Comment: still not really telling the story

(See in situ)

still not really telling the story

I haven't read the supreme court's decision but it would be necessary for me to do that if I were to write a headline about it. In addition to the headline, the big problem with the story is that it doesn't really explain the ruling in any kind of detail. What was the court's reasoning. If I were to take a stab in the dark without actually reading it, it seems that the theory of liability has to do with warning labels formulated the manufacturer and not by the generic makers. Therefore, there may be some logic to it that is escaping the author of this cursory and poorly written piece. Your proposed headline isn't much better.

Edit: I suspect the author is part of the problem, as she describes herself not as a journalist or legal scholar but as a Yoga expert.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein