The old joke is that chutzpah is defined as the case of the orphan who kills his parents and then begs the court for mercy because he’s an orphan.

A pair of Philadelphia parents, however, may redefine the idea for all time.  Danieal Kelly, who suffered from crippling cerebral palsy, was 14 when she starved to death in a West Philadelphia rowhouse, covered in bedsores, weighing just 42 pounds.  Her mother, “Andrea Kelly was charged with murder on July 31. Daniel Kelly, who authorities say abandoned his daughter despite knowledge of her mother’s neglect, was charged with endangering the welfare of a child.” (Three friends of the mother were charged with perjury for lying to a grand jury; four social workers were also charged with felony endangerment, which will no doubt screw up incentives further for over-reacting child protective services everywhere.)

The parents responded as any parents would, and sued the city, the state, city and state agencies, and four social workers, blaming them for Kelly’s death, and seeking damages for “love, tutelage, companionship, support, comfort and consortium” as well as the “economic value of her life expectancy”–which couldn’t possibly be anything other than the taxpayer-funded disability benefits.  Public outrage has caused the lawyers, Brian Mildenberg and Eric Zajac, to substitute other parties as plaintiffs so that there is no direct hint of Daniel and Andrea Kelly profiting, but the underlying appallingness of the suit remains.  (Julie Shaw & Catherine Lucey, “Lawsuit by Danieal’s parents called ‘disgusting’”, Phil. Inquirer, Aug. 13; Nancy Phillips and Kia Gregory, “Danieal Kelly’s parents sue the city”, Phil. Inquirer, Aug. 13; John Sullivan and Craig R. McCoy, “Nine indicted in fatal neglect of girl”, Phil. Inquirer, Aug. 1; ongoing Inquirer coverage).

• Professors debate fourth-amendment implications of Supreme Court’s use of videotape evidence. Orin seems to have the better of it by my eyes, but perhaps that’s just my confirmation bias. [Kerr @ Volokh; Kahan/Hoffman/Braman; Youtube; Concurring Opinions] (And update: rejoinder by Braman @ Concurring Opinions)
• Repeat after me: medical errors or complications are not always medical malpractice. [Dr. Wes; Medical Progress Today]
• NC court speaks out for judicial restraint before creating new cause of action. [Beck/Herrmann]
• California proposes allowing government to remotely set your thermostat [Walter Williams; Cafe Hayek]
• Old problems not getting any better: “a New York Times article in 1897 (!), which reported that The Committee for Remedial Legislation in Regard to Expert Testimony called for all physician witnesses to be paid by the county.” [PlasticSurgery101]
• Remember Lionel Tate, the 12-year-old who murdered a 6-year-old, and then provoked outrage when he was sentenced to life at the age of 14? His sentence was reversed, he was given probation, and promptly violated it by committing armed robbery, it seems. Now he wants to blame his lawyer for the resulting 30-year-sentence. [ABA Journal]

Defamation-suit Hall of Fame: a New Zealand prisoner serving a life sentence for the notoriously brutal murder of a 17-year-old girl has won cash compensation from newspapers which described him as a rapist. “Andrew Ronald MacMillan was granted legal aid - a government- funded scheme which allows people who cannot afford legal representation to get a lawyer - to sue Fairfax Media, publishers of New Zealand newspapers The Press and Dominion Post, for defamation and punitive damages.” The victim, whose body was discovered nearly naked, had suffered violence in intimate places, but authorities never charged MacMillan with rape in the case. (”Murderer gets compensation from paper over rape allegation”, DPA/MonstersAndCritics.com, Apr. 10). Two and a half years ago MacMillan won $1200 for hurt feelings and humiliation because the Corrections Department had not shown him the text of a letter accusing him of misbehavior while on prison furlough. (Bridget Carter, “‘Hurt feelings’ win killer $1200 compensation”, New Zealand Herald, Aug. 23, 2004).

Via the District of New Jersey, please find attached the order dismissing the case in Ward v. Arm & Hammer [sic], 341 F.Supp.2d 499 (2004): no, a baking soda manufacturer has no legal duty to warn users that using baking soda to cook crack cocaine is illegal. (See David Lat’s blog for the complaint.)

We can still find something to complain about, though: the district court has the power under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to dismiss the case sua sponte as frivolous, which this case was in even the most narrow and technical senses of the word, or even just to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim without waiting for briefing. Church & Dwight Co., the makers of Arm & Hammer, was forced to retain Morgan, Lewis & Bockius to file multiple briefs in the federal court at not inconsiderable expense to rid itself of this nuisance suit.

More on product liability, including many successful cases not much less wacky than this one, on our product liability page.

Update: The post originally protested the granting of in forma pauperis status; David Giacalone correctly points out in the comments that IFP status is automatic without a showing of bad faith, and that my complaint was with the failure of the court to exercise its sua sponte powers to dismiss. I’ve corrected the post accordingly.

Via Childs, Pete Solis, the 19-year-old who allegedly sexually assaulted a 13-year-old Austin, Texas, girl whose family is suing the MySpace website where the two met, is, Time Magazine reports, contemplating his own litigation against MySpace on the grounds that it made him think he was meeting a 15-year-old.

“MySpace wasn’t there when they went to Whataburger. MySpace wasn’t there when they went to the movie and MySpace wasn’t there when they climbed in the backseat,” [Solis attorney Adam] Reposa said. “Meeting on MySpace — if that alone is enough, then we can make the same claim for damages.”

Partners in crime dept.: “A Dutch man who served time in jail and was deported for running one of the largest escort services in the Southeast has sued six former customers.” Arthur Vanmoor, 46, who used aliases such as “Big Pimpin’ Pappy” and whose South Florida enterprise “accounted for up to 90 percent of the escort service listings in Broward County’s 2002 Yellow Pages”, claims his customers got him in trouble by breaking the law and violating their contracts with him. “To pay the $245-per-hour escort fee, the men signed a credit card slip that said, ‘Cardholder states that this transaction is not for illegal activity,’ said Vanmoor’s attorney, Montgomery Sibley.” (AP/NBC6.net, Feb. 27).

Montgomery Sibley, attorney for Vanmoor, appeared on Tucker Carlson’s “The Situation” Mar. 1 to explain his client’s case; see this amusing account with video. A Google search reveals that a Florida attorney named Montgomery Blair Sibley, proceeding pro se, sued federal judicial officials including the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court (including “Steven” Breyer) demanding a million dollars in damages from the Justices individually for various purported offenses which included not granting certiorari review to a domestic dispute Sibley was involved in. Sibley took his case up to the Eleventh Circuit (PDF), but did not prevail.

According to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Vanmoor is known for his litigious nature. In the past decade, he has been a plaintiff or defendant in 29 lawsuits in Broward County alone. He has sued businesses that challenged him, police departments that investigated him, an assistant state attorney who prosecuted him and journalists who reported on him.” (Sean Gardiner, “Man charged in Broward prostitution ring sues his clients”, Feb. 27). The alleged johns have not been named in the latest round of news coverage, so far as a cursory search of coverage reveals. One wonders whether the possibility of such publicity might be one factor influencing the prospective settlement value, if any, of the new round of suits.