Archive for December, 2006

“Calculating damages: a formula for outrage”

Latest in the Tennie Pierce (firehouse dog food prank) saga: Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez finds reader sentiment heavily taking the view that the $2.7 million settlement figure is stark raving bonkers (Dec. 3). He speaks with Chief Assistant City Atty. Gary Geuss to get a feel for how the number was arrived at:

“The mediator said Pierce would be a good witness, his wife would be good and his daughter was going to get on the stand and start crying,” says Geuss….

In one case that went to trial two years ago, an L.A. cop got $4.1 million in a racial discrimination and retaliation case despite having made his own disparaging racial remarks.

Juries tend to jump at the chance to stick it to employers, Geuss said. When prospective jurors are asked if any of them have had issues with their bosses, “About 90% of the hands go up.”

Geuss began doing the math….

The L.A. Times’s news side, according to blogger Patterico, has begun belatedly acknowledging some of the flaws in Pierce’s case (Dec. 3; Jim Newton, “Dog food lawsuit a test for L.A. mayor”, Dec. 3). Earlier: Nov. 11, Nov. 22, Nov. 29, Dec. 2.

Guestbloggers welcome

The holiday season, like the summer vacation season, makes a traditional time to invite in guestbloggers to enliven the site. If you think you might enjoy posting in this space for a week, email editor – at – thisdomainname – dot – com. Those with a blogging track record, or at least a track record of published writing, get first consideration.

ADA week at Overlawyered

Disabled-rights law, which includes the Americans with Disabilities Act along with closely related laws like the Rehabilitation Act (mandating access in government programs) and state disabled-rights statutes, has been back in the news lately. Last week, for example, a federal judge agreed with plaintiffs that the current design of U.S. paper money violates the rights of blind users under the Rehabilitation Act. A California court, as Ted noted last week, issued a ruling attempting to limit (to intentional violations) the broad sweep of that state’s Unruh Act, while the Sacramento Bee recently published the latest of many exposes of “drive-by” accessibility-complaint rackets, which function as a money-making device for the lawyers involved, the complainants, or both.

There’s a good chance that the fitfully pursued debate over whether the ADA and similar laws have gone too far — or perhaps not far enough — will be heating up in the new year. That’s because, as ADA-friendly law professor Sam Bagenstos noted shortly after last month’s election (Nov. 13, via Secunda), disabled-rights advocates may see the balance of forces in Congress shifting favorably toward efforts to resume expansion of the law:

Since the Supreme Court’s 1999 trilogy of definition-of-disability decisions (Sutton, Murphy, and Albertson’s), many in the disability community have felt that it made sense to go back to Congress to get legislation to restore what the main sponsors of the law intended. …For a long time, the fear of opening up the ADA to even more restrictive amendments (like the ADA Notification Act) kept the disability community from mounting a full-scale effort to seek amendments to the statute….

So the natural question is what effect the change in control of Congress will have on this state of affairs. I think it’s now quite a lot more likely that some sort of “ADA Restoration Act” will pass — which isn’t to say that it definitely, or even probably, will pass. It would be smart political strategy for the Democrats in Congress to push issues that hold their party together but that divide the Republicans. Played right, the ADA could be one of those issues.

Indeed, as Prof. Bagenstos notes in his highly informative post, a number of prominent Republicans in Washington are already on record endorsing “ADA restoration” proposals.

Most of the expansion of this field of law in the past has gone on with little real debate or opposition (the ADA itself in 1990 passed the House by a margin of 377-28 and the Senate by 91-6, and Presidents Bush père et fils have been vocal supporters of the law). So in the spirit of, well, diversifying the debate on these laws, we’ll plan on posting something each day this week suitable for our Disabled Rights category.

Update: Saudis vow to sue tobacco companies

That prospective lawsuit by the very needy and deserving plaintiff, the government of Saudi Arabia, against international tobacco companies, discussed in this space Nov. 16, 2000 and Dec. 10, 2001, is apparently on again. (“Saudis threaten to sue tobacco companies”, Reuters/GulfNews, Nov. 30). Hans Bader at CEI’s Open Market (Dec. 1) deplores the action, but seems to imagine that 1) it might make more sense for American victims of 9/11 to sue the Saudis and that 2) this isn’t happening already (see Jul. 11, 2003, Sept. 26 and Nov. 6, 2004, and Oct. 12, 2005).

Hate crime laws

Editorial writer Michael McGough of the L.A. Times has come to dislike them:

If their overarching purpose is to affirm the equality of all people, then the law should punish all assaults the same, regardless of the race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability or veteran status of the victim. The “protected class” should be human beings.

(“There’s little to like about hate-crime laws”, Dec. 3).

Tree hazards, cont’d

This time from the U.K.: Simon Jenkins has some choice words in the Guardian about the tendency to turn a relatively rare phenomenon — injuries caused by tree falls — into the occasion for legal punishment, and the undesirable incentives this creates for those entrusted with the care of trees. (“Those who walk under trees are at risk from these terrorising inspectors”, Nov. 17). More on tree hazards: Jun. 11, Jul. 31 and Nov. 27, 2006; Apr. 30 and Jul. 19, 2005; Nov. 16, 2004; Mar. 12, 2002.

December 2 roundup

  • Tennie Pierce update: only 6 out of 15 members vote to override mayor’s veto of $2.7M dog-food settlement (Nov. 11). [LA Times]
  • Reforming consumer class actions. [Point of Law]
  • Judicial activism in Katrina insurance litigation in Louisiana. [Point of Law; Rossmiller; AEI]
  • What will and won’t the Seventh Circuit find sanctionable? Judge Posner’s opinion gets a lot of attention for snapping at the lawyers, but I’m more fascinated about the parts where the dog didn’t bark, which isn’t getting any commentary. [Point of Law; Smoot v. Mazda; Volokh; Above the Law]
  • Montgomery County doesn’t get to create a trio-banking system. [Zywicki @ Volokh and followup]
  • “The Hidden Danger of Seat Belts”: an article on the Peltzman Effect that doesn’t mention Peltzman. [Time; see also Cafe Hayek]
  • Pending Michigan “domestic violence” bill (opposed by domestic violence groups) criminalizes ending a relationship with a pregnant woman for improper purposes. [Detroit News via Bashman; House Bill 5882]
  • Did Griggs causes distortion in higher education? I’m not sure I’m persuaded, though Griggs is certainly problematic for other reasons (e.g., POL Aug. 12, 2004). [Pope Center via Newmark]
  • The Kramer cash settlement. [Evanier]
  • Jonathan Wilson gives Justinian Lane a solid fisking on loser pays. [Wilson]
  • Speaking of Justinian Lane, for someone who says he was “silenced” because I didn’t post a troll of a comment on Overlawyered, he’s sure making a lot of whiny noise. Hasn’t corrected his honesty problem, though. [Lane]
  • The stuff Gore found too inconvenient to tell you in “An Inconvenient Truth.” [CEI]
  • Islam: the religion of peace and mercy, for sufficiently broad definitions of peace and mercy. [Volokh]
  • One year ago in Overlawyered: photographing exhibitionist students at Penn. Jordan Koko doesn’t seem to have gone through with the threatened lawsuit. [Overlawyered]

James Lileks on copyright law

From his syndicated column (“Obliging the Entertainment Industry Poobahs”, Newhouse, Nov. 29):

Think of all the unauthorized copyrighted material you have in your head right now: Beatles tunes, Stephen King plots, images of Mickey Mouse.

Thief!

Well, you’re not exactly a criminal — but give it time.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act has just been amended again, and if the changes make the entertainment industry happy, that does not bode well for your future.

Tomorrow the law may be amended to prevent you from reading Doonesbury while moving your lips, since that’s an unauthorized reproduction that shifts content from one form to another….