- Debate on medical malpractice between Ted Frank (Manhattan Institute) and Shirley Svorny (Cato Institute) [PoL]
- Lawyers, accountants have done well from litigation-ridden Pearlman Ponzi aftermath [Orlando Sentinel]
- Book drop “inherently dangerous”, says rape victim’s family suing library designers [Florida, LISNews]
- “The iTunes Class Action Lawsuit You’ll Never Hear About”[NJLRA] “Jackson v. Unocal – Class Actions Find a Welcome Home in Colorado” [Karlsgodt]
- Another tot accused of sexual harassment, this time a first grader [Boston Herald, earlier (six year old’s “assault”)]
- Profile of lawyer who defends fair use of clips for documentary makers [ABA Journal]
Filed under: Apple, bankruptcy, Florida, harassment law, medical malpractice, movies film and videos
3 Comments
“The attack survivor,… pulled up to the book drop…, as she spoke with a friend on the cell phone. ”
Not the book drop that was inherently dangerous, but her lack of attention to her surroundings.
@ medical malpractice
The present medical malpractice system fails most of the victims of malpractice, while earning steady fees for the defense lawyers and sporadic fees for the plaintiffs’ attorneys. Defense verdicts on meritorious cases are widespread, and awards, if any, occur years after the patient is damaged. Defense attorneys always win and Plaintiffs’ attorneys win in the long run. A particular plaintiff, however, may or may not get anything.
On another note, eliminating or capping non-economic damages is not the solution. Pain and suffering is VERY real, and has a dollar value.
I heard a story through the grapevine a few years ago that a NYC hospital’s insurance reserves were in jeopardy because they injured the CEO of a high powered firm on Wall Street who was earning $20 million + per year and could no longer do so after the alleged malpractice. His injuries were purely economic, and precisely quantifiable. The hospital settled on dubious liability because they could not risk losing a several hundred million economic damages award that was not appealable.
Not only that, but from the article it isn’t clear that she had to get out of her car to use the book drop. The reason given for getting out of her care is that “she had books in the back seat”, which presumably she couldn’t reach from the front seat.