot fathom that reasoned, educated and experienced attorneys can possibly have different opinions than you.
This says more about you than it does those of us that voted for this.
political attack on teachers
Agree with your sentiment, but where is your distaste for the attacks of that crazy woman who is president of the teacher’s union?
My condolences to Justice Silver.
You just keep thwackin’, Law Dawg. That’s what you’re good at.
At the risk of being too political, I wanted to get feedback on the removal of Jimmy Kimmel (who is a Las Vegan, at least initially) from ABC. My question is what is the actual case for governmental sanctions and is there a meritorious argument to be made. This is a real question and asking for an actual argument.
The statement of Kimmel at issue:
“The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said. “In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving,” he added.
FCC Chair Brendan Carr stated that there was a “strong case” for action against ABC and Disney (owner). I know public airwaves are regulated, but I cannot see what the strong case would be. Please don’t get into partisan arguments, or why the pending merger of a large station owner might be leveraged, as I see that.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/17/charlie-kirk-jimmy-kimmel-abc-disney.html
Lol. You speak as if you do not now live under a fascist, authoritarian regime, comrade.
The Trump administration has been intimidating outlets for the last few months, many have begun to fire journalists. There are dozens of examples—please google it. Even if you don’t agree with everything they publish, it’s time to support the 4th Estate.
As the great Stephen Miller said, “cancel culture is fascism.” I have no doubt MAGA will say it is great, but like a boiling frog, you don’t realize it until it is to late.
Do you think there is a distinction between canceling a celebrity due to a popular outcry about the celebrity’s personal behavior and firing journalists because they were critical of Trump (or the Trump admin suing media outlets because they were critical of Trump)?
Not sure about the “popular outcry” or what celebrity is being referenced. So it would depend. But refusing to support a celebrity who does something wrong is very different that fiiring journalists for being critical.
Then you would agree that the Trump Administration’s interference in the media’s reporting is more troubling than a man being fired because his employer didn’t want to deal with the social fallout of a sexual harassment scandal?
Couple points here, first off, what kimmel said was enormously stupid. Secondly, Late Night TV is dead. We’ve gone from Carson averaging something like 17 million viewers a night, to leno averaging something like 5, so today’s hosts who get a million maybe. So the format is dying. It’s not relevant anymore and a good portion of the country finds the current hosts personally distasteful. So this, tied with the fact that the studios were probably getting USAID money to support the shows in order to air certain segments (remember Colbert’s dancing vaccines during covid?) which has now dried up. I think the studios don’t need much motivation to get rid of these guys. This gives them the perfect excuse to fire them for cause. So is he really being canceled? or are his corporate overlords being opportunistic?
1) Why was this stupid? Its a comedy show. its not news.
2) What does the viewership of late night tv matter?
3) Show proof of the USAID money? USAID is the agency for foreign aid. This is crazy.
4) On the motivation, if they didn’t need it, why wait until now?
Most importantly, what does this have to do with the original question. Is there a articulable case for why this is permissible? We can have our beliefs, and we can make a judgment, but sometimes there is an argument to be made. I don’t think there is one, but I would like someone to make a “steelman” case for why a broadcast network would incur government “thwacking” for this conduct (as opposed to certain clear “obscene, indecent and profane content”)
Im not sure why this was downvoted. I think the calculous on low viewership with high production of costs (comparatively) absolutely played a part in the cancellation. Sure he said something distasteful and possibly erroneous, but it late night tv was still the cultural zeitgeist and pulling millions of viewers there would have been a canned apology, maybe a guest host the next day and then business as usual.
I will never forgive the Trump administration for making me agree with Tucker Carlson.
Tucker Carlson Calls Out Leaders Using Kirk’s Death to Further Their Cause
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/tucker-carlson-calls-leaders-using-185502315.html
He’s talking about Netanyahu lol