My opening shot is up at the Point of Law featured discussion on Election ’06 and legal reform. More: I’ve also posted there reader Thomas Zak’s comments, made in response to mine.
Archive for October, 2006
October 31 roundup
- A WSJ Law Blog commenter thinks I’m too restrained in criticizing the plaintiffs’ bar. [WSJ Law Blog]
- The Bush administration just might accomplish something else reform-related in its last two years. [Point of Law; Ideoblog]
- 12-year-old California boy tries to jump over five-foot-long Halloween decoration that has chicken wire sticking out, hurts himself, 2-1 court decision says he can sue school district for failing to supervise him. [Los Angeles Daily News]
- Jaycees may be forced to disband over haunted house lawsuit; they’ve stopped running the haunted house already. [Quad City Times]
- Judge Easterbrook: “Gobs of judicial (and law-firm) time have been squandered by the combination of sloppy drafting, repeated violations of Rule 65(d), and inattention to all sources of subject-matter jurisdiction. If these lawyers were physicians, their patients would be dead.” [Blue Cross and Blue Shield Assoc. v. American Express Co. via Bashman]
- Britons vandalize speed cameras. [NY Times]
- Roger Pilon on California Prop 90. [LA Times via Bashman]
- How to use a condom optimally, and save $13.5 million a year to boot. [Marginal Revolution]
- You like me! You really, really like me! Or, if not “like,” a small fraction of you tolerate me enough to download my writings off of SSRN. [Torts Prof Blog]
Indian-remains law: son of Kennewick Man?
Under California law, if you’re digging on your property and you find prehistoric remains, you must contact the state’s Native American Heritage Commission.
The commission then assigns a person known as the “most-likely descendant” to consult with the landowner. But there’s sometimes tenuous or no ancestral ties between the “descendant” and the uncovered bodies, scientists and American Indians said. … Praetzellis and other researchers said it is more important for American Indians to be involved in the moving of ancient remains than to force them to prove a genetic link after being left out entirely for decades.
“They just have to say, ‘Yeah, I feel culturally connected to those remains,'” said Jeff Fentress, a San Francisco State anthropologist. “It is really up to that person to determine how to handle that burial.”
Landowners often pay consulting fees to persons on the designated “descendant” lists, and some persons of American Indian descent say they would like to be on the lists but were left off because of politics. Some Indian activists are also upset that the state law does not give the “descendant” the right to block development. (Matt Krupnick, “Ancient remains causing problems”, Contra Costa Times, Oct. 18). Earlier: Jul. 16, 2005, etc.
Trespass atop rail car, win $24 million
Ted mentioned this one in his roundup yesterday, but it merits a post of its own, duly assigned to our “personal responsibility” archive: Jeffrey Klein and Brett Birdwell were 17 “when they trespassed onto railroad property and climbed atop a rail car” because they wanted to see the view from there. They were shocked by a 12,500-volt wire and severely injured. The incident took place in Lancaster, Pa. but through the miracle of forum selection the lawsuit against Amtrak and Norfolk Southern landed before a jury in Philadelphia, a locality notably more favorable for plaintiffs than Lancaster. An attorney said the railroads should have posted signs for the benefit of trespassers warning of the overhead hazard and also should have had the electricity turned off at the time. As Ted pointed out, Birdwell, who was awarded $6.8 million, had injuries transient enough that he’s now serving with the Army in Afghanistan. (“$24.2 million for men burned atop rail car”, AP/MSNBC, Oct. 27; Brett Lovelace, “Verdict: $24.2M”, Lancaster Intelligencer Journal, Oct. 27; Janet Kelley, “A $24.2M question”, Lancaster New Era, Oct. 27)(& Coyote Blog). Update: railroads appeal (AP, Nov. 15).
Tomorrow at Point of Law: election roundtable
Just announced at my other website, Point of Law:
Tomorrow we kick off our next featured discussion, a four-day round-robin on the election and its implications for legal reform. It won’t be a debate format, more like a free-for-all of commentary and reporting that will tackle such topics as:
1) Races around the country where law and litigation have been an issue, or a motivating force;
2) Activist state attorney generals on the ballot, or running for higher office;
3) Ballot propositions to watch on election night;
4) Implications for lawsuit reform and other legal issues if one or both Houses of Congress turn Democratic.
Ted Frank, Jim Copland and I will all be participating, and we also expect surprise guests to stop by for one or more days. In fact, if you’ve got something interesting to say about the legal politics of Election ’06, we invite you to send any of us an email (my address is editor – [at] – this-domain-name – .com) to ask about contributing.
October 30 roundup
- My Oct. 28 WSJ op-ed is now on-line for free. [AEI]
- Your tax dollars at work: $24.2 million for two 17-year-old trespassers burned by high-voltage electrical wires six feet above the top of an Amtrak train that they had climbed. The one who received “only” $6.8 million had injuries minor enough that he’s serving in the Army now. [Lancaster Online via Northridge Buzz Blog]
- Refuting trial lawyers’ claims of repealing McCarran-Ferguson as a panacea for insurance rates. [Point of Law]
- “At what point are these accommodations exacerbating learning disabilities, and creating life disabiltities?” [Ivey; Wall Street Journal]
- $1.5 million verdict: plaintiff blamed her bipolar disorder on a nurse’s error that caused a lung to collapse. [Columbus Ledger-Enquirer; see also Kevin MD commenters]
- Trial lawyers insult West Virginia businessmen for daring to challenge their hegemony. [Institute for Legal Reform]
- Bank of America overcredits account, takes money back, gets hit with California state class action verdict that could cost billions. [Point of Law]
- Latest Duke lacrosse case outrage: prosecutor’s office says it hasn’t even interviewed alleged victim. [Volokh; Outside the Beltway; Corner]
- In anticipation of Philip Morris v. Williams, hear the great Sheila Birnbaum argue State Farm v. Campbell. [Oyez MP3 via Mass Torts Prof]
- Kristol: the U.S. Senate still matters because of judicial nominations. [Weekly Standard]
- Election challenge to Washington state incumbent Supreme Court justice who is supported by trial lawyers. [Seattle Post-Intelligencer via Bashman]
- Don’t tell AG Lockyer, or he’ll want to sue the fat for global warming. [NY Times via Kevin MD]
Jack Thompson: don’t you dare let gamers base characters on me
Jack Thompson, the Florida lawyer with a seldom-rivaled knack for keeping this site supplied with material (Oct. 20, etc., etc.), has fired off a cease-and-desist letter to the publisher of Mortal Kombat: Armageddon demanding that it stop publication of the game because participants can use it to create characters based on him. A Slashdot posting explains that Thompson’s “image is not actually a selectable character in the game,” but John Scalzo at the Gaming Target website (scroll down) has published instructions on how to use the game’s build-a-fighter mode to create a character based on Thompson, widely loathed among hobbyists because of his courtroom assaults on popular games (among the character’s features: “puffed out self-important look… Banshee Scream. …no victory pose because, let’s face it, he’s never won”). More: XBoxic, GameShout, CNet/GameSpot (& welcome Ron Coleman readers).
Washington Redskins nickname deemed offensive
So Native American activists are trying — again — to get it invalidated as a trademark. (Jeremy T. Elman, “Can Trademark Law Help Minority Groups Eliminate Negative Stereotypes?”, Law.com, Oct. 12).
“Danish court rejects cartoons lawsuit”
“A Danish court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Muslim groups against the newspaper that first published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that triggered protests across the world this year.” (AlJazeera.net, Oct. 27; Volokh, Oct. 26). Syrian legislator Mohammed Habash, who heads the Islamic Studies Center in Damascus and is apparently deaf to ironic overtones, charged the Danish court with “[wanting] to impose their way of thinking on all other nations.” (“Arab dismay at cartoons verdict”, Irish Examiner, Oct. 26). Earlier: Mar. 19, Mar. 31, etc. 
“Follow the Money”
That’s the title of my “Rule of Law” column in today’s Wall Street Journal.
The trial lawyers have now enlisted themselves in the war against terror. One can imagine a parody — a team of wing-tipped attorneys parachuting into the wilds of Afghanistan, armed with subpoenas forcing Osama bin Laden to produce all relevant documents and secure his attendance at a 20-day videotaped deposition (damn the Geneva Conventions against torture). The legal and photocopying bills alone crush al Qaeda.
The reality is more prosaic, and less amusing. For just as Willie Sutton legendarily said he robbed banks “because that’s where the money is,” plaintiffs’ attorneys are weaving creative legal theories to hold legitimate third parties liable for the intentional acts of terrorists. This friendly fire could end up doing almost as much financial damage as the terrorists themselves, with the lawyers getting rich in the process.