The courts have been unwilling to treat dependence on smoking as a disability requiring reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disability Act. Some are wondering whether that will change, however, with the new expansion of protected categories under the ADA Amendments Act. (Michael Moore, Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Blog, Oct. 29; Jon Hyman, Ohio Employment Law, Oct. 30).
The British government is apparently paying out money for the purpose of lobbying itself on tobacco issues. (The Debatable Land, Oct. 17).
Around the country, courts have thrown out suit after suit by private hospitals, health insurers and benefit funds seeking to tag tobacco companies with the cost of smokers’ illnesses. A suit on behalf of various Missouri hospitals still hasn’t flickered out and is being litigated expensively, with Richard Daynard’s Northeastern University-based Tobacco Product Liability Project doing its customary cheerleading. (Heather Ratcliffe, “Hospitals’ suit against tobacco industry is large in every dimension”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 15).
In a daring journalistic departure, yesterday’s New York Times “Style” section piece actually interviewed some people who use the product. (Mireya Navarro, “Take Away Their Menthols? Is That Cool?”, Aug. 3). The paper’s coverage a week ago, by contrast, hewed more strictly to the favored narrative of the “tobacco control” crowd, vilifying as corrupt black members of Congress not yet ready to jump on board in banning a product very popular with their constituents. (Stephanie Saul, “Blacks in Congress Split Over Menthol Cigarettes”, Jul. 25).
Oregon Supreme Court plays chicken with SCOTUS over $79.5 million punitive damages award in Williams v. Philip Morris case. [Sebok @ Findlaw; Krauss @ IBD; POL Feb. 1]
The facade of the Old Morris tobacco shop in Victoria, British Columbia, which has operated at its location for 120 years, “has been preserved in it’s [sic] original design, including signs noting the tobacco, house blends and Havana cigars within.” New provincial legislation prohibits tobacco-promoting signage where visible to youths; “Businesses who violate the act face a $575 fine for a first offense, with penalties rising up to $5,000 for repeat offences.” At the same time:
In a letter sent to [store owner Rick] Arora, Steve Barber, senior heritage planner with the City of Victoria, called the store’s signs “an integral part of the history of this building and part of it’s heritage character,” meaning Arora cannot remove or cover the signs.
“They’ve made it clear I can’t touch them,” Arora said. “I could be fined $1 million and go to jail for two years.”
Neither government agency “is budging” on its demands. (Tom Mcmillan, “Tobacco store owner caught between policies”, Canwest/Vancouver Sun, May 27). Update: compromise struck (thanks to reader ras in comments).
Looks like we’ll be hearing a lot more about the “Kivalina” (Alaskan Inupiat village) climate-change suit:
Over time, the two trial lawyers [Stephen Susman of Texas and Steve Berman of Seattle, both familiar to longterm readers of this site] have become convinced that they have the playbook necessary to win big cases against the country’s largest emitters. It’s the same game plan that brought down Big Tobacco. And in Kivalina — where the link between global warming and material damage is strong—they believe they’ve found the perfect challenger.In February, Berman and Susman—along with two attorneys who have previously worked on behalf of the village and an environmental lawyer specializing in global warming—filed suit in federal court against 24 oil, coal, and electric companies, claiming that their emissions are partially responsible for the coastal destruction in Kivalina. More important, the suit also accuses eight of the firms (American Electric Power, BP America, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Duke Energy, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and Southern Company) of conspiring to cover up the threat of man-made climate change, in much the same way the tobacco industry tried to conceal the risks of smoking—by using a series of think tanks and other organizations to falsely sow public doubt in an emerging scientific consensus.
(Stephan Faris, “Conspiracy Theory”, The Atlantic, June). For the theory of legally wrongful participation in public debate (as one might call it), as it surfaced in the tobacco litigation, see, for example, this 2006 post.
More background on the suit at the Native American Rights Fund’s blog, here and here, and at attorney Matthew Pawa’s site. Carter Wood at NAM “Shop Floor” links to a report by the American Justice Partnership and Southeastern Legal Foundation (PDF) entitled, “The Most Dangerous Litigation in America: Kivalina“.
Yet more: Northwestern lawprof David Dana has a working paper at SSRN entitled “The Mismatch between Public Nuisance Law and Global Warming” (via Sheila Scheuerman/TortsProf). Abstract:
The federal courts using the common law method of case-by-case adjudication may have institutional advantages over the more political branches, such as perhaps more freedom from interest group capture and more flexibility to tailor decisions to local conditions. Any such advantages, however, are more than offset by the disadvantages of relying on the courts in common resource management in general and in the management of the global atmospheric commons in particular. The courts are best able to serve a useful function resolving climate-related disputes once the political branches have acted by establishing a policy framework and working through the daunting task of allocating property or quasi-property rights in greenhouse gas emissions. In the meantime, states do have a state legislative alternative that is preferable to common law suits, and that federal courts can facilitate without any dramatic innovations in federal preemption or dormant commerce clause doctrine.
In Alaska; Chevron; climate change; environment; Exxon; global warming; Kivalina; Seattle; stephen susman; Steve Berman; tobacco
*Blogroll, cont’d*
Other sites by our authors: Point of Law (Ted Frank, Walter Olson and others) / Ted Frank’s AEI Legal Center / Walter Olson home page / Our Facebook group
Law:
BlawgRev / Brennan Center / Briefcase (Ohio) / CalBizLit / ConsLw&Pol / Day / Decs & Exs / EvilHRLady / Genova / Goldman / ILR / LawBeat (Obbie) / Legal Ethics Forum / LexMonitor / Lexis Nexis Torts / Likel’d of Succ’s / MassTortLit / Miller, Maryland Injury / Nordberg / O’Keefe / OnPointNews / Perlmutter Schuelke / Prawfs / Scruggs scandal in Mississippi: Folo, YallPolitics as well as Rossmiller / Sui Generis (NY) / TortDeform / WorkplaceProf
And more law: AdamSmithEsq / ACSBlog / AJP / AGWatch / ArmsLaw / Bay / BLT / Bluestone / Cal Wage & Hr / Comm for Just / Complex Lit / Concur Op / Conglom / Counterfeit Chic / EmpirLS / Ernie the Atty / Friable Thts / Greedy TL / Justia / KipEsq / Kranenburg / LawSites / LegalJuice / Legal Rdr / Legal Scholarship / Low’g the Bar / NAM / Ninomania / Ohio Employment / Opinio Juris / Petit / Pop Tort / Proof & Hrsy / QuizLaw / Sports Law / StonePosts / TrollTracker (now underground) / WAC?
Med: Cut to Cure / Dr. Wes / GruntDoc / HIPAA blog / MedProgToday / MedPundit (RIP) / MedRants / Orac / Pipeline / RangelMD / Seidel / SymTym / Throckmorton
Beam / Discr’ns / Empire Center / Gawker / Gordon / Jay P. Greene / Haspel / Housing Bubble / IRB / Dan Kennedy / Manh Inst / David Nieporent’s Jumping to Conclusions and Likelihood of Success / MindingCampus / NYObserver / NYT Board, Freak’cs, Lede, Opin’tor, Tierney / Pratie Place / Rauch / SalonBlogRep / Siegel on tobacco / Truth on the Mkt / Tushnet
Right:
Betsy’s / Bookwm Room / City Jrnal / Contentions / Flash Report (Calif.) / Kopel / Lileks / McLaughlin / Marria Deb / Massie / Moldbug / Patterico / PowerLine / RightCoast / RightRbw / Steyn / Zincavage
Left:
Bogdanski / Drum / Edroso / Effect Measure / Lambert / LG&M / Mencimer / Mother Jones / Pump Handle / ReformNY / SadlyNo / Tobias / Wolcott
Libertarian:
Antipl’r / Brayton / Cafe Hayek / Cato-at-Lib’y / Chapman / Henley / Palmer / Pos’ve Lib / Sanchez / Stossel / Vice Sq / Wilk’n / Young
Odd:
Fark / News of the Weird / Our 404 / Lawyer jokes (About.com) / Spurious “Stella Awards”
Science/skepticism:
Hoax / Snopes / LarkFarm / Myers / Unoff Dawkins / Free Inq / Rowe / Lehmann / Fumento / Honeyguide / Quackwatch / Skept Inqr / Skeptic.com
This site’s reprinted articles library, with articles by authors Michael Fumento, Peter Huber, Walter Olson, and Jonathan Rauch.
Asbestos litigation has been around a long time. Early on, nothing like modern product liability law existed (see Richard Epstein’s discussion here); lawsuits resided in workplace injury law when filed in the 1920s and 30s, and were soon subsumed in workers compensation reforms.
Modern asbestos litigation began after the Selikoff study was published in 1964. In December 1965, Texas attorney Ward Stephenson filed a case on behalf of Claude Tomplait, who had worked as an asbestos insulator. Four years later, Stephenson extracted a settlement for $75,000 from seven defendants.
Notwithstanding this meager beginning, Stephenson persisted in asbestos litigation and won a major victory in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp., 493 F.2d 1076 (1973), in which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found asbestos manufacturers strictly liable for their workers’ injuries. The Borel court rejected statute of limitations, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk defenses; and modern asbestos product liability litigation was born.
The litigation got another shot in the arm when New Jersey attorney Karl Asch uncovered the “Sumner-Simpson papers,” which “described in great detail the efforts of Raybestos, Johns-Manville, and other manufacturers to find out about the hazards of asbestos, develop strategies to deal with them, and–most important–to keep that knowledge from the public and workers.” These documents were put to great effect by South Carolina lawyer Ron Motley, who actually used the papers to convince a South Carolina circuit judge to grant a new trial after a jury had ruled in favor of asbestos defendants. Motley of course went on to become an asbestos super-lawyer and an architect of the multibillion-dollar multistate tobacco settlement; his antics are well-known to long-time readers of this site.
Two more foundational cases are worthy of mention. In 1981, the D.C. Circuit ruled that insurers who had written asbestos policies were liable for the maximum insured between exposure and diagnosis, rather than only in the year of diagnosis. See Keene Corp. v Insurance Co. of North America, 667 F.2d 1034 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Given the long latency between asbestos exposure and ultimate illness, the level of insurance exposure was suddenly massive. Circuit Judge Patricia Wald warned that the court’s decision “requires a leap of logic from existing precedent, for it concerns diseases about which there is no medical certainty as to precisely how or when they occur.”
In 1982, the New Jersey Supreme Court threw out the “state of the art” defense for asbestos manufacturers, in essence holding that it mattered not whether business practice was the best available to the industry at the time the injury occurred. See Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., 442 A.2d 539 (N.J. 1982). The court opined, “The burden of illness from dangerous products such as asbestos should be placed upon those who profit from its production and, more generally, upon society at large which reaps the benefits of the various products our economy manufactures. ”
Thus, in less than a decade, the law was radically shifted, and asbestos litigation was born: “The decade after Borel saw 25,000 asbestos cases filed. By 1981, more than 200 companies and insurers had been sued; by 1982, defendants’ costs had topped $1 billion.” But these early years were just the beginning…
Nicholas White, trying to leave the McGraw-Hill Building in New York, was trapped in an elevator for 42 hours over a weekend. We’ll agree that under the principle of res ipsa loquitur, there’s liability, and even non-economic damages, to be had: there’s a duty not to let people get trapped in your elevators, to respond to an elevator alarm, and to notice the security cameras broadcasting video of the trapped individual. But, judging by the April 21 New Yorker coverage, it’s hard not to think White’s attorney’s litigation strategy hurt White far worse than his elevator experience:
He got a lawyer, and came to believe that returning to work might signal a degree of mental fitness detrimental to litigation. Instead, he spent eight weeks in Anguilla. Eventually, Business Week had to let him go. The lawsuit he filed, for twenty-five million dollars, against the building’s management and the elevator-maintenance company, took four years. They settled for an amount that White is not allowed to disclose, but he will not contest that it was a low number, hardly six figures. He never learned why the elevator stopped; there was talk of a power dip, but nothing definite. Meanwhile, White no longer had his job, which he’d held for fifteen years, and lost all contact with his former colleagues. He lost his apartment, spent all his money, and searched, mostly in vain, for paying work. He is currently unemployed.
Looking back on the experience now, with a peculiarly melancholic kind of bewilderment, he recognizes that he walked onto an elevator one night, with his life in one kind of shape, and emerged from it with his life in another. Still, he now sees that it wasn’t so much the elevator that changed him as his reaction to it. He has come to terms with the trauma of the experience but not with his decision to pursue a lawsuit instead of returning to work. If anything, it prolonged the entrapment. He won’t blame the elevator.
NB also that White never would’ve gotten in the elevator if not for anti-smoking laws requiring him to leave the building to have a cigarette, not that I’m suggesting anyone sue the city or the tobacco companies over that remote causation.
A company’s donation of air purifiers helped end the legal squabble between the Manhattan neighbors (Feb. 9); smoker Galila Huff has also agreed to use a smokeless ashtray, say Jonathan and Jenny Selbin, the husband-and-wife litigators. Jonathan Selbin, of Lieff Cabraser, evidently feels much put upon by press accounts linking his name with the epithet “bully”; one of Selbin’s earlier letters to Huff observed, “As you may not be aware, we are both lawyers and both litigators, for whom the usual barriers to litigation are minimal.” (Anemona Hartocollis, New York Times, Apr. 7; Greenfield, Apr. 6; WSJ letter to the editor, Apr. 8).
Not so fast, he says — the Mississippi Bar didn’t file a “certified copy” of his guilty plea. (Patsy R. Brumfield, “Dickie Scruggs files to dismiss attempt to have him disbarred”, Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, Apr. 1).
David Rossmiller has ten unanswered questions about loose ends in the Scruggs scandal (Mar. 24) which elicit responses in turn (and more unanswered questions) from NMC and Lotus at Folo (plus an NMC update). These latter bloggers, by the way, have shed their anonymity and stand revealed as Oxford, Miss. lawyer Tom Freeland (NMC) and retired lawyer Jan Goodrich, now of New Smyrna Beach, Fla. (Lotus), now also joined by Jane Tucker.
Is it okay for the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss) to take Scruggs’s money? “It depends on what the felony is…” Chancellor Robert Khayat is quoted as saying (Folo/NMC, Apr. 1; more). Gulfport M.D. Bill Hemeter, in a letter to the editor printed in the Biloxi Sun-Herald (Mar. 19), is claiming prescience: “I sent Chancellor Khayat the book ‘The Rule of Lawyers’ by Walter Olson several years ago, with a warning not to take money from plaintiff attorneys.” Earlier, when Scruggs pled guilty, another university official was heard from:
“My initial reaction is one of sadness,” said Samuel Davis, dean of the University of Mississippi Law School, Scruggs’ alma mater. “I’ve known and been friends with Dick and Diane Scruggs almost 50 years now going back to our days in Pascagoula, and I feel a great sense of compassion for him and his family. And that’s just a very personal reaction. I haven’t really thought about the implications for the legal community or the legal profession.”
Davis, who also directs the Ole Miss Law Center, said not everybody who pleads guilty is guilty and that Scruggs might have had other reasons for the move. If that were the case, Davis said, the reasons likely were good ones.
(emphasis added by an understandably astonished Lotus @ Folo; many, many comments follow).
And from Sid Salter of the Jackson Clarion-Ledger (Mar. 19): “In spite of their insistence that there were no ethical lapses in their behavior on the tobacco suit, [former attorney general Michael] Moore and Scruggs still owe the taxpayers of Mississippi an accounting of the lawyers’ fees and expenses that accrued from that litigation.”
I’m quoted in this morning’s New York Sun on that correlation. (E.B. Solomont, “Post-Smoking Ban, City Gains 10 Million Lbs.”, New York Sun, Mar. 27).
Point of Law Volokh