• Cameras in the Neiman Marcus “loss security” (anti-theft operations) room? So unfair when they catch two employees making whoopee [Chicago Tribune via Feral Child]
• Flipping their wigs: after three centuries judges in British civil and family courts today end tradition of horsehair wigs [Times Online]
• The right number? $28 million to Boston victim of negligent Big Dig construction [Globe]
• White collar advice: “Always commit crimes with people more important than you are, so you can turn them in” [Dershowitz, Forbes]
• Injured while skylarking on freight trains, now want Oz taxpayers to pay for their injuries [The Australian]
• That’ll spoil the fun: New Jersey high court bars judges from discussing future employment with lawyers who have pending cases before them [NJLJ]
• Compromise on Capitol Hill lets Pandora survive a little longer to negotiate with music rights owners [ReadWriteWeb; earlier here, here]
• Rapists with leverage over the adoption of a resultant child? [four years ago on Overlawyered]

The state of Rhode Island and town of West Warwick, the last major defendants left in the lawsuits over the Station/Great White fire, agreed to throw $10 million apiece into the settlement pot, which now reaches $175 million, to compensate the 200 injured and survivors of the 100 killed in the 2003 blaze. The town of West Warwick, population just under 30,000, is expected to have to borrow heavily to enable its payment; it has a $4 million insurance policy, but defense litigation costs will be deducted before any of that money is made available for the settlement (RedOrbit/ProJo, more, AP/Firefighting News via Childs).

Dozens of private companies named in the suits had settled earlier, including many with peripheral or remote connections to the calamity, such as beer sponsor Anheuser-Busch, which together with a beer distributor agreed to pay $21 million, and radio operator Clear Channel, which paid $22 million. West Warwick will wind up paying much less than that, although its negligent contribution to the disaster (in failing to enforce key provisions of its own fire code) would appear immeasurably greater. Earlier posts here.

On November 14, 1999, high-school dropout Rolando Domingo Montez, celebrating his 19th birthday, was arrested for public intoxication and trespass after the owner of the boat on which he and his friends were sitting complained. Police placed him in Cell No. 1 of the Port Isabel City Jail. The next morning, Montez was permitted to make some collect calls from his jail cell to seek bail money from his mother, Pearl Iris Garza. Mom, complaining that Montez was in jail again, refused. But she generously came to pick up Montez on the 16th when he was released on his own recognizance. Unfortunately, while Garza was waiting in the lobby, and while police were responding to a call for assistance regarding a suspicious vehicle, Montez hung himself with the 19-inch phone cord from the phone he had used to make the calls.

Continue Reading »

“…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).

• More on that New Mexico claim of “electro-sensitive” Wi-Fi allergy: quoted complainant is a longtime activist who’s written an anti-microwave book [VNUNet, USA Today "On Deadline" via ABA Journal]
• Your wisecracks belong to us: “Giant Wall of Legal Disclaimers” at Monsters Inc. Laugh Floor at Disneyland [Lileks; h/t Carter Wood]
• New at Point of Law: AAJ commissions a poll on arbitration and gets the results it wants; carbon nanotubes, tomorrow’s asbestos? California will require lawyers operating without professional liability insurance to inform clients of that fact (earlier here and here); and much more.
• Actuaries being sued for underestimating funding woes of public pension plans [NY Times via ABA Journal]
• City of Santa Monica and other defendants will pay $21 million to wrap up lawsuits from elderly driver’s 2003 rampage through downtown farmers’ market [L.A. Times; earlier]
• Sequel to Giants Stadium/Aramark dramshop case, which won a gigantic award later set aside, is fee claim by fired lawyer for plaintiff [NJLJ; Rosemarie Arnold site]
• Privacy law with an asterisk: federal law curbing access to drivers license databases has exemption that lets lawyers purchase personal data to help in litigation [Daily Business Review]
• Terror of FEMA: formaldehyde in Katrina trailers looks to emerge as mass toxic injury claim, and maybe we’ll find out fifteen years hence whether there was anything to it [AP/NOCB]
• Suit by “ABC” firm alleges that Yellow Book let other advertisers improperly sneak in with earlier alphabetical entries [Madison County Record]
• Gun law compliance, something for the little people? A tale from Chicago’s Board of Aldermen [Sun-Times, Ald. Richard Mell]
• Think twice about commissioning a mural for your building since federal law may restrain you from reclaiming the wall at a later date [four years ago on Overlawyered]

New Jersey: “An Essex County jury has ordered Newark to pay $4.1 million to the family of a murdered Seton Hall University student because of mistakes made by a police dispatcher and 911 operator during her abduction. The jury’s verdict came after the attorney for Sohayla Massachi’s family argued that prompt action by the Newark police may have prevented her murder after she was abducted by a jilted boyfriend in May 2000.” The jury attributed 25 percent of its $5.5 million award to Seton Hall and its security agency, Argenbright Security Inc., but those defendants had already settled. (William Kleinknecht, Newark Star-Ledger, May 16).

A New York woman who took her family to visit the Maritime Aquarium has filed a $100 claim against the city, saying her child’s shoes, along with the entire outing, were ruined when her 1-year-old stepped in dog feces early last month outside the Maritime Garage.

Norwalk officials will deny the claim, city attorney M. Jeffry Spahr said.

“The official response is her claim is denied and poop happens,” he said.

The claim by Mahopac, N.Y., resident, Kelly DeBrocky was filed with the city clerk on April 7. It came across Spahr’s desk yesterday.

…

Spahr said he has seen some frivolous claims, but the feces claim reeks.

“Some wacky stuff comes across. I don’t know if people are more litigious. My opinion is two things are at play. No. 1, people are resistant to taking responsibility for their own actions and No. 2, they feel there always has to be somebody to blame,” he said.

Other claims without merit, Spahr said, include a boater who blamed the city after his boat, docked at the city marina, filled up with water in a heavy rainstorm and sank, and parents who hold the city responsible when their children fall and injure themselves on playground monkey bars.

Spahr also cited a suit by boxer Travis Simms two days before he won the super-welterweight title in January 2007.

Simms said that a 2005 injury he suffered during a basketball game at Benjamin Franklin School due to city negligence sidelined his boxing career for two years.

The city is waiting to see whether Simms will drop the case amicably.

Spahr said that long after that is resolved, lawyers in his office will still be talking about the feces claim.

“That’s kind of way up there in a take-the-cake kind of thing,” he said.

The mother claims she had to discard her toddler’s clothes and shoes and return home after the incident, and wants reimbursement. Spahr’s response: “I’m also having a tough time picturing why (the child) had to be bathed after stepping in this unless he thought it was some kind of poop sandbox.” (Alexandra Fenwick, “City: Mom’s claim stinks”, Stamford Advocate, May 8 (via Romenesko)).

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.”

Family members of the children Banita Jacks murdered, who apparently cared so much about the children that they didn’t notice Jacks had starved them to death months before they were discovered, “have hired lawyers to pursue claims against the D.C. government for failing to prevent months of neglect and abuse. … In interviews yesterday, the grandmothers’ lawyers declined to say when their clients last saw Jacks or her daughters.”

DC taxpayers will be thrilled to note that the city is refusing to rehire three workers fired in a scapegoating frenzy after the Jacks revelations, even after a hearing officer has held that the firings were unwarranted. More lawsuits to come. (Keith L. Alexander and Petula Dvorak, “D.C. Could Have Done More To Help 4 Sisters, Families Say”, Washington Post, Feb. 28).

For an example of the post-Jacks overreaction, see Hans Bader at POL, who has beat me to the Greg and Julianna Caplan story, which was also extensively covered in the Marc Fisher blog.

In the state of Mississippi during the last 5 years, 27 law firms have been retained by Mississippi Attorney General James Hood to purse state lawsuits on contingency. Those firms have collectively donated more than a half-million dollars to Hood in the last two election cycles. Apparently, the legislature is troubled by this combination of for-profit motivation and campaign fundraising, and has passed a bill to pursue competitive bidding before signing contracts of more than $500,000 with private lawyers. It also requires a review board to examine contracts, and it limits contingency fees to $1 million.

Hood isn’t pleased — and the WSJ has his number:

Should state Attorneys General be able to outsource their legal work to for-profit tort lawyers, who then funnel a share of their winnings back to the AGs? That’s become a sleazy practice in many states, and it is finally coming under scrutiny — notably in Mississippi, home of Dickie Scruggs, Attorney General Jim Hood, and other legal pillars…
This kind of quid pro quo is legal in Mississippi and most other states. However, if this kind of sweetheart arrangement existed between a public official and business interests, you can bet Mr. Hood would be screaming about corruption. . . . A decision to prosecute is an awesome power, and it ought to be motivated by evidence and the law, not by the profit motives of private tort lawyers and the campaign needs of an ambitious Attorney General.”

That leaves a mark.

Whatever the failings of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Flood Control Act of 1928 makes clear that federal taxpayers cannot be forced to pay through litigation for the catastrophic collapse of the levees, so there goes the multi-trillion-dollar class action. (Cain Burdeau and Michael Kunzelman, AP/Forbes, Jan. 30).

All-automotive edition:

• Court won’t unseal settlement arising from $105 million Aramark/Giants Stadium dramshop case for fear girl’s father will try to get his hands on money [NJLJ, NorthJersey.com, Childs; earlier]
• Great moments in insurance defense law: you mean it wasn’t a good idea to infiltrate that church meeting to investigate the crash claim? [Turkewitz first, second posts]
• Columnist Paul Mulshine rejoices: Ninth Circuit decision “if it stands, will lead to the end of the SUV as we know it” [Newark Star-Ledger]
• Is it unfair — and should it be unlawful? — for insurers to settle crash victims’ claims too early? [Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog]
• If Ron Krist prevails in shoot-out of Texas plaintiff titans, he vows to have sheriff seize John O’Quinn’s Batmobile [American Lawyer; see also Ted's take earlier]
• In much-watched case, Australian high court by 3-2 split upholds highway authority against claim defective bridge design was blameworthy after youth’s dive into shallow water [RTA NSW v. Dederer, Aug. 30]
• Redesigning Toyota’s occupant restraint system? Clearly another job for the Marshall, Texas courts [SE Texas Record; Point of Law; more]
• Bench trial results in $55 million verdict against U.S. government after Army employee on business runs red light and paralyzes small child [OC Register]
• Vision in a purple Gremlin: her Yale Law days shaped Hillary in many ways [Stearns/McClatchy]
• Zero tolerance for motorists’ blood-alcohol — are we sure we want to go there? [Harsanyi, Reason]
• Driver falls asleep, so of course Ford must pay [two years ago on Overlawyered; much more on our automotive page]

Milwaukee cop Robert Henry was fired after being caught on tape in 2002 roughing up an arrested suspect. A federal judge has now ruled against Henry’s lawsuit over his firing. However, that doesn’t mean taxpayers are off the hook for the wayward officer’s continued support: “Henry was not criminally charged, and he later successfully filed for lifelong disability payments after he said he suffered stress for being fired. He remains on disability leave from MPD.” (John Diedrich, “Proof & Hearsay” (Journal-Sentinel blog), Nov. 1).

You may recall the case of De Villers v. County of San Diego (Mar. 2006; Jul. 2006). Kristin Rossum was found guilty of poisoning husband Gregory de Villers and trying to make his death look like a suicide; his family sued both Rossum and her employer, the county of San Diego, and a jury found that Rossum was only 75% responsible, but that still put taxpayers on the hook for $1.5 million. An appellate court has stepped in to belatedly throw out the case against the County. (via On Point)

It’s sparking further discussion:

Hey, Davis Wright Tremaine, and your clients, the parents who sued the district: This is insane.

You argue this isn’t to enrich the firm, but to punish the district. The theory is that the fees, at $1.8 million and rising, are a lash to whip the district for its bad race-based deeds.

When I called the lawyers Tuesday, they compared it to, among other cases, their pro bono defense of a prisoner beaten by L.A. jail guards.

This makes no sense. Seattle’s policy wasn’t intended to hurt anyone, let alone beat them to a pulp.

(Danny Westneat, “The bill just keeps going up”, Seattle Times, Sept. 19; Emily Heffter, “Billing in ‘pro bono’ cases is fodder for ethics debate”, Seattle Times, Sept. 18; Above the Law, Sept. 18).

Continue Reading »

Just so you’re totally clear on the meaning of the term pro bono when you read it from now on:

McMinimee [Seattle Public Schools attorney Shannon McMinimee] says it’s “disingenuous” for the law firm, Davis Wright Tremaine, to go after money when the firm took the case pro bono. But firm spokesman Mark Usellis said “pro bono” means their clients don’t have to pay.

“The thing that’s really important to us in a civil-rights case is that Congress specifically and explicitly wrote into the law that if the government is found to have violated citizens’ civil rights, then the prevailing party should seek fee recovery,” he said.

Most governments can argue, as Seattle Public Schools is, that they don’t have much money. But going after the fees helps deter other government bodies from violating civil rights, Usellis said….

If the firm wins, the fees likely wouldn’t be covered by the district’s insurance carrier, McMinimee said. So the money would have to come out of the district’s $490 million general-fund budget.

(Emily Heffter, “Law firm wants school district to pay $1.8M”, Seattle Times, Sept. 6).

In June 2003, there was a tragic porch collapse at an apartment building in Chicago; 13 people were killed and at least 50 more were injured. The quest for deep pockets began; as we discussed in August 2005, even though the porch was on private property, trial lawyers aimed their litigation guns at the city of Chicago, on the theory that Chicago taxpayers have more money than the building owner if city inspectors had done a better job, the accident wouldn’t have happened.

A trial judge bought that argument, but yesterday, in a victory for taxpayers, an appellate court reversed that ruling, holding that, contrary to the theory of the trial lawyers, the city is not a guarantor that nothing bad will ever happen within its city limits. The mere fact that the city inspectors failed to issue violation notices for the porch construction does not make the city financially liable for the collapse; if it did, then the potential to extend liability to taxpayers would be limited only by the imagination of the trial lawyer. Police fail to stop a driver who’s speeding, and he later hits you? Blame the city. Inspectors don’t make your neighbor cut down the dead tree on his property, and it falls on your house during a storm? Blame the city. The possibilities are endless.

The victims of the accident do have a legitimate case — but that legitimate case is against the building landlord, not taxpayers. But those deep pockets aren’t quite deep enough, so the trial lawyers aren’t satisfied with that answer:

But plaintiffs’ lawyers said that was not enough.

Pappas and his companies have about $17 million in insurance coverage, said Terry Ekl, who represents the family of Robert Koranda, who died in the collapse.

“Without the City of Chicago in the case, these families are not going to get anywhere near fair compensation,” Ekl said.

If the Appellate Court’s ruling stands, the plaintiffs would take up the issue with state lawmakers, Murphy said.

“We’re going to be having our clients go down to the legislature and say, ‘You can’t be letting this happen,’ ” Murphy said. “These children cannot have died or be injured in vain.’

Yep; they’re not doing it for their own bank accounts; rather, this is For the Children™.

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.)