Archive for 2006

“Not About The Money” files: $175 million suit against BGE

One of our favorite clichés is repeated in a tale of a lawsuit over a tragic electrocution. Because it’s BGE’s fault Gary Dart’s trailer caught on fire, because, after all, powerlines never go down during a snowstorm without negligence. Good thing it’s not about the money, or they might have asked for a lot more than $175 million. The attorney is Dave Ellin. (Joseph M. Giordano, “BGE Is Sued Over Electrocution”, Dundalk Eagle, Mar. 27). Because BGE is a regulated utility (whose maintenance budget is set in negotiations with the governmental public utility commission), the expenses of the lawsuit, including any damages, will eventually be passed on to local ratepayers. (Update: or not. See comments.)

Search engine index

Six of the eight most expensive Google AdSense search terms are for attorneys (the other two are for mortgage and loan refinancing), with “mesothelioma lawyers” topping the charts at $54.33. A regularly updated page can be found here. (CyberWyre blog, Mar. 23 (h/t Slim)). Earlier search-engine follies: Apr. 8, 2004; Nov. 18, 2004.

(“McDonalds coffee lawsuit” [sic] goes for $0.67, which is a shame, because the top ten links all refer back to ATLA’s propaganda on the subject. Perhaps if our blogging readers could link to our coverage…?)

Update: Clearly, there’s a lot of competition for that “mesothelioma lawyer” keyword, given the $54.33 price; this is because there is a lot of easy profit to be made on mesiothelioma cases by lawyers: there are so many defendants, and so many cases, that attorneys and defendants find it cheaper to settle for nuisance sums, which add up quickly to an automatic profit for the attorney, even if the case is tried and lost against recalcitrant defendants who dare to expose themselves to lottery litigation (cf. also POL Jun. 10, 2005). The interesting question is what market failure has occurred such that this gigantic profit is not being competed away by, say, offering clients a smaller attorneys’ fee. This is surplus that should be going to clients, not to Google. Is there collusion not to lower attorneys’ fees? If consumer advocates cared about consumers, rather than attorneys, we might see some investigation into the matter.

I’ve refused to publish a few comments. Reasons why in the jump.

Read On…

Tried to outrun subway train, wins $1.4 m

By a 4-3 vote, New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, has voted to uphold a $1.4 million jury award against the New York City Transit Authority on behalf of Juan Soto, who after a night of drinking with friends decided to trespass on the elevated subway roadbed at Queensboro Plaza and then failed to outrun a #7 train that came up behind. (Pete Donohue, “Loses to train & wins big”, New York Daily News, Mar. 25). Per a New York Daily News editorial, “To justify paying him, the court credited Soto’s testimony that he could tell how fast he was running because he often ran on a treadmill, and based on that speed some hired expert said the motorman should have been able to stop before hitting him.” (“A court runs off the rails”, Mar. 25)(Soto v. New York City Transit Authority, PDF).

County 25% responsible for employee’s murder of husband

In a sensational 2002 murder trial with echoes of the film “American Beauty”, Kristin Rossum was found guilty of poisoning husband Gregory de Villers and trying to make his death look like a suicide. Now a lawyer for de Villers’ family has convinced a jury that Rossum’s employer, San Diego County, should be held 25 percent responsible for $6 million in resulting wrongful-death damages. Rossum had access to lethal drugs through her work as a toxicologist for the county, and had not been subject to background screening; she relapsed into methamphetamine use a week before the murder. “It is not the duty of the county of San Diego to prevent a wife from murdering her husband,” said Senior Deputy County Counsel Deborah A. McCarthy, who predicted that the county would succeed in overturning the verdict on appeal. “If this case stands, it will expand public liability in a way the state of California never envisioned.” (“Millions of Dollars Awarded to Family of Man Killed by Toxicologist Wife”, North County Times, Mar. 20)(via Childs). Update Jul. 2: judge cuts verdict.

Update: trial win rates understate success of ADA plaintiffs

Seven years ago the American Bar Association’s disability-rights commission released a study advancing the notion that the federal courts are unreasonably hostile to claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act; the study, as I described it back then, “purportedly found employers winning 92% of ADA lawsuits and almost as high a share of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission proceedings”. The study was roundly criticized, by me and others, for grossly understating the actual success rate of ADA plaintiffs, who most commonly obtain settlements rather than final court disposition of their claims.

Just to bounce the rubble on this particular point, one may note a study published in the Mental & Physical Disability Law Reporter in the May/June issue of last year, by academics who appear (in contrast to my own views) to be enthusiasts for litigation under the ADA. In “Prevalence and Outcomes of ADA Employment Discrimination Claims in the Federal Courts“, Kathryn Moss (University of North Carolina) and co-authors Michael Darren Ullman, Jeffrey W. Swanson, Leah M. Ranney and Scott Burris conclude that “published case decisions create a misleading impression of ADA outcomes”; in particular, “plaintiffs received a beneficial outcome (mostly through settlement) in 62% of cases.” High defendant win rates are, in fact, a very poor guide to whether money is frequently changing hands or other concessions being made by targets of the suits.

A fix for orphan copyright?

In today’s WSJ, Jerry Brito and Bridget C.E. Dooling propose that Congress “create an affirmative defense — along the lines of fair use — for those who copy a work after trying unsuccessfully to locate the copyright owner. …Of course, the user should have to share any future profits with the rightful owner of the work, but he should not have to face the stiff statutory penalties of copyright infringement that now prevent so many orphan works from being used. This would also give copyright owners who value their works an incentive to make themselves relatively easy to be found.” (“Who’s Your Daddy?”, Mar. 25, sub-only). For more on the legal problems occasioned by works whose original creators are unknown or untraceable, see Apr. 14 and Jul. 26 of last year.

Update: Maine jury hammers Hagens Berman

Seattle’s best-known plaintiff’s firm gets a huge black eye and is told to pay $10.8 million : “The jury unanimously found Wednesday that lawyers from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP violated their duty of loyalty to three small water bottlers that in 2003 were close to settling a claim with Nestle Waters North America, the owner of Poland Spring Water Co.” For more about the case, see Mar. 20 and links from there. “Jurors will return to federal court next week to settle the issue of punitive damages.” (“Jury awards more than $10 million in water bottlers’ lawsuit”, AP/Boston Globe, Mar. 23; Vanesso Ho and Mike Lewis, “Seattle law firm told to pay $10.8 million”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Mar.24; Lattman, Mar. 24).

Update: Corrie family’s suit against Caterpillar

The parents of Rachel Corrie, the protester who died at 23 when she attempted to block an Israeli bulldozer from demolishing a Palestinian home, are appealing a federal judge’s decision to throw out their lawsuit against Peoria-based Caterpillar Inc., which manufactured the bulldozer (Mar. 16, 2005). (Gene Johnson, “Rachel Corrie’s family appeals lawsuit against bulldozer-maker”, AP/Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Mar. 23). Were courts to invite lawsuits against companies for lawful sales of this sort, they would open up many opportunities for litigants to use tort law as a surrogate sanctions mechanism against foreign governments, even though in our constitutional scheme it is Congress and the executive branch, rather than the courts, which bear the responsibility of weighing the policy considerations in favor of or against such sanctions.

“Extra-special education at public expense”

The amazing industry that has sprung up to advance parents’ demands that schools accommodate their “learning-disabled” offspring is an old story around these parts (see here and here, for example). Even so, the San Francisco Chronicle’s recent investigative report can provoke a gasp:

* Even though federal, state and other sources already spend more than $4 billion a year to subsidize the provision of special education in the state of California, school districts in the state still shift more than a billion dollars out of their regular school budgets to pay for accommodation demands that include “private day schools, boarding schools, summer camps, aqua therapy, horseback therapy, travel costs, personal aides” and dolphin therapy.

* Administrators at Woodside High on the Peninsula offered a 15-year-old with learning disabilities and anxiety “daily help from a special education expert” as well as “a laptop computer, extra time for tests — and an advocate to smooth any ripples with teachers. If an anxiety attack came on, he could step out of class.” Not good enough for his parents, who decided to send him to a $30,000/year private school in Maine. Their lawyer demanded that the district pay not only the tuition but also for the whole family’s repeated cross-country travel costs to visit him there.

* Schools routinely buckle under to demands they regard as unreasonable, not only to avoid the expense of litigation but because the law tilts against them; a single procedural misstep in the hugely complicated process can leave them liable for damages and hefty legal fees. Since secret settlements are common, taxpayers may find it hard to grasp the extent of the monetary hemorrhaging.

* “It’s a blank check,” said [Paul] Goldfinger, vice president of School Services. “The system is stacked so that one segment of the population — disabled children — has first call on funding, and the others get whatever’s left.”

Infuriating reading (Nanette Asimov, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 19). (& see Mar. 31 post, where comments continue).