|
|
|
ARCHIVE -- SEPTEMBER
2002 (II)
|
September 20-22 --
How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is/To have a precociously musical
child. "James Brown's daughters have filed a federal lawsuit
against the Godfather of Soul, seeking more than $1 million in back royalties
and damages for 25 songs they say they co-wrote.... Even though they were
children when the songs were written - 3 and 6 when 'Get Up Offa That Thing'
was a hit in 1976 - Brown's daughters helped write them, said their attorney,
Gregory Reed." ("Singer James Brown Sued by Daughters", AP/Milwaukee
Journal
Sentinel, Sept.
18). (DURABLE LINK)
September 20-22 --
"Patient pays price of suing over cold". Salutary effects
of loser-pays, cont'd: "A patient
who claimed £227 damages from his doctor,
insisting that she had given him her cold during an examination, was ordered
to pay almost £1,000 in costs yesterday after his case was thrown
out by a court. Trevor Perry, 47, sued Dr Helen Young for personal
injury, stating that he went down with a sore throat, runny nose and a
headache after a consultation with her when she had a cold." (Stewart
Payne, "Patient pays price of suing over cold", Daily Telegraph
(U.K.), Sept.
19). And don't miss the very curious addendum to the case on
the question of why Mr. Perry was observed running from the court with
a jacket over his head ("The Broadsheets: Cold comfort", Anorak, Sept.
19). (DURABLE LINK)
September 20-22 --Times
on 9/11 fund. The New York Times editorially
defends the federal 9/11 compensation fund from charges that its awards
are inadequate in a way "especially prejudicial to high-income families",
who may be offered only a few million dollars of taxpayers' money each.
It is entirely legitimate, the paper believes, to seek to avoid "extravagant
awards at the top". We might add that if top-earning families want
to feel secure in their living standards in case of disaster, the logical
(and socially desirable) course is for them to make provision in advance
through privately purchased insurance -- which we suspect most of the higher-ups
at places like Cantor Fitzgerald did in fact have in place. ("The
Perils of Valuing Lives" (editorial), New York Times,
Sept.
19).
(DURABLE LINK)
September 18-19 --
Claim: docs should have done more to help woman quit smoking and lose weight.
"A Wilkes-Barre woman is suing several doctors
at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, saying the physicians
did not do enough to assist her in making life changes -- including quitting
smoking and losing weight -- that might have prevented a debilitating heart
attack she suffered." Kathleen Ann McCormick's suit "says the physicians
knew she had multiple risk factors to develop heart disease" but dismissed
her symptoms as "basically normal and non-life threatening" and failed
to put her on aggressive anti-cholesterol medication, as well as failing
to help her with the smoking and weight issues. (Terrie Morgan-Besecker,
"Woman suing VA doctors", Wilkes-Barre (Pa.) Times-Leader, Sept.
11). (DURABLE LINK)
September 18-19 --
Voltaire spinning in grave. If you disagree with what
someone says, but would defend to the death his right to say
it, chances are you aren't running things in today's France.
Prominent French author Michel Houllebecq (pronounced "Wellbeck") went
on trial this week for "inciting racial hatred" on the grounds that he
had aimed contemptuous comments at Islam. The case, which evokes
parallels with that of author Salman Rushdie, is "being brought by the
largest mosques in Paris and Lyon, the National Federation of French Muslims
(FNMN) and the World Islamic League. France's Human Rights League has also
joined them, saying that Mr Houellebecq's comments amount to 'Islamophobia'"
(see Aug. 23-25) (Charles Bremner, "I attack
... I insult", The Times (London), Sept.
18; "French author denies racial hatred", BBC, Sept.
17). More: Christopher Hitchens on the case ("The stupidest
religion", Free Inquiry, v.
21, #4). Update Oct. 25-27: Houellebecq
acquitted. (DURABLE LINK)
September 18-19 --
Canada: "Woman freezes, sues city, cabbie". "A Winnipeg
woman who nearly froze to death after a night of drinking
is suing the city, emergency personnel and the taxi driver who dropped
her at home." Emergency workers left Kim Simon at her residence but
"she was later found outside with her pants pulled down, her winter jacket
open and a cut on her lip. The woman claims that emergency personnel and
the taxi driver should have made sure Simon was safely inside her house
before leaving." (Canadian Press/Canada.com, Sept. 16). (DURABLE
LINK)
September 18-19 --
Mississippi: eyeing the exits. Washington
Mutual, the giant lender and the nation's largest thrift institution,
"is in the process of suspending all its lending channels in the state
of Mississippi due to litigation risk and other factors. 'We are evaluating
the litigation environment and business climate in the state,' WaMu senior
vice president and associate general counsel Jim Garner told MortgageWire.
'That is why we are suspending loan originations.'" Last year a Mississippi
jury hit one of the company's subsidiaries with a $71 million verdict.
(Origination News -- will
scroll off site's front page soon). (DURABLE
LINK)
September 18-19 --
AVweb case and chatroom liability. Eugene Volokh
(his site) comments regarding the litigation
referenced below: "Incidentally, not supervising one's
chat room is *not* actionable, even if the chatters make libelous statements
and you could have stepped in to stop them; that's what 47
U.S.C. sec. 230 says, see also Zeran
v. America Online (4th Cir.) (both available on Findlaw)." See
also ChillingEffects.org, Mar.
8; summary
of Zeran case, TechLawJournal. (DURABLE
LINK)
September 16-17 --
Free speech & web litigation: the theory.... Los Angeles
Times
columnist Norah Vincent, the target of a remarkably silly recent smear
(summarized and refuted by, among others, Stuart
Buck,
Juan
Non-Volokh
and Megan
McArdle) got so angry at her online attackers that she wondered aloud
whether she should think of suing them for defamation. Our editor
wrote in at her suggestion (Sept.
13) to offer some reasons why, no, she shouldn't. (DURABLE
LINK)
September 16-17 --
Free speech & web litigation: AVweb capitulates to defamation suit.
Which reminds us of an update we should have posted earlier: readers will
recall the defamation lawsuits filed last year by aviation plaintiff's
attorney Arthur Alan Wolk against two editors and four subscribers of the
aviation-news website AVweb, all of whom had sharply criticized him after
he won a $480 million verdict against Cessna (Sept.
7 and Oct. 12-14, 2001).
On July 19 the website rendered to Wolk a thoroughly abject capitulation
and apology in connection with his agreement to drop his suit against it.
Its statement to readers (link now dead) includes a number of passages
which deserve to be read with great care by those to whom the Internet
still represents some sort of idealized sanctuary for untrammeled discussion
[italicized comments ours]:
"One of Mr. Wolk's complaints was that we did not supervise
our chat room to prevent libelous comments about him being published by
our subscribers. We have corrected that. Another of Mr. Wolk's
complaints was that our characterizations instigated some of our subscribers
to libel him. We will no longer characterize matters in such a way
as to bring apparent discredit upon anyone." [The consequences of such
a formula for the future of hard-hitting journalism can be imagined.
And the mind reels at what is involved in the task of avoiding all characterizations
which, whether or not libelous themselves, might instigate others
to commit that offense. -- ed.]
"While the defense of Mr. Wolk's lawsuit has been expensive,
he nonetheless has been gracious enough to settle with us for a payment
to charity. In fact, even in settlement negotiations, when there
was a demand for money, it was always to be contributed to charity, none
for Mr. Wolk himself. He steadfastly insisted that his lawsuit was
not about money and we have come to believe him." [Why would it
be thought surprising that the aim of such a lawsuit might be more to silence
certain critics than to obtain cash from them? -- ed.]
As we say, read the
whole thing, which lays out at considerable length Mr. Wolk's reasons
for considering himself libeled. AVweb then goes on to publish a
sort of protracted advertisement for Mr. Wolk's services, in the form of
tributes and testimonials from grateful clients he has represented in litigation,
as well as others. Also included is the painfully self-abasing apology
of one of the reader-posters who found himself individually sued by the
powerful lawyer -- outgunned in every way, and facing who knows what sort
of prolonged personal exposure to the cost of litigation. Among the
lessons many observers will draw, we think, will be the old one: watch
what you say about lawyers. (DURABLE
LINK)
September 16-17 --
Right to break workplace rules and then return.
This summer the Ninth Circuit ruled that it was an unlawful violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act
for a company to follow an otherwise neutral policy barring the rehire
of employees who had been terminated
(or resigned in lieu of termination) over violations of company rules.
In the case at hand, an employee had resigned after testing positive for
cocaine, had completed a rehabilitation program, and now wanted to return
to the company. Although Hughes Missiles Systems' rule did not bar
the hiring of rehabilitated drug users as such, the court nonetheless ruled
that "Hughes' unwritten policy against rehiring former employees who were
terminated for any violation of its misconduct rules, although not unlawful
on its face, violates the ADA as applied to former drug addicts whose only
work-related offense was testing positive because of their addiction. If
Hernandez is in fact no longer using drugs and has been successfully rehabilitated,
he may not be denied re-employment simply because of his past record of
drug addiction." (Hernandez v. Hughes Missiles Systems,
No. 01-15512, June 11, 2002, write-up
at Jackson Lewis site). Update Dec.
13, 2003: Supreme Court rules in favor of employer. (DURABLE
LINK)
September 16-17 --
Dave Barry on tobacco settlement, round III. Okay,
maybe it's easy to satirize (rounds I
and II), but he still does it so well.
"The underlying moral principle of these lawsuits was: 'You are knowingly
selling a product that kills tens of thousands of our citizens each year.
We want a piece of that action!'" ("In War On Tobacco, money goes up in
smoke", Miami Herald, Sept.
15) (DURABLE LINK)
September 13-15 --
Patriotic, or promotional? Mickey
Kaus nominates this "Patriot
Troll" and this "Twin
Towers handbag" (appears as popup ad when link is clicked) as among
the tackiest commercial tie-ins to arise from 9/11. We might also
call to his attention this
billboard from a personal injury law firm in Schenectady, New York
(photographed by reader Steve Furlong) which isn't going to win prizes
for either taste or subtlety. (DURABLE
LINK)
September 13-15 --
"Epileptic ordered to pay £3,500 for contorted face".
"A man who suffers from epilepsy has been ordered to pay compensation to
a student who was upset by his contorted face during a seizure. In
a case described by an epilepsy charity as 'like something you would see
on the Ally McBeal show', Edwin Young has been told to pay £3,500
to Yvonne Rennie for the mild post-traumatic stress that she suffered.
Mrs Rennie sued after Mr Young suffered an epileptic fit while driving
four years ago and crashed into her car at traffic lights in Perth."
In addition to awarding Mrs. Rennie £1,500 for slight personal injuries
and £1,000 for a fear of driving that she had developed, the magistrate
accepted that she had suffered emotional injuries from observing the contorted
look on Mr. Young's face during his fit, which made her think he was going
to die. "Epilepsy Action Scotland described the case as 'bizarre'."
(Auslan Cramb, Daily Telegraph (U.K.), Sept.
9).
Addendum: one of our less sympathetic readers calls
to our attention this Sept. 13-dated press
release and article
from Epilepsy Action Scotland (EAS), describes it as proving that the above
report is "not true", and chides us for not referencing it in our original
post. To begin with a minor housekeeping point, this reader is apparently
unaware that items on this site dated "Sept. 13-15" will in most instances
have been posted in the final hours of Sept. 12, so that a fair bit of
clairvoyance would be required to anticipate the contents of a press release
issued the next day (even in Scotland, which is a few time zones ahead).
More substantively, although it may well be that other
press reports did misstate the Rennie/Young case, it is by no means clear
that EAS is questioning the accuracy of the Daily Telegraph report
linked above. Both EAS and the Telegraph (and our excerpt)
make clear that the overall award arose in the context of a car crash and
drew on a number of factors. EAS is at pains to emphasize that the
court did not rule that "watching a seizure in itself [emphasis
added] provides grounds to sue for compensation" absent some other entitlement
to compensation such as a physical injury -- and of course it's a familiar
practice in compensation systems to let mental injury piggyback on physical
injury but not stand alone as a claim. The one interviewee quoted
in the Telegraph piece as wondering aloud whether a bystander's
distress at watching a person collapse might stand alone as a damage claim
was the spokesman for EAS itself ("Does this mean...?"). This
makes it less surprising that the organization would four days later make
a point of reassuring the public that, no, it probably doesn't mean that.
Does Epilepsy Action Scotland, as our reader seems to
think, now therefore regard the Rennie/Young case as some kind of overblown
urban legend that should never have gotten play in the papers, and regret
that its spokesman had been so critical of the ruling before? Quite
the contrary: it makes clear the extent to which it continues to be alarmed
and upset at the case ("we have forcefully put across the points that this
is a shocking case"), it has called for investigations and organized protests,
and it "has offered its full support if [Mr. Young] decides to pursue the
matter" on appeal. Nothing inaccurate in our post that we can see.
(DURABLE
LINK)
September 13-15 --
We have competition! Or at least sorta-kinda competition,
from Colorado humorist Randy Cassingham. But the more the merrier,
say we. (DURABLE LINK)
September 12 --
Personal responsibility roundup. New York attorney Samuel
Hirsch, who made big headlines a few weeks ago by filing a lawsuit on behalf
of an overweight man against fast-food chains, has now added another car
to the train in the form of a suit on behalf of several obese teens who
"say the restaurant chain used marketing practices such as toy and value
meal promotions to entice its patrons to eat the food." (No!
Not value meals!) "Mr. Hirsch said his clients ate at McDonald's
almost every day for at least five years. One teenager, who is 5-foot-9-inches
tall, now weighs 270 pounds; another, who is 5-foot-3-inches tall, now
weighs 200. The parents of the teenagers, either unemployed or on
disability, filed the lawsuit on behalf of their children." Note to parents:
those benefit checks will stretch further if you teach kids how to make
sandwiches at home (Ellen Sorokin, "McDonald's marketing cited for teens'
obesity", Washington Times, Sept. 10). Director Tom Grey of
the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, who has been beating
the drums for years in hopes of making the wagering business the next tobacco,
hopes governors and attorneys general will pile on in support of the latest
lawsuit by a compulsive bettor claiming his losses were the casino's fault
for luring him in (Rod Smith, "Gambling foes hope federal lawsuit will
lead casinos into tobacco industry's fate", Gaming Wire/Las Vegas Review-Journal,
Sept.
10). The Wyoming Supreme Court has ruled that an employee who
tried
to commit suicide after being depressed over a work-related injury
can collect workers' compensation from his employer for the injuries inflicted
by his attempt (Brierley v. Wyoming, Aug.
14). And the editorialists of Canada's
National
Post applaud Ontario judges' refusal to follow the lead of many American
courts in making party hosts legally responsible if their guests drive
away drunk ("Blame drunks, not hosts" (editorial), Sept. 5). (DURABLE
LINK)
September 12 --
"9/11 aid bill contains giant bonus for trial lawyers".
"Sacramento -- Saying that it was primarily a bill to help families of
Sept. 11 victims, Gov. Gray Davis on Tuesday signed a sweeping change in
California tort law backed by trial lawyers, some of his biggest contributors.
In a bill signing ceremony, the Democratic governor focused on only four
paragraphs of the seven-page bill that allows relatives of the terrorist
attacks more time to file civil lawsuits. Davis did not mention that
the bulk of the bill -- which extends from one year to two the filing period
for all personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits in California -- is
opposed by more than 80 companies and business groups. They say the measure
will sharply increase their insurance and litigation costs." (Greg Lucas
and Lynda Gledhill, San Francisco Chronicle, Sept.
11). (DURABLE LINK)
September 12 --
No joy in Mudville. "Saying America's favorite pastime
had become a 'nuisance' to a northwest Houston man, a Harris County jury
awarded him more than $75,000 Tuesday. 'I'm happy that 12 people were in
full agreement,' said plaintiff E.S. Armstrong after the verdict was read.
Armstrong filed a lawsuit in December 2000 in state district court against
Baseball U.S.A., claiming games played on the group's fields adjacent to
his home in the Spring Shadows subdivision are too noisy and the field
lights too bright. The lawsuit also claimed that baseballs from the fields,
near Sam Houston Tollway and Gessner, twice crashed through Armstrong's
bedroom window." Baseball U.S.A., a nonprofit group, may appeal.
(Dale Lezon, Houston Chronicle, Sept. 11). (DURABLE
LINK)
September 11 --
Never forgotten. For this site's commentaries from a year
ago, begin here with Sept. 12 items
and then scroll upwards. (DURABLE
LINK)
|
