Some years back, observing that such old-line health non-profits like the American Lung Association, American Heart Association and American Cancer Society had vocally backed tobacco product-liability litigation along with other bad causes, I suggested the National Kidney Foundation as a major health charity to which one could donate in good conscience without fearing that one might be undermining the cause of liberty and personal responsibility (Reason, Aug./Sept. 1997). Whoops! Virginia Postrel makes me realize I may have been off base with that one (Jun. 2, Jun. 4). Oh well, there’s still the admirable anti-cleft-palate Smile Train.
Archive for 2006
O’Reilly radio today
I’m scheduled to be a guest on Bill O’Reilly’s radio program today, shortly after noon Eastern time, to talk about the role of judges.
America’s most litigious
Sometimes they’re doctors: “Since 2001, [Dr. Elizabeth] Rohr has filed at least 900 pages of lawsuits, court records show. There are 14 lawsuits bearing Rohr’s name in the Denton County database.” (Ben Tinsley, “Litigious doctor busily adds to court dockets”, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, May 2)(via KevinMD).
“Woman says crash led to fetus’ death”
$61 million for racial slurs
Federal Express drivers Edgar Rizkallah and Kamil Issa, both of Lebanese descent, say the nasty epithets from their manager went on for two years, which means the award works out to $15 million per epithet-year, $290,000 per slur-week, or $40,000 per imprecation-day. It was divided between $11 million in compensatory damages to the two men and $50 million in punitives. The jury assessed $1 million in damages personally against the supervisor, Stacy Shoun, terminal manager for the FedEx Ground facility in Oakland. He’ll certainly think twice about behaving that way again, won’t he? (Jordan Robertson, “Jury awards $61 million to two FedEx drivers in harassment suit”, AP/San Francisco Chronicle, Jun. 3). Update Oct. 2: judge reduces award to $12.4 million.
Thanks to Don Boudreaux
…for joining us the past week as a guestblogger. You can follow Don’s writing regularly at CafeHayek.com, “where orders emerge”. P.S. And thanks for the thanks.
Update: Calif. shakedowns
The New York Times “Small Business” section looks at how Garden Grove, Calif. liquor store owner Vinod Kapoor fought back when targeted by attorney Harpreet Brar, famed for his lawsuits demanding legal fees from small businesses over alleged regulatory infractions (see Aug. 20, 2002, Jul. 22, 2003, Nov. 1, 2004). Included are some updates:
In February, Judge Polos [Peter J. Polos of Orange County Superior Court] sent Mr. Brar to jail for two weeks for violating his order [not to name multiple businesses in one suit], calling him “an extortionist.”
Mr. Brar said his experience in jail was a “nightmare,” which he said included watching several inmates be beaten by guards. Mr. Brar said he planned to represent several of them.
On April 16, Mr. Brar was suspended from practicing law for 30 days and placed on probation for two years for filing a frivolous motion and appeal against the attorney general and for using the courts as a delaying tactic, according to Kristin Ritsema, one of several supervising trial counsels at the state bar.
“I think he is a huge threat to the public,” Ms. Ritsema said.
Another local liquor store owner, Herve Domange, who is from Paris, said: “You couldn’t do this in France. In France, these lawsuits would not be possible. But I don’t want to say too much. I’m afraid I might get sued.” (Regan Morris, “Picking the Wrong Mom and Pop to Sue”, New York Times, Jun. 1).
Computer game design overtime claims
Electronic Arts has agreed to pay $15 million to settle a lawsuit brought on behalf of software engineers alleging that they should have been classified as hourly workers for purposes of paying overtime, but the “victory” is of a double-edged nature since the beneficiaries will lose access to stock options as well as bonuses. Earlier, EA agreed to pay $16 million to settle overtime claims on behalf of graphic artists. (Nicole C. Wong, A&E Interactive (Mercury News), Apr. 25). See Mar. 29, 2000; also various Point of Law posts.
Update: Canadian residential schools litigation
“Lawyers who have been representing survivors of Canada’s residential school system are expected to get the biggest payment ever recorded for a Canadian class action case.” The federal government will pay about C$80 million in fees, of which half will go to the Regina-based Merchant Law Group and half to a consortium of other lawyers. (“Lawyers set to be paid $80M in school abuse deal”, CTV, May 8; “School abuse deal includes $80M for lawyers”, CBC, May 8). The fees are part of a $2 billion deal intended to resolve portions of the litigation over the federally-sponsored, church-run Indian schools, which were originally accused of permitting the infliction of physical and sexual abuse on some of their students; later the litigation expanded to include charges of “cultural deprivation” and alienation on behalf of thousands of Native Americans who attended the schools, which were geared toward assimilation into Canadian culture (FAQ from CBC on settlement). More: Aug. 23-24, 2000.
Sen. Clinton’s Untimely Proposal
As a means of conserving oil, Sen. Hillary Clinton wants Uncle Sam again to mandate a maximum speed limit of 55 MPH. Presumably she’s aware that lowering the speed limit will cause us to spend more time on the roads and less time at our destinations.
But on her website, Sen. Clinton expresses concern that Americans are strapped for time: “Today’s families are often stretched thin – working to make ends meet while also trying to carve out time to care for their young children and aging relatives.”
Assuming consistency across her various policy positions, we can conclude that Sen. Clinton is confident that the value of the time that a 55 MPH speed limit will force us to waste on the roads is worth less to us than oil we’ll save by driving more slowly.
Let’s explore. Assume that the typical car on the road today gets 25 miles per gallon on the highway and that a gallon of gasoline costs $3.00. Further assume (rather generously) that driving more slowly will increase the typical car’s fuel efficiency from 25 mpg to 35 mpg.
On highways where the speed limit currently is 75 MPH, reducing the speed limit to 55 MPH will cause a driver to cover 20 fewer miles in one hour of driving. To travel these 20 miles at 55 MPH will take 21.82 minutes. That is, the distance a driver covers in one hour driving at 75 MPH requires 81.82 minutes to cover while driving at 55 MPH.
At today’s average hourly wage rate for non-supervisory workers of just over $16 — but let’s call it an even $16 — this 21.82 minutes is worth $5.82. (That is, working at a wage rate of $16 per hour, a worker will earn $5.82 in 21.82 minutes of work.)
But how much does the driver save, fuel-cost-wise, by driving more slowly?
Driving at 75 MPH (and getting 25 mpg) costs the driver $9 of gasoline per 75-miles driven. (Remember that gasoline is priced at $3 per gallon.) Driving at 55 MPH (and getting 35 mpg) costs the driver $6.42 of gasoline per 75-miles driven.
In short, for every 75-miles covered on a highway, reducing the speed limit from 75 MPH to 55 MPH will save a driver $2.58 in fuel cost — and this assuming that the increase in fuel efficiency of the average car caused by the lower speed limit is a whopping 10 mpg. But the resulting greater time on the road will cost a driver earning the average non-supervisory wage $5.82 worth of his or her time per 75-miles driven.
The net cost to the average worker driving the average car will, under the above reasonable assumptions, be about $3.24 per 75-miles driven. Not a good deal, Sen. Clinton.
……
Here’s a challenge for a clever student: assume (as is reasonable) that an enforced speed limit of 55 MPH will cause the price of gasoline at the pump to fall. By how much would it have to fall (under the above assumptions) in order to make the $$$ saved on gasoline exceed the $$$ value of the extra time spent driving?