Dr. Terry Bennett of New Hampshire, last seen in this space Aug. 25, 2005 facing disciplinary action from his state medical board for allegedly saying rude and insensitive things to a patient, has won a ruling from a judge ordering the board to stop those proceedings. The New Hampshire attorney general’s office represented the board before the court. Dr. Bennett says he won’t let the matter drop and plans to sue all concerned — not a surprise, somehow. (David Tirrell-Wysocki, “Court Says Stop Case Against Rude Doctor”, AP/RedOrbit, Jul. 7). GruntDoc comments (Jul. 11) and a website defending Dr. Bennett is here.
Archive for July, 2006
Upset at photo, sues high school yearbook editors
Tyler Bennett wore boxer shorts instead of a jock strap when playing basketball for Colts Neck High School, and a resulting action photo published in the school’s yearbook inadvertently revealed more (or perhaps less) than Bennett would have liked. Some students didn’t return the yearbooks when they were recalled the business day after they were released, and an opposing basketball player teased Bennett the next year. Bennett claimed untold emotional distress (though he never sought counseling or medical assistance for his trauma) and sued the school board, three officials, two teachers, the publishing company, and nine students; the latter have had to hire their own attorneys at their own expense if their parents didn’t have homeowner’s insurance. “Some of the students weren’t even editors. The yearbook at Colts Neck High School is produced by a journalism class and some noneditors in the class jumped into the “editors” picture before it was snapped for the yearbook. Not able to determine who was responsible for content, [attorney Steven] Kessel named everyone in the picture.” Bennett even threw in a child pornography charge.
The trial court tossed the case (though only after depositions and summary judgment briefing) and an appeals court summarily affirmed, but Kessel says he’ll appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which will add to the legal expenses of the defendants. Though the case was meritless, the court refused sanctions because the suit technically wasn’t “frivolous” because it wasn’t brought in “bad faith,” exhibiting once again the disconnect between the legal definition of “frivolous” in many states and the popular understanding of the adjective. (Henry Gottlieb, “Former Student Sues Over Revealing Yearbook Photo”, New Jersey Law Journal, Jul. 17; James Quirk, “Judge: Embarrassed ex-Colts Neck student has no claim in yearbook case”, Asbury Park Press, Jun. 24 (via Romenesko); Bennett v. Board of Education (unpublished)).
“Self-Described Drunkard Sues Strip Club That Sold Him Drinks”
Attorney Sabato DeVito, who represents Johnny Eugene Smith of Spring Hill, Fla., says his client might not have wrecked his Corvette if the Calendar Girls strip club hadn’t been so willing to indulge his taste for the bottle.
University of Florida law professor Lars Noah told the Times the suit isn’t frivolous, but it’s unlikely to go far in the legal system.
“It’s kind of surprising that any lawyer worth his salt would take a case like that,” Noah said. “I’m partly to blame for that, I guess. We’re churning them out.”
(WFTV, Jul. 17).
Changing planes in U.S.? II
While I oppose laws banning online gambling as ludicrous public policy in a world with government-run lotteries that return sixty cents on the dollar, I don’t see the controversy (also Hurt) over arresting someone indicted for breaking those laws when they step foot on US soil. If Osama bin Laden were foolish enough to take a commercial flight from Karachi to Caracas that changed planes in Dallas, federales could surely arrest him while he was waiting in line at the Orange Julius. Airports don’t convey some sort of diplomatic immunity.
That said, as a public policy matter, America should perhaps be less inclined to assert jurisdiction for victimless Internet crimes committed over international borders, lest we lose the ability to defend the free speech rights of American citizens to discuss issues of religion or politics barred in other countries. And in conjunction with the NatWest Three extraditions (ably discussed by Kirkendall), one fears a European perception of the US as a nationwide judicial hellhole unsuitable for business dealings, much the same way an American might view doing business in Russia. Already, international companies are choosing to raise capital in international financial markets outside the US where once they went to New York, a problem discussed by Larry Ribstein and Henry Butler in a recent AEI book on Sarbanes-Oxley.
Separately, with respect to the new federal interest in focusing scarce resources on gambling, one wonders if Rep. Jefferson is hoping that he shredded his March Madness pool entry before the FBI searched his office. And see also Mankiw v. Passey (via Taylor).
Changing planes in U.S.? “Travel with a lawyer”
The feds arrested BetOnSports chief executive David Carruthers while he changed planes at Dallas/Fort Worth en route to Costa Rica, charging that his company accepts bets from U.S. residents in violation of federal law. One British view of the implications: “it now looks as if chief executives need ‘lawyerguards’ especially when venturing into risky legal territory such as the US.” (Times (UK) law blog, Jul. 18; Philip Robinson, Dominic Walsh and James Doran, “FBI and tax officials in BetOnSports probe”, The Times Online, Jul. 18; Jacob Sullum, Reason “Hit and Run”, Jul. 18 and Jul. 19; Radley Balko, Cato at Liberty, Jul. 18; Kirkendall, Jul. 19). More on the authorities vs. online gambling: Jun. 19; Nov. 18, 2005, Aug. 9, 2004, etc.
YouTube lawyer ads
This injury-lawyer ad (big explosions, wow) and this one (William Shatner endorsement) appear to be real. On the other hand, this one (“Have you forgiven someone for something you shouldn’t have forgiven them for?” and this one (dog lawyer) and this one (trips over potential client) are just parodies (via Bainbridge). Check the YouTube “lawyer” category for more, and maybe get there quickly, before the copyright lawyers get too busy (K.C. Jones, “Journalist Sues YouTube For Copyright Infringement”, TechWeb/InformationWeek, Jul. 18; “YouTube wanders into copyright mire”, Out-Law/The Register (U.K.), Jul. 19). More: Jul. 21.
New London Times column: MySpace suit
I’ve got a new online column up at the British paper, my second. I discuss the recent lawsuit seeking to blame the social-networking site for not providing a virtual chaperone for a 14-year-old Texas user who went out on an inadvisable date. (Walter Olson, “Teens, sex, and MySpace”, Times (U.K.), Jul. 18). For earlier coverage of the MySpace suit, see Jun. 21, Jun. 23, and Jun. 26.
Update: Potemkin species in Sebastopol
Readers may recall the brouhaha last year when a federally protected plant, the Sebastopol meadowfoam, was discovered growing on the grounds of a controversial proposed housing development in the Northern California community; state wildlife officials investigated and said it was apparently planted on purpose. (May 25, 2005). Now the plant has sprung up again on the site, and although opponents of the project have seized on the news, the developer says it’s just a result of the germination of seeds from the earlier illicit plantation. (Terence Chea, “Trouble in bloom at Calif. development site”, AP/Boston Globe, Jul. 17).
Update: damages in Ill. justice’s libel suit
So how exactly do you build a case for high damages when the alleged defamation (see Jun. 22) hasn’t dislodged you from the bench and it will be a good long while before your term expires? Well, your lawyer can talk about how you were thinking of stepping down to become a highly paid rainmaker at a Chicago law firm, and so maybe the defendant newspaper should have to compensate you for what your hired economist says is the value of that. Besides, you were thinking of securing an appointment as a federal judge. And what if the Illinois voters decide to throw you out down the road — isn’t the lost salary from that something the defendant should have to pay you for, too? (Eric Herman, “Justice’s libel suit figures his losses”, Chicago Sun-Times, Jun. 10)(via Lattman).
ATLA’s attack on reform supporters
Evan Schaeffer was very excited by the fact that ATLA made its Trial magazine attack on reform freely available on line, so I clicked over to see what the fuss was. The first story I looked at was Justinian Lane’s “Corporate wolves in victims’ clothing,” which featured, among various baseless assertions and screeds about high executive salaries, the following strawman:
And the next time someone brings up Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s coffee case, ask why a $2 million lawsuit over third-degree burns to a woman’s genitals is frivolous, but a $5 billion lawsuit over Donald Trump’s ego isn’t.
Fascinating. What fictional reformer supports Donald Trump’s lawsuit? Certainly not the main author of this site, who has repeatedly scoffed at it. Where’s the hypocrisy? (More on Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s coffee case, which was frivolous, but is hardly the only reason for supporting reform.) Needless to say, I’m not impressed. Lane’s claim that proposed reforms wouldn’t affect Trump’s case is absolutely false; reforms such as anti-SLAPP laws, loser-pays, procedural streamlining, and limiting forum-shopping would all cabin the ability of a Trump to attempt to use litigation to intimidate critics.
Lane asks why reformers argue that “the king’s-ransom salaries ‘earned’ by corporate executives aren’t passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, but that the costs of the tort system are.” There’s a difference, of course: a consumer can object to high CEO salaries by refusing to invest in a corporation’s stock or to purchase its products or services. But a consumer who buys a car can’t opt out of the huge expenses trial attorneys have added to every motor vehicle in America—$500 for every vehicle sold in America. Tom LaSorda, the CEO of Chrysler, doesn’t make $500 for every vehicle, even if one finds his salary objectionable for some reason. But as long as Lane is criticizing the “hypocrisy” of reformers, one wonders if he’ll turn the same searching eye complaining about high salaries to the multi-millionaire trial attorneys he lauds who, unlike the executives, make their money by destroying wealth and jobs rather than creating wealth and jobs.