Updating our May 1, 2005 item: by a 6-1 majority, Australia’s High Court has rejected claims on behalf of two disabled persons whose lawyers argued that they deserved compensation from their mothers’ doctors for allegedly failing to provide information that would have led the mothers to terminate their pregnancies (Peter Gregory, “‘Wrongful life’ claims thrown out”, Melbourne Age, May 9).
Archive for May, 2006
Update: Lanny Vines
RothCPA (May 12) has an update on a favorable ruling that the Alabama trial lawyer won in Tax Court. Earlier coverage: “Tangled Vines”, Aug. 20, 2004. More: Ryan Mahoney, “Lanny Vines is back in action”, Birmingham Business Journal, Feb. 17, 2003.
First lawyer indicted in Miss. fen-phen probe
“A Jackson attorney has been indicted on charges accusing him of helping individuals submit false settlement claims for the diet drug Fen-Phen, according to the U.S. Attorney’s office. Robert Arledge, who was employed by Richard Schwartz and Associates during the time the indictment covers, is the first attorney charged in the ongoing federal investigation.” The false submissions generated more than $8 million in settlements in attorneys’ fees, prosecutors say. (Jimmie E. Gates, “Jackson lawyer indictment in Fen-Phen probe”, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, May 26; “Vicksburg attorney indicted in scam”, May 27). For more on the Mississippi fen-phen scandal, see Feb. 8 and many earlier links.
Blood-alcohol levels? Why bring those up?
“Margaret Petraski was legally drunk when a Cook County sheriff’s squad car raced through an intersection and slammed into her vehicle, authorities said. …Late Tuesday, a Cook County jury decided Petraski should receive $26.8 million for the injuries she endured in the 2001 crash — believed to be the biggest verdict of its kind.
“But the jurors who delivered Tuesday night’s verdict never heard about the 0.11 blood-alcohol level hospital officials say Petraski registered after the Memorial Day accident. A driver is considered drunk if the blood-alcohol level is 0.08 or greater.” Judge Richard Elrod* ruled that Petraski’s blood-alcohol sample wasn’t reliable enough to be admitted, because it was taken from a dried sample, and Petraski’s lawyers further argued that no expert had given testimony linking her alcohol intake to the accident, which occurred when a police officer sped through a red light in response to a non-emergency call. However, even without being told about Petraski’s alcohol level, jurors declared her 25 percent to blame for the crash, because she “misjudged the turn and should have anticipated the officer was going fast”. (Steve Patterson, “$26.8 million for victim in cop collision”, Chicago Sun-Times, May 25).
* Bonus trivia point for law buffs: Judge Elrod is the same Elrod who figures in the heading of Elrod v. Burns, a famous U.S. Supreme Court case on the Constitutional status of political patronage.
“At one arbitration, there were 35 lawyers”
What happens when buyers discover their expensively bought condos aren’t really any more solidly built than plain old apartments? For one thing, lots and lots of litigation (Karen Youso, “Luxury living or glorified apartment?”, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, May 22)(via Housing Bubble).
“This used to be Montana…”
Animal rights activists on the march against owners and breeders of dogs and other animals in Bozeman, Montana, and Albuquerque, New Mexico (Stephen Bodio’s Querencia, May 24).
Latest newsletter
It’s time you told a friend about Overlawyered’s free periodic newsletter (we assume you’ve long since subscribed on your own behalf). The latest installment went out to subscribers yesterday, summarizing highlights of recent postings in terse yet wry style. To read the latest issue — or to join or leave the list, change your address, etc. — visit this page (requires Google registration).
“Nine years of litigation for 3.5 miles of fence”
David Frum expresses skepticism over the short-term efficacy of fence-building—and prints an email pointing out the impossible position employers are in if employer sanctions are enforced.
Meanwhile, Robert Novak reports that the Senate immigration bill gives guest farm workers the civil-service-style right not to be fired except for just cause and puts them under Davis-Bacon, opening up whole new possibilities in employment litigation. What precisely makes this Congress Republican? As an Instapundit reader notes, the Davis-Bacon language might be a poison-pill provision to de facto end immigration hiring, since immigrants would cease to have a wage advantage. Then again, Title VII wouldn’t be half as broad as it is today if Southerners hadn’t inserted poison-pill provisions they mistakenly thought would crater the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
A Deficit of Understanding
As readers of my regular blog Cafe Hayek know, I’m obsessed — perhaps even too obsessed — with straightening-out the widespread and deep misunderstanding of the so-called “trade deficit.” One blog-post is no place to review this misunderstanding, much less to correct it. (I recommend this essay as a place to begin if you’re interested in learning the rudiments of this concept.)
But let’s review just one simple point: if the U.S. trade deficit (more properly called the “current-account deficit”) increases, this fact means that foreigners are investing relatively more in the United States — investing more in dollar-denominated assets — than Americans are investing in foreign assets.
Here’s a letter that I sent today to the Wall Street Journal, exposing (or so I fancy) an especially egregious instance of this misunderstanding:
25 May 2006
Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281Dear Editor:
AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka says that an undervalued yuan increases both America’s current-account deficit with China AND “the flood of investments by U.S and other multinational companies” into China (Letters, May 25).
This allegation reveals Mr. Trumka’s colossal misunderstanding of international-trade concepts. America’s current-account deficit with China grows as the volume of Chinese investments in America increases relative to the volume of American investments in China. How can the price of the yuan (or anything else!) cause Americans to invest less in China and more in China simultaneously?
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Were Gasoline Prices Too Low in 2002?
I’m delighted, and honored, that Wally Olson has invited me to guest blog at Overlawyered.
…………………..
I’ll write a few posts on the recent rise in gasoline prices. I begin, though, with a remembrance.
In early 2002 I testified twice before two committees of the Virginia legislature. The solons of this Great State were considering legislation aimed at keeping the price of gasoline from being too low.
The specific concern was that two regional convenience-store chains (Sheetz, and Wawa) charged prices at their pumps that were unfairly low – so low that mom and pop gasoline retailers of brands such as Exxon, Texaco, and Shell were on the verge of being put out of business.
Of course, the argument included the prediction that once the helpless likes of ExxonMobil, Texaco, and Shell were run from the State, Sheetz and Wawa would share monopoly power over gasoline retailing in Virginia. The only way to avoid this awful outcome, said the mom’n’pops, was for the legislature to prohibit unfair price cutting by gasoline retailers.
Fortunately, sanity prevailed. Virginia’s legislature refused to outlaw gasoline price-cutting. But they did seriously consider doing so.
I relate this story to put the current gasoline-price hysteria in perspective. For most of the past 20 years, whenever Uncle Sam wasn’t at war in the Persian Gulf, the price of gasoline hasn’t been terribly high. A mere four years ago Virginia and several other east-coast states actually took seriously the argument that these prices might be too low.
Things have changed…. and in ways that provide abundant fuel for future blog-posts!