Archive for February, 2005

Washington state: can parents monitor children?

Carmen Dixon, the mother of 14-year-old Lacey, was concerned about a phone call Lacey received from her 17-year-old boyfriend Oliver Christensen, so she listened in on another line. Oliver discussed a purse-snatching, and Carmen turned him in to police. But, last December, the Washington Supreme Court threw out Christensen’s 2000 second-degree robbery conviction, because the eavesdropping violated the children’s privacy. The legislature is just getting around to changing the law in response. (Robert L. Jamieson, “Courts should let parents do their duty — and pry”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Feb. 7; Rachel La Corte, “Parental snooping bill gets a hearing”, AP/Seattle Times, Feb. 3; Christine Clarridge, “Eavesdropping against law even for parent, court says”, Seattle Times, Dec. 13) (via Bashman).

Cop asks for $6M for glass in burger

18-year-old Albert Garcia, Jr. of the Bronx has a “general distaste” for police officers–so, with other McDonald’s employees watching, he put glass in Officer John Florio’s Big Mac; Florio broke a tooth and cut his mouth and throat. Garcia was caught in a sting when an undercover police officer saw him spitting on another cop’s drive-through order, confessed, and is facing assault charges.

Now Florio is suing. One suspects that McDonald’s is willing to pay Florio’s medical expenses (the press doesn’t say one way or the other) as they should, but Florio, through his lawyer Richard Kenny, wants $6 million ($1 million in “compensatory” damages) from the national chain for failure to supervise Garcia properly. Because, after all, no other fast-food chain has teenage employees who adulterate food, perhaps because of the sophisticated two-key systems (much like those used for nuclear missiles) before employees are allowed to make a sandwich. (Alison Gendar, “Hurt cop sues McD’s for $6M”, NY Daily News, Feb. 8; Denise Buffa and Marsha Krane, “Glass-Burger Cop Sues”, NY Post, Feb. 8; Erin Calabrese and Dan Mangan, “Big Mac Attack vs. Cop”, NY Post, Jan. 31). The complaint suggests that McDonald’s should’ve fired Garcia sooner because of “aberrant behavior”, but, once again, firing someone risks an employment lawsuit.

Thank you to all

I would like to thank Walter and Ted for having me here at Overlawyered and thank everyone for reading. I return now to chronicling the intersection of sports, law and life at the Sports Law Blog. It has been a fun week, though, and I have learned a great deal. Hopefully, through efforts like this blog, people will understand that litigation is not the answer to every problem, so that the courts may focus on the rights of those that truly have no other recourse. P.S. from W.O.: Sports Law Blog can be found here.

Jury awards $1.8 billion . . . by mistake

“The jury wanted to punish Ben Waldrep for holding a house-giveaway contest it had decided was bogus, but when jurors awarded punitive damages Monday, they wound up dealing him a much harsher financial blow than intended. The jurors apparently meant to have the contest’s 1,800 entrants split $1 million. But they accidentally awarded each of them $1 million. That means, officially anyway, Waldrep has been ordered to cough up $1.8 billion.” Superior Court Judge Andria Richey is expected to lower the damage amount on motion by the defense, but she did not question the jury at all about the amount before releasing them. (Josh Grossberg, “Mistake by jury gives essay writers a $1 billion windfall,” Daily Breeze, Feb. 8).

Eastwood, lawsuits, and “Million Dollar Baby”?

(Links have spoilers, but this post doesn’t.) Activists are suggesting that Clint Eastwood’s bad experience with a lawsuit of a particular flavor has influenced the ending to Oscar nominee “Million Dollar Baby” and cite his tort reform testimony before Congress as evidence. (Michael Miner, “Dubious Conclusions”, Chicago Reader, Jan. 28; Jack Mathews, “Times is not right to spoil ‘Baby’ end”, NY Daily News, Feb. 4). Unfortunately, the stories uncritically quote activists who suggest incorrectly that Eastwood’s proposed reform would gut the law.

“Attorneys Feud in AmEx Card Case”

Class action watch: “A proposed legal settlement that could deliver about $64 million to American Express cardholders and up to $11 million to plaintiffs’ lawyers is under assault from rival attorneys who say the company should be paying much more. … Those challenging the pact say American Express conducted what amounts to a ‘reverse auction’ by shopping around until the company found a group of attorneys that would accept the lowest settlement offer.” There are indications that Miami federal judge Cecilia Altonaga is giving the objections more credence than is often done: she “ruled last fall that the critics could demand documents and testimony about the claims explored by lead attorneys on the case”, which usually doesn’t happen. The lawsuits allege that Amex applied fees and unfavorable exchange rates to American cardholders’ purchases in foreign currencies. (Josh Gerstein, New York Sun, Feb. 4). Update on settlement of objections: Point of Law, Aug. 22, 2007.

Driver only 49% responsible for running red light

71-year-old Doris Christous had just left a Wal-Mart in New Hampshire when she decided that she was waiting too long for a red light to change–so, rather than waiting for a safe right turn, she darted out across five lanes of traffic against the light. Unfortunately, David DeBenedetto was driving through a green light at the time, hit Christous’s Bonneville and flipped, killing him at the scene when his pickup truck landed on him while he was being ejected out of the passenger-side window.

DeBenedetto’s family sued CLD Engineering Consultants, the engineering firm that redesigned the expansion of the intersection–not the road into or out of the Wal-Mart. The police officer who investigated the accident testified in defense of CLD, but a jury found them 49% liable, even though they were just following the dictates of the state Department of Transportation (2% liable). So CLD is on the hook for $2.6 million of a $5.2 million damages award. (John Basilesco, “Jury awards $2.6 million to family”, The Eagle-Tribune, Feb. 3; John Basilesco, “Officer: Sensors not to blame in traffic death”, The Eagle-Tribune, Feb. 1; Chris Markuns, “Widow’s work helps keep dangerous drivers in check”, The Eagle-Tribune, Jun. 7, 2000, John Basilesco, “Another senior who caused fatal crash may get only ticket”, The Eagle-Tribune, Nov. 11, 1999, John Basilesco, “Death caused by ill-timed traffic signal?”, The Eagle-Tribune, Jun. 2, 1999). It’s unclear whether the jury was permitted to consider the percentage fault of the settling parties. Or why, if the engineering firm was so at fault, other drivers stuck at the light over the previous years managed not to kill anybody.

The plaintiff’s expert, Ronald A. Morra, blamed CLD at trial. According to the press account, he had previously provided a sworn statement that the accident was the fault of the company that installed the signal control system, but changed his story–perhaps after that defendant settled with the plaintiff. (John Basilesco, “Traffic light timing focus of lawsuit”, The Eagle-Tribune, Jan. 28).

“$1.2 million? Thanks but no thanks”

At least 30 residents of the Downriver section of Wayne County, Mich., south of Detroit, “have rejected up to $550 per family member, which is their share of a $1.2 million settlement prompted when about 2,500 residents evacuated their homes during a July 2001 chemical leak. To be eligible, all they had to do was sign a form that said they been home in the affected areas of Grosse Ile, Wyandotte, Riverview or Trenton at the time of the leak. While some acknowledged that they weren’t home, several others said they didn’t support the lawsuit or deserve the money.” Trenton retiree Thelma Diemer says she wasn’t hurt and went shopping during the evacuation: “I didn’t feel I was being honest accepting the money and you have to think about the hereafter, especially when you’re 86.” (David Shepherdson, Detroit News, Feb. 4)(via National Review Online)

“Beware of Dog” sign? Take it down

“My ‘Beware of Dog’ signs came down years ago, after I interviewed an attorney who made a good piece of his living suing on behalf of dog-bite victims. Keeping a dog who is known to be vicious is a far more serious issue than having one who has never been a problem before. Putting up a ‘Beware of Dog’ sign, the attorney said, could arguably be an indication that a dog’s owners knew he was a problem.” (“Pet Connection” columnist Gina Spadafori, “Retrievers Rule: Beware of signs that lead to lawsuits”, syndicated/Sacramento Bee, Jan. 25) (via Common Good’s Society Watch). (& letter to the editor, Feb. 13).