Setting spies and informers against us in our houses dept.: I’m quoted about a bad idea under consideration by the New York legislature (Benjamin Sarlin, “Child, Animal Abuse Linked Under Albany Bill”, New York Sun, Aug. 20).
The need for tort reform doesn’t necessarily arise from headline-grabbing blockbuster verdicts but rather a “death by a thousand cuts” of many small suits of questionable merit. Example: A woman sues the party host after drinking and then attempting to get on his horse as part of the party festivities. She falls, suffers injuries and files suit against the host making general allegations of negligence, including, “providing … the opportunity to participate in the ‘inherently dangerous activity of horseback’ ”.
Does the host’s behavior rise to the level of negligence? And, if so how is the woman’s negligence less than his? He may have offered the alcohol; she drank it. He may have offered the horseback ride; she accepted. Have we reached the point in America that we need to have party goers sign waivers for private festivities? But since exculpatory agreements are generally frowned upon by the courts I think I’ll just stay home alone. A lot of fun that will be. (“Suit shows you shouldn’t drink and ride horses”, The West Virginia Record, Aug. 8).
Horse example number 2: Certified Massage Therapist Mercedes Clemens is suing two state agencies because her avocation is massaging horses but the state won’t let her (at least not for a fee) because she is only licensed to massage humans. And, for once it’s really not about the money because she’s not asking for it in her lawsuit, just the right to massage animals. It’s not as if Clemens is practicing pediatric anesthesiology for kicks. So who cares, really?
I suspect it’s the veterinary board or the National Board of Certification for Animal Acupressure (at the behest of its members) who fear Clemens and people like her will poach their clients. And, if the state would simply step out of the way in this instance it could avoid this lawsuit. (“Woman sues for right to massage horses”, MSNBC, Aug. 11 and “Rockville therapist sues state for right to massage animals”, Gazette.Net, Jul 2).
Now banned in Boston, perhaps because of the risk that they might bring too much happiness to the humans involved. (WSJ, Newsweek, FindingDulcinea, Globe, Herald).
The search is on for Moe, who opened his cage and left his home at Jungle Exotics, not the first time he’s escaped his surroundings. Moe is perhaps the most litigious chimpanzee in history, thanks to the efforts of Gloria Allred, who put the city of West Covina through years of litigation when they dared to suggest that a chimp who had mauled a policeman (who incurred $250,000 in medical bills) and bit off a woman’s fingertip was not appropriately kept within a residential area in city limits. Moe’s former owner, St. James Davis, was himself brutally attacked by a couple of chimpanzees that apparently didn’t have a lawyer handy and were shot in the aftermath of the incident without so much as a habeas corpus petition filed. (Davis “lost his nose, an eye, most of his fingers, both testicles and much of the flesh from his buttocks and face and left foot.” His wife just lost a thumb in the attack.)
I’m not a fan of Leona Helmsley; among other traits that earned her the title of “Queen of Mean,” she sued her dead son’s estate, financially wiping his widow out with legal fees.
“…so the only thing they can do is give me money”. The $206,000 that Shawn Snider and Beth Bayless-Snider are demanding from Denton, Tex. taxpayers for the mistaken euthanization of their three-year-old black Labrador mix includes damages for loss of “future breeding opportunities”. (”Couple Sues City for $206G After Dog Mistakenly Euthanized”, AP/FoxNews.com, Jun. 2).
Visit the vet, or else? “A cat owner who did not seek treatment for his pet’s serious ailments during the cat’s last year of life can be charged with animal cruelty, a Manhattan judge has ruled. Allegations that the defendant left a ’swollen and bleeding’ paw and other conditions untreated ’sufficiently demonstrate that the animal was subjected to unjustifiable physical pain,’ Criminal Court Judge ShawnDya L. Simpson wrote. The owner allegedly admitted that he had owned the cat for 15 years and never took him to the veterinarian.” (Noeleen G. Walder, New York Law Journal, Mar. 24).
In Boulder, Colorado, hair salon owner Joy Douglas “received a $1,000 ticket from an animal-control officer for coloring her white poodle, Cici, pink by using organic beet juice.” Everyone seems to agree that the dye job is not physically harmful to the pooch, who is well cared for in other ways, but Boulder has a town ordinance against animal-dyeing, aimed at Easter-season tormentors of bunnies and chicks, and several residents ratted Douglas out. She says the idea of the pink fur was to raise awareness for breast cancer. (”Boulder’s pink poodle owner preps for legal fight”, Denver Post, Mar. 11).
A snapshot from Massachusetts of the campaign (national in scope) to create rights to sue for intangible damages against veterinarians, motorists, and others judged to have negligently killed a pet. Debra Campanile of Haverhill is on a mission to enact such a law, which, along with provisions for unbounded emotional distress damages, would require punitive damages to be awarded in a sum of at least $2,500. The story does not specify whether the $2,500 would be payable per incident or per actual creature whose life was ended, which could make quite a difference in the case of negligently knocking over Billy’s ant farm. (Laurel J. Sweet, “Push for liability in animal deaths would put….”, Boston Herald, Mar. 10).
The Dhaliwal brothers prefer to have attorney Mark Geragos do the talking, greatly frustrating investigators trying to reconstruct what happened in the zoo mauling. (Jaxon Van Derbeken, “In ambulance, survivors of S.F. tiger attack made pact of silence”, San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 5; “San Francisco Authorities Seek to Inspect Tiger Attack Victims’ Cell Phones”, AP/FoxNews.com, Jan. 5; Patricia Yollin, Tanya Schevitz, Kevin Fagan, “S.F. Zoo visitor saw 2 victims of tiger attack teasing lions”, San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 3; Jacob Sullum, “The Buck Keeps Moving”, syndicated/Reason, Jan. 2). Earlier: Jan. 3.
You must bear in mind, though, in considering the suit by bitten ex-housekeeper Zamfira Sfara, that this is one very wealthy pooch. (Elizabeth Hays, New York Daily News, Dec. 9).
Rockville, Maryland: “A Montgomery County jury has rejected a negligence lawsuit brought by a woman who claimed she was attacked by a Canada goose while at a shopping center in 2004, causing her to fall and break her hip.” Suzanne Webster’s attorney said “the store made the situation worse by letting employees feed the geese.” (AP/WJZ.com, Dec. 10).
“A 5-year-old girl bitten by a Rottweiler puppy in a Petco store cannot sue the pet supplies chain because it has a policy of allowing its customers to bring their pets into its stores, an acting New York Supreme Court justice has ruled, noting the policy reflects ‘an industry-wide standard’ designed for the benefit of pet store customers. The summary judgment ruling also exonerated the owner of the Rottweiler, finding he had no reason to suspect that the 8-month-old puppy had a ‘vicious propensity.’” Plaintiffs say they’re going to appeal, though. (Daniel Wise, “Bid Challenging Pet Supplies Retailer’s Pet-Friendly Policy Fails”, New York Law Journal, Aug. 8). Earlier: Dec. 14, 2003.
…could soon be banned in Norway under pending animal welfare regulations. (”May ban caged birds”, Aftenposten, Jun. 13).
In 2002, a couple of Rottweilers attacked and seriously injured Marguene St. Juste, a woman in Delray Beach, Florida. Last week, the jury awarded this woman $3.76 million for her injuries. Routine — if expensive — dog bite case, right? The patented Overlawyered twist? The jury decided that the owner of the Rottweilers, who had allegedly repeatedly allowed the dogs to run free, was only 40% responsible for this tragedy. The other 60% of the blame — no, not the dogs, or the victim, or the doctors who treated her, or anybody obvious like that. Rather, the majority of the responsibility was assigned to the city of Delray Beach, Florida.
(The allocation of fault might call into question the value of defense attorneys; the dogs’ owner didn’t even bother to defend herself, and defaulted in the case, while the city defended itself vigorously. And yet the city bore the brunt of the verdict. Of course, a plausible alternate explanation is that the plaintiff simply picked on the deepest pocket, and the jury went along out of sympathy.)
The city was blamed based on the theory that the city knew that the dogs were running loose — the city disputed this, arguing that they never actually witnessed the dogs unsecured — and failed to impound them, as its city ordinance required. But even if the allegations against the city are true, how can it make the city more liable than the owner?
More importantly, why should it make the city liable at all? It doesn’t in other contexts; you can’t sue the police for failing to arrest a dangerous criminal, for instance. (It’s well-established that the police do not have a legal duty to protect you, absent special circumstances.) Once again, we see trial lawyers perversely arguing that an inconsistently-followed safety rule should make a defendant more liable than not having a safety rule at all. If Delray Beach had no animal control ordinance, it could not have been sued under these circumstances. But because it had one, taxpayers rare on the hook for up to $2.2 million. Now, we don’t expect trial lawyers to care about the incentives that their lawsuits create; after all, they’re just in this game for the money. But shouldn’t our legal system factor in these public policy considerations?
(I should note that there is one circumstance in which it is logical to punish a defendant for not following its safety rules: when an injured party took an extra risk in reliance upon the safety policy, and then the defendant failed to follow that policy. But that’s not the situation presented here. The victim wasn’t attacked by the dogs because of the policy.)
Fort Lauderdale attorney William R. Cohen is asking $1 million in a suit against the Bushouse family of nearby Boca Raton, whose 2-year-old terrier Taz, he says, bit his left nipple. Readers keep directing our attention to the final clause in the list of recited damages, which list consists of “medical treatment, loss of income and for general damages for pain, suffering, physical disfigurement and ‘loss of sexual comfort and desire’.” (Chrystian Tejedor, “Nipped on nipple, man sues”, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, May 26).
Environmental groups keep suing the United States Navy (See: Oct. 2004, Jul. 2006, and Mar. 2006) over its use of sonar, on the speculative theory that sonar hurts whales. Now they’re at it again, filing a lawsuit yesterday in federal court in Hawaii. This time it’s Earthjustice, suing on behalf of the Ocean Mammal Institute, the Animal Welfare Institute, KAHEA, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Surfrider Foundation, trying to stop naval exercises off the coast of Hawaii. (PDF copy of complaint.)
Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of using sonar or privileging whales over national security, it’s absurd that federal judges — experts, we think, neither in marine biology nor submarine warfare — should be the ones deciding these policy questions. But it’s more absurd that these issues get to be relitigated over and over and over again. Of course environmental groups are the ones filing these repeated lawsuits, but in the big picture, the blame for this situation should be laid at the feet of Congress, which passes vague environmental laws which create broad standing allowing infinite numbers of random bystanders to sue without having to suffer tangible personal harm. (”I like looking at whales.”) And, perhaps worse than the vagueness of the laws is the fact that so many of these laws simply exist to create a zillion procedural hoops to jump through. (To provide an idea of these hoops, this complaint alone alleges the following causes of action:
Have your eyes glazed over yet?)
Whatever the appropriate policy balance to be struck here, it should probably be determined by Congress, and it should definitely be decided once and for all, rather than each and every time a submariner sneezes. If the Navy is to be required to use specific types of sonar or other equipment, or is to be denied permission to operate in certain locales, or whatever, then there ought to be a statute or regulation which spells these rules out explicitly, rather than allowing activist groups to rush to court on a weekly basis to get a judge to decide.
Point of Law Volokh