<a target="_blank" href="https://www.buzzsprout.com/twilio/text_messages/2413035/open_sms">Send us a text</a>In this explosive episode of Law School in Plain English, we break down product liability—the law that decides who pays when everyday products fail in catastrophic ways. From exploding soda bottles to flaming hair spray, defective cars, and billion-dollar talcum powder verdicts, we take you from the basics all the way to real-world courtroom outcomes. <a rel="payment" href="https://www.buzzsprout.com/2413035/support">Support the show</a>Thanks for listening to Law School in Plain English. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe/follow and leave a review. Join me next time as we break down another legal concept — one principle at a time.

<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="https://www.buzzsprout.com/twilio/text_messages/2413035/open_sms"&gt;Send us a text&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In this explosive episode of Law School in Plain English, we break down product liability—the law that decides who pays when everyday products fail in catastrophic ways. From exploding soda bottles to flaming hair spray, defective cars, and billion-dollar talcum powder verdicts, we take you from the basics all the way to real-world courtroom outcomes.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a rel="payment" href="https://www.buzzsprout.com/2413035/support"&gt;Support the show&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for listening to &lt;em&gt;Law School in Plain English&lt;/em&gt;. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe/follow and leave a review. Join me next time as we break down another legal concept — one principle at a time.&lt;/p&gt;</description>

Send us a text In this explosive episode of Law School in Plain English, we break down product liability—the law that decides who pays when everyday products fail in catastrophic ways. From exploding soda bottles to flaming hair spray, defective cars, and billion-dollar talcum powder verdicts, we take you from the basics all the way to real-world courtroom outcomes.   Support the show Thanks for listening to Law School in Plain English. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe/f...

Product Liability: When Your Toaster Becomes A Defendant

<a target="_blank" href="https://www.buzzsprout.com/twilio/text_messages/2413035/open_sms">Send us a text</a>Buck v. Bell: The Supreme Court Case That Inspired Hitler’s Eugenics Nightmare. In 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that states could forcibly sterilize “undesirables” like Carrie Buck—a young woman falsely labeled “feeble-minded” for being poor and pregnant out of wedlock. Justice Holmes’ infamous line? “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” We unpack this dark chapter of American eugenics, how it greenlit 70,000+ forced sterilizations nationwide, and its chilling global ripple: Nazis modeled their 1933 sterilization law after it, citing Buck in Nuremberg defenses to justify 400,000 procedures and pave the way for the Holocaust. In plain English, discover the “science” that wasn’t, the human cost, and why this ruling—never overturned—still haunts reproductive rights today. Essential for law students, history buffs, or anyone asking: How did America export eugenics to Hitler?<a rel="payment" href="https://www.buzzsprout.com/2413035/support">Support the show</a>Thanks for listening to Law School in Plain English. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe/follow and leave a review. Join me next time as we break down another legal concept — one principle at a time.

<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="https://www.buzzsprout.com/twilio/text_messages/2413035/open_sms"&gt;Send us a text&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Buck v. Bell: The Supreme Court Case That Inspired Hitler’s Eugenics Nightmare.&lt;/b&gt; In 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that states could forcibly sterilize “undesirables” like Carrie Buck—a young woman falsely labeled “feeble-minded” for being poor and pregnant out of wedlock. Justice Holmes’ infamous line? “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” We unpack this dark chapter of American eugenics, how it greenlit 70,000+ forced sterilizations nationwide, and its chilling global ripple: Nazis modeled their 1933 sterilization law after it, citing Buck in Nuremberg defenses to justify 400,000 procedures and pave the way for the Holocaust. In plain English, discover the “science” that wasn’t, the human cost, and why this ruling—never overturned—still haunts reproductive rights today. Essential for law students, history buffs, or anyone asking: How did America export eugenics to Hitler?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a rel="payment" href="https://www.buzzsprout.com/2413035/support"&gt;Support the show&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for listening to &lt;em&gt;Law School in Plain English&lt;/em&gt;. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe/follow and leave a review. Join me next time as we break down another legal concept — one principle at a time.&lt;/p&gt;</description>

Send us a text Buck v. Bell: The Supreme Court Case That Inspired Hitler’s Eugenics Nightmare. In 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that states could forcibly sterilize “undesirables” like Carrie Buck—a young woman falsely labeled “feeble-minded” for being poor and pregnant out of wedlock. Justice Holmes’ infamous line? “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” We unpack this dark chapter of American eugenics, how it greenlit 70,000+ forced sterilizations nationwide, and its chilling ...

Buck v. Bell: The Supreme Court Case That Inspired Hitler’s Final Solution.

<a target="_blank" href="https://www.buzzsprout.com/twilio/text_messages/2413035/open_sms">Send us a text</a>They called it progress.Thomas Edison called it science.But when the Supreme Court gave its blessing, electricity became something else entirely — a state-sanctioned killer.In this eerie Halloween edition of Law School in Plain English, Jeff pulls back the curtain on one of the most haunting legal moments in American history: when innovation met execution.This is the story of how a courtroom turned the light of invention into the spark of death — and why the Justices believed it was humane.We’ll unpack the real case behind the electric chair, the shocking public experiments that led up to it, and how law, morality, and fear collided in the name of “civilization.”Because sometimes the law doesn’t just decide what’s legal — it decides what it means to be human. <a rel="payment" href="https://www.buzzsprout.com/2413035/support">Support the show</a>Thanks for listening to Law School in Plain English. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe/follow and leave a review. Join me next time as we break down another legal concept — one principle at a time.

<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="https://www.buzzsprout.com/twilio/text_messages/2413035/open_sms"&gt;Send us a text&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;They called it progress.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thomas Edison called it science.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But when the Supreme Court gave its blessing, electricity became something else entirely — a state-sanctioned killer.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In this eerie Halloween edition of Law School in Plain English, Jeff pulls back the curtain on one of the most haunting legal moments in American history: when innovation met execution.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is the story of how a courtroom turned the light of invention into the spark of death — and why the Justices believed it was humane.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;We’ll unpack the real case behind the electric chair, the shocking public experiments that led up to it, and how law, morality, and fear collided in the name of “civilization.”&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Because sometimes the law doesn’t just decide what’s legal — it decides what it means to be human.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a rel="payment" href="https://www.buzzsprout.com/2413035/support"&gt;Support the show&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for listening to &lt;em&gt;Law School in Plain English&lt;/em&gt;. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe/follow and leave a review. Join me next time as we break down another legal concept — one principle at a time.&lt;/p&gt;</description>

Send us a text They called it progress. Thomas Edison called it science. But when the Supreme Court gave its blessing, electricity became something else entirely — a state-sanctioned killer. In this eerie Halloween edition of Law School in Plain English, Jeff pulls back the curtain on one of the most haunting legal moments in American history: when innovation met execution. This is the story of how a courtroom turned the light of invention into the spark of death — and why the Justices believ...

Law School In Plain English: Hidden Verdicts - When The Supreme Court Justified Death By Electrcity.

<a target="_blank" href="https://www.buzzsprout.com/twilio/text_messages/2413035/open_sms">Send us a text</a>You’ve probably heard the phrase, “Equal protection under the law.”But what happens when the law looks fair on paper… and is used unfairly in real life?In this episode, Jeff dives into one of the most overlooked Supreme Court cases in U.S. history — Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) — where a Chinese laundry owner in San Francisco stood up to a city ordinance that claimed to be “neutral,” but was anything but.This story isn’t just a history lesson — it’s a Hidden Verdict brought into Law School in Plain English. Because behind every rule lawyers memorize, there’s a human story that shaped it.We’ll break down how this one man’s fight redefined the meaning of fairness, equal protection, and what the Constitution really promises — all in plain, clear English.🎧 The law isn’t just about statutes and citations — it’s about people. And sometimes, those people change everything. <a rel="payment" href="https://www.buzzsprout.com/2413035/support">Support the show</a>Thanks for listening to Law School in Plain English. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe/follow and leave a review. Join me next time as we break down another legal concept — one principle at a time.

<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="https://www.buzzsprout.com/twilio/text_messages/2413035/open_sms"&gt;Send us a text&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;You’ve probably heard the phrase, “Equal protection under the law.”&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But what happens when the law looks fair on paper… and is used unfairly in real life?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In this episode, Jeff dives into one of the most overlooked Supreme Court cases in U.S. history — Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) — where a Chinese laundry owner in San Francisco stood up to a city ordinance that claimed to be “neutral,” but was anything but.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This story isn’t just a history lesson — it’s a Hidden Verdict brought into Law School in Plain English. Because behind every rule lawyers memorize, there’s a human story that shaped it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;We’ll break down how this one man’s fight redefined the meaning of fairness, equal protection, and what the Constitution really promises — all in plain, clear English.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;🎧 The law isn’t just about statutes and citations — it’s about people. And sometimes, those people change everything.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a rel="payment" href="https://www.buzzsprout.com/2413035/support"&gt;Support the show&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for listening to &lt;em&gt;Law School in Plain English&lt;/em&gt;. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe/follow and leave a review. Join me next time as we break down another legal concept — one principle at a time.&lt;/p&gt;</description>

Send us a text You’ve probably heard the phrase, “Equal protection under the law.” But what happens when the law looks fair on paper… and is used unfairly in real life? In this episode, Jeff dives into one of the most overlooked Supreme Court cases in U.S. history — Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) — where a Chinese laundry owner in San Francisco stood up to a city ordinance that claimed to be “neutral,” but was anything but. This story isn’t just a history lesson — it’s a Hidden Verdict brought int...

Law School In Plain English: Hidden Verdicts - “The Law That Said ‘Everyone’s Equal’—Until You Were Chinese”

<a target="_blank" href="https://www.buzzsprout.com/twilio/text_messages/2413035/open_sms">Send us a text</a>You’re liable even if you did nothing wrong. Welcome to Strict Liability—the torts rule that says fault doesn’t matter. In this episode, we break down how owning a vicious dog, storing explosives, or making homemade fireworks can cost you big—even if you were careful. No negligence? No defense. From Rylands v. Fletcher to explosives, delivery drones, and pit bulls on the loose, we explain in plain English why strict liability exists, who it protects, and why it should make every business owner (and dog parent) sweat. Perfect for 1Ls cramming torts or anyone who’s ever said, “But it wasn’t my fault!” <a rel="payment" href="https://www.buzzsprout.com/2413035/support">Support the show</a>Thanks for listening to Law School in Plain English. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe/follow and leave a review. Join me next time as we break down another legal concept — one principle at a time.

<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="https://www.buzzsprout.com/twilio/text_messages/2413035/open_sms"&gt;Send us a text&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;You’re liable even if you did &lt;em&gt;nothing&lt;/em&gt; wrong. Welcome to &lt;b&gt;Strict Liability&lt;/b&gt;—the torts rule that says fault doesn’t matter. In this episode, we break down how owning a vicious dog, storing explosives, or making homemade fireworks can cost you big—even if you were careful. No negligence? No defense. From &lt;em&gt;Rylands v. Fletcher&lt;/em&gt; to explosives, delivery drones, and pit bulls on the loose, we explain in plain English why strict liability exists, who it protects, and why it should make every business owner (and dog parent) sweat. Perfect for 1Ls cramming torts or anyone who’s ever said, “But it wasn’t my fault!”&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a rel="payment" href="https://www.buzzsprout.com/2413035/support"&gt;Support the show&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for listening to &lt;em&gt;Law School in Plain English&lt;/em&gt;. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe/follow and leave a review. Join me next time as we break down another legal concept — one principle at a time.&lt;/p&gt;</description>

Send us a text You’re liable even if you did nothing wrong. Welcome to Strict Liability—the torts rule that says fault doesn’t matter. In this episode, we break down how owning a vicious dog, storing explosives, or making homemade fireworks can cost you big—even if you were careful. No negligence? No defense. From Rylands v. Fletcher to explosives, delivery drones, and pit bulls on the loose, we explain in plain English why strict liability exists, who it protects, and why it should make ever...

Strict Liability: When Fault Doesn’t Matter.

Whether you’re a law student, an undergraduate considering law school, or a lifelong learner, join me as we demystify the law — one concept at a time.&nbsp; We break down complex legal principles into plain English, making the law accessible for everyone.

Law School in Plain English: Torts & Criminal Law.

Details

Recent Episodes