I have an op-ed in today’s New York Sun on shenanigans in recent Vioxx litigation, and what it means to the calls for a “global settlement.” For more on the Vioxx litigation, see our ongoing coverage at Point of Law.
Update: David Bernstein comments.
Five Mississippi plaintiff families wanted to claim their children’s learning disabilities were the fault of a lead paint manufacturer. Unfortunately for them, the parents also had learning disabilities (and some were even considered retarded by social workers), and the defense (led by Kirkland & Ellis’s Michael Jones) was able to successfully argue that genetics was at least a likely cause as environment. (Sheila Byrd, AP, Aug. 4; Townhall.com, Jul. 13). Undeterred, the plaintiffs’ attorney, Michael Casano, plans to bring further lawsuits on behalf of other residents of the decades-old apartment buildings.
It’s been nearly two decades since NHTSA refuted the concept of sudden acceleration, yet state courts are still permitting junk science experts to put forward irreproducable theories of electromagnetic interference taking over cruise control. Seventeen-year-old Sonya Thomas claims EMI caused her automobile to take off, causing her to lose control and kill a passenger and paralyze herself. Of course, rather than turn the cruise control off or hit the brakes, Thomas unbuckled her seatbelt and reached under the seat to unstick a gas pedal, which is more consistent with her jamming the gas pedal under an upside-down floormat than anything else. Never mind: though belted passengers were uninjured in the 70-80 mph crash, the South Carolina state jury awarded $18 million to the plaintiffs, and the American automobile industry died a little bit more. (Paul Alongi and Jess Davis, “Cruise control led to crash, jury says”, Greenville News, Aug. 7; Julie Howle, “Jury begins deliberations in crash trial”, Greenville News, Aug. 6; Julie Howle, “Witness disputes seat-belt usage in crash”, Greenville News, Aug. 5; Julie Howle, “Jurors in lawsuit see hard evidence in 1999 rollover”, Greenville News, Jul. 25; “Jury Hears Claims Of Ford Explorer Problems”, WYFF4, Jul. 20).
(March 2010 update: Reversed.)
Christopher Berrier claimed, along with his for-hire medical experts, that his back injuries were solely the result of falling on a treadmill at a fitness club. The appeals court reversed because the trial court did not allow the defendant to question experts over Berrier’s previous “back injuries from playing football, a car accident and a fall down seven stairs at work.” (Reliable Development Corp. d/b/a The Fitness Barn v. Christopher Berrier, Jul. 31; AP, Aug. 2). Dr. Linda Stewart had testified that Berrier had absolutely no problem with his back before the date of the accident, so one can see the prejudice in not permititng cross-examination on this point.
Here’s a case where loser-pays would have helped the plaintiff. Municipal liability is capped in Florida at $100,000. The city lawyer for Hollywood, Florida, refused to settle an auto accident case for $85,000, though he acknowledges the defense case is weak, because he (correctly) saw little downside. Hollywood is also appealing the jury verdict for the plaintiff. “Why not?” (John Holland, “Rejected crash settlement could cost Hollywood more than $1 million”, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Aug. 4).
The New Jersey court’s opinion yesterday in Verni v. Harry M. Stevens ordered a new trial because of the unfairly prejudicial evidence introduced at trial. (Laura Mansnerus, “Court Overturns Jury Award Against Stadium Concessionaire”, NY Times, Aug. 4; Kibret Markos, “Paralyzed Cliffside girl may have to go through new trial”, NorthJersey.com, Aug. 4).
Plaintiffs sought to blame a drunk-driving accident several hours after a Giants game on stadium beer vendors, a feat eased when the drunk driver, Daniel Lanzano, settled with plaintiffs and changed his testimony to be consistent with their theory of the case. Lanzano drank at two go-go bars after the game. The court also noted the failure of the jury to be instructed to consider the relative liability of other settling parties that the plaintiffs had sued in a shotgun complaint, including the NFL, the Giants, Toyota, and Michael Holder, who committed the sin of drinking with Lanzano that day. We had provided extensive coverage from the beginnings of the suit: Oct. 10, 2003; Jan. 21, 2005; a must-read Feb. 2, 2005 post; Jun. 6.
Update: another aspect of the appellate court opinion is that it recognized corporate boundaries. The trial court sought to hold Aramark liable for alleged negligence of its subsidiaries.
I expect to be away for the next ten days or so. Aside from Ted’s contributions, one of our most popular past guestbloggers will be dropping by starting Monday to keep things interesting. Later in August, look for a second guestblogger, well known in the blogosphere but new to this site, to join us as well.
From Psychology Today, by Hara Estroff Marano: “Parents are going to ludicrous lengths to take the bumps out of life for their children. However, parental hyperconcern has the net effect of making kids more fragile; that may be why they’re breaking down in record numbers.”
Recommended reading: a year ago Common Good, National Constitution Center and the AEI-Brookings Joint Center on Regulatory Studies co-sponsored a conference in Philadelphia on “Lawsuits and Liberty” which I was fortunate to attend. Many of the papers were eventually published at the Common Good site and I can vouch for their being an interesting bunch. Read them by following the links here.
It seems someone has patented one. Per its description:
This game unabashedly introduces kids to the realities of being a legal eagle, including:
* crippling law school debt;
* outrageous hourly fees;
* filling your office with expensive and intimidating leather bound books;
* product-liability cash cows;
* and the hazy definition of “emotional distress.”
(Patently Silly, Oct. 19, 2004) More: LawsuitGame.com.