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.
Archive for 2006
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.
Update: “Victims and Families United”
Judy Buckles, one of the “founders” of the Astroturf group Victims and Families United (Feb. 20, 2004, Sep. 13, 2004) has suddenly discovered that the prominent plaintiffs’ firms of Madison County may not have plaintiffs’ best interests at heart, and is suing prominent asbestos firm SimmonsCooper for allegedly shortchanging her in its representation of her and her late husband. That she’s represented by the Lakin Law Firm suggests interesting machinations afoot in the county. (Steve Gonzalez, “Victims’ advocate sues asbestos attorneys for gypping her”, Madison County Record, Jul. 13; “Pawn Shop”, Madison County Record, Jul. 16).
Update: municipal Crown Victoria suits
Class action lawyers were suing Ford Motor claiming to represent Illinois municipalities that regretted buying the popular police model. Then Ford announced that it would decline to sell the car to towns that were suing over it. Now, according to the Illinois Civil Justice League, close to 1,000 municipalities have elected to opt out of the action — one sign among several that it was ill-conceived from the start. More here, here and here (cross-posted from Point of Law).
DVD bonus material captioning
Lawyers filed a class action on behalf of deaf consumers against Hollywood studios that labeled DVDs as closed captioned but failed to note that “bonus material” on the disks lacked captioning. According to the terms of the proposed settlement:
The Settling Companies have denied liability, but have agreed to settle this action to avoid litigation by, in the future, providing captioning or closed captioning of bonus material on major categories of DVDs they distribute over the next five (5) years, paying $275,000 to certain non-profit organizations dedicated to advocacy for deaf and hard-of-hearing persons, and paying attorneys’ fees and costs (including any incentive award to named plaintiff) up to $1,300,000…
More here. Toronto accessibility advocate Joe Clark thinks the settlement doesn’t go far enough, while enriching the lawyers who pursued it.
Chicago subway fire: pay up for terrorism fears
Personal injury lawyers filing the first lawsuits arising from a July 11 fire and derailment on the Chicago Transit Authority’s Blue Line “said their clients’ damages may be greater than normal due to initial fears that the accident was a terrorist attack.” Attorney Dan Kotin of Corboy & Demetrio, representing plaintiffs, “said the timing of the accident might have magnified their emotional distress. ‘Coming just hours after the subway bombings in India, these women were convinced that they were under attack,’ Kotin said.” Kotin’s clients were treated and released at a hospital at the time; how badly hurt are they now? “I think we’re going to learn over the course of time that the emotional suffering is far worse than the physical pain.” Oh. (Michael Higgins, “First lawsuits filed in subway fire”, Chicago Tribune, Jul. 12).
Botched police raids
Radley Balko has a new report out for Cato (press release)(more). Check out a botched raid near you.
“If something went wrong, we could be sued”
In Great Britain, a nursing home spokeswoman explains why visitors are allowed to bring in cakes and other baked goods only when they’re store-bought, not homemade. (Nanny Knows Best (U.K.), Jun. 14)(via Nobody’s Business). Other food menaces averted: Dec. 13, 1999 (homemade pies), Jan. 29, 2001 (cookies), Feb. 1-3, 2002 (figurines in New Orleans king cake), Apr. 15, 2004 (potluck dinners).