So devastated, in fact, that even years after her husband Gary walked out on her for another woman, Sherry Leskun was too transfixed by the injustice to tackle the job market: a British Columbia court ruled that she was “bitter to the point of obsession with his misconduct and in consequence has been unable to make a new life.” Reason enough to maintain support payments at a level set to compensate for her lack of earnings? The Supreme Court of Canada is expected to decide soon. (Bruce Cheadle, “Supreme Court set to rule on whether a cheating spouse is debilitating”, CP/Maclean’s, Jun. 20).
Archive for June, 2006
Michigan drug liability law
Trial lawyers in Michigan continue to agitate for repeal of the law, which, uniquely among the 50 states, affords manufacturers a defense in product liability actions for pharmaceuticals marketed in compliance with FDA regulation. At the Manhattan Institute (with which I’m associated), a new report from the Trial Lawyers Inc. project defends the law (“The Move to Reverse Michigan’s Model Reforms”, June). Also see Point of Law, Apr. 11.
On Hellholes
Madison County plaintiffs’ lawyer Evan Schaeffer writes, partially tongue in cheek:
Meanwhile, I’m working on a propaganda campaign of my own. I’m going to take ATRA’s term and turn it on its head. Rather than “judicial hellholes,” I’ll be focusing on those jurisdictions in which the playing field is tilted in favor of big business. I’m calling them “consumer hellholes.” What do you think?
Unfortunately for Evan, there will never be a proper analogue; in these hypothetical “hellholes”, even if they exist, consumers that prefer a court system unfairly biased towards plaintiffs can completely avoid the effects of reform by moving to such a jurisdiction. If tort reform really makes people worse off, then people will leave the states with reform for the states where the plaintiffs’ bar controls one of the three branches. In contrast, businesses have very little power to avoid being sued in judicial hellholes; and consumers who don’t live in the judicial hellhole have little ability to escape the detrimental effects that the hellhole has in crafting nationwide liability. The $500 “tort tax” on automobiles that covers the cost of the liability system has to be paid whereever a car is sold because the manufacturer can’t bar the buyer from taking the car into the hellhole forum.
What bothers the ATLA-ites is that consumers have shown that they prefer tort reform, and the benefits tort reform brings: judicial hellholes are consumer hellholes, because we all bear the costs of runaway litigation and its effect on the economy.
Philip Morris gets (some of) its money back
AP reports that the Illinois Supreme Court has released $2.15 billion of the gigantic, and almost bankrupting, appeal bond (Oct. 11, 2004; Apr. 2003) Philip Morris posted for the right to successfully appeal an absurd $10.1 billion Madison County judgment. (Dec. 15, 2005 and links therein.) Another $6 billion note awaits the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the certiorari appeal.
Update: Mirfasihi II
We covered the Seventh Circuit’s refusal to countenance in Mirfasihi v. Fleet Mortgage a collusive class-action settlement that benefited the attorneys but not the class members in January 2004; after remand, the parties went through the motions of jumping through hoops and returned with an economically identical settlement. The Seventh Circuit was not amused.
Interesting, and all too typical, statistic: out of the $2 million settlement pot, there were only $276,000 in claims filed by 190,000 class members, who apparently didn’t feel especially injured by Fleet Mortgage’s alleged wrongful practices of selling them products through telemarketing. (I wouldn’t oppose the death penalty for telemarketing, but that’s just me.)
“Big law firm picks up Little Guy in sweep for defendants”
In March 2004, the Kansas City law firm of Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan filed a class action against 63 defendants for supposedly overcharging for mortgage fees. The firm, however, confused Wall Street banking behemoth Salomon Brothers with developer Berton Solomon’s “Solomon Brothers” St. Louis commercial real-estate company and sued the latter. (This was a double mistake since Salomon Brothers hasn’t existed since 1997, and is now part of Citibank after at least two name changes and two mergers.) Unfortunately, the plaintiffs refused to immediately drop Solomon from the suit, and he ran up (a remarkably cheap) $4000+ in legal expenses in the seventeen months of legal proceedings before he was finally dropped, $4000 that Walters Bender is refusing to pay. They’re not very happy about being sued in small claims court, and are fighting that suit, even though it will cost them more to do so than to pay Solomon’s bills. (Bill McClellan, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jun. 18).
Without a settlement, Solomon is unlikely to recoup his costs in the absence of showing malice, a required element in Missouri law; lawyers are immune from the consequences of mere negligence, because, they’ll be happy to explain, such liability might deter productive activity like scattershot lawsuits. If only the same protections applied to, say, practicing medicine or providing jobs or producing goods.
“Federal Judge Tosses $240,000 Verdict in Age Bias Lawsuit”
Sears says it fired 50-year-old Gunnar Steward because of poor performance. Steward claims it was age discrimination, and sued. Sears noted that Steward’s job tasks were split amongst a 60-year-old, 45-year-old, 35-year-old, and 33-year-old. Notwithstanding a jury verdict of $241,000, Judge Rueter threw out the case because the 43.25 year age average was less than seven years younger than Steward, insufficiently younger to constitute discrimination based on age. (Rueter also noted the lack of evidence that Sears’s reason for firing Steward was pretextual.) Plaintiff’s attorney Carmen R. Matos suggests there will be an appeal; the Third Circuit has previously held nine-year and eight-year age differences to constitute possible discrimination. (Shannon P. Duffy, Legal Intelligencer, Jun. 20). Such hair-splitting demonstrates a general problem with the age discrimination laws.
Deep pocket files: landlord’s fault apartment resident let in a stranger
Shortly after 7 am on July 11, 1992, Y.M.’s doorbell rang in her Lefrak City project apartment. Y.M. opened the door without asking who was there or checking her peephole. Unfortunately for her, at the door was one Lawrence Toole, who (allegedly?) raped and beat her at knifepoint. This was, according to Y.M.’s suit, the fault of her landlord and its security service for allowing Toole into the building. The Court of Appeals of New York (the high court of that state) held that Y.M. stated a cause of action. “More discovery is warranted to discern how foreseeable a risk [Toole] was and what measures defendants had in place to deal with him.” Mason v. U.E.S.S. Leasing Corp. was decided in 2001: anyone know how this case was resolved on remand?
“Meddlesome busybodies” of the CSPI
Steve Chapman finds that the “science” of the misnamed Center for Science in the Public Interest in its KFC suit isn’t actually the sort that should be relied on too heavily, and observes:
…the health dangers of an occasional Extra Crispy drumstick are anywhere from negligible to nonexistent. But letting CSPI decide what’s best for all of us? Now, that’s risky.
(“Extra crispy chicken and deep-fried panic”, syndicated/Tracy (Calif.) Press, Jun. 19).
Meanwhile, carried along on a tide of credulous press coverage, CSPI says it’s thinking of suing Starbucks over its overly calorie-laden wares (“Starbucks May Be Next Target of Fatty-Fighting Group”, Reuters/FoxNews.com, Jun. 19). Amy Alkon is not impressed (Jun. 19), while Radley Balko (Jun. 17) picks up on perhaps the ripest absurdity in the report:
The union contends that Starbucks staff gain weight when they work at the chain. They are offered unlimited beverages and leftover pastries for free during their shifts.
“This is why organized labor is so important,” he adds. “Otherwise, who’s going expose Starbucks’ exploitive practice of giving its employees free stuff?”
Watch what you tell your hairdresser, cont’d
The official recruitment of cosmetologists as informants (and as intermediaries steering customers to approved “domestic-violence” programs) continues, with programs reported in Florida, Idaho, Oklahoma, Virginia, Ohio and Maine, as well as Nevada and Connecticut (see Mar. 16 and Mar. 29, 2000). It’s not just black eyes or lacerations that the salon employees are supposed to be on the lookout for, either. A customer’s protestation that “he would not like that”, as a reason to turn down a new hairstyle, might be a sign of “controlling behavior” that needs watching. (“Salons join effort to stop violence”, Bangor Daily News, Jun. 15) (via van Bakel).