When police officers drive drunk

When police officers are caught driving drunk, they naturally incur especially severe consequences, since it’s vital that they set an example of respect for the laws, and since recklessness is an especially dangerous trait to tolerate in persons who are issued public guns and given arbitrary authority over the lives and liberty of others.

Just kidding! For what really happens to police officers caught driving drunk, at least in one big metropolitan area, see this investigative series (week of Aug. 6) in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (via Ed Brayton). And for reminders of the law’s attitude toward ordinary citizens caught in the same circumstances, see, for example, Aug. 13, 2004, Apr. 19, 2005, and Dec. 2, 2005 (& welcome Instapundit readers).

City council spat: meter passes $700,000

Suburban Seattle: “A lawsuit accusing four current and former Shoreline City Council members of holding illegal secret meetings two years ago to oust the city manager and decide on his replacement could mean a few hundred dollars in fines for the politicians if they lose.” The legal fees, however, have already mounted to the $700,000 mark with no end in sight, as the parties prepare for a trial. Plaintiffs say the matter could have been settled early with an apology and a small fine; defendants say principle is at stake and that the suit is a way for their disgruntled opponents to cause trouble. (Jim Brunner, “Potential legal tab in Shoreline council lawsuit ‘ridiculous'”, Seattle Times, Sept. 13). And more: case settles for $159,000 (“Shoreline to pay $159,000 to settle open meeting lawsuit”, Sept. 14).

September 13 roundup

“Should Trial Lawyers Make Terror Policy?”

Ted has a new essay out by this title in AEI’s Liability Outlook series (Sept. 11). To quote from the conclusion:

One can debate the appropriate role for each of the three branches in the post-9/11 world in coordinating domestic and foreign policy in responding to terrorism. But one matter should be beyond debate. Individual litigants in individual cases should not be able to use the combination of civil liability rules and the power of the civil courts to interfere with larger national policy. Congress can disagree with the executive branch, but should do so through legislation, rather than abdicating its responsibilities to trial-lawyer proxies. Civil liability is a poor tool for deterring suicide bombers, and civil anti-terrorism laws are bound to have their greatest effect when used against innocent parties.

Imus lawsuit: nevermind

Kia Vaughn, the Rutgers basketball player who filed a defamation lawsuit against Don Imus over his “nappy headed hos” comment, has withdrawn her suit:

Vaughn’s attorney, Richard B. Ancowitz, said in a statement yesterday that the junior from the Bronx decided not to pursue the suit so she could focus on academics and training for the upcoming season. Rutgers, which made it to the NCAA championship game last season, is expected to be one of the top teams in the country.

“Her strong commitments to both (academics and basketball) have influenced her decision to withdraw the suit at this time,” Ancowitz said in the statement. “We feel that we have made a strong and important statement against such hateful speech with the filing of this lawsuit.”

Translation: “Whoops. This case might be a little harder to win than I thought.”

I think the Overlawyered discussion thread (Aug. 15) about the case lasted longer than the lawsuit.

New owner for West Virginia water slide

Mike Wallace, a 41-year-old Charleston attorney, completed his bucolic riverfront playground with a 53-foot-long metal slicky slide from a defunct water resort, and spared no expense of cranes, trucks and barges to get it there. And the irony isn’t lost on him: “I’m a trial lawyer and it was probably trial lawyers that shut that place down.” Guests? “I’ll probably ask people to sign a release.” When the lake resort that had formerly owned the slide closed down in 1987, “its owners said astronomical rises in liability insurance forced their decision”. (Monica Orosz, “Slide from old Rock Lake Pool gets new life on river”, Charleston Daily Mail, Sept. 7)(& thanks to Eric Turkewitz for correcting “slicky slide” from the worse than nonsensical “sticky slide”, which I’d originally typed) .

More managers being sued personally

It’s not just organizations and enterprises who have to worry about these things, as the National Law Journal takes note in a trend story:

An increasing number of executives, managers and other company leaders are being sued personally for their work-related decisions….

“State laws are constantly being broadened and liberally construed by the courts to allow for potential lawsuits against individuals,” said Thomas Lewis, chairman of the employment litigation group at Stark & Stark in Lawrenceville, N.J. In the last five years, Lewis has seen a 50 percent increase in his own practice defending executives in personal lawsuits.

“[Plaintiffs’ attorneys’] desire is to strike fear into the executive to try and force a settlement,” he said.

Plaintiffs attorneys don’t see it that way. “Sometimes you’ve got to hit the executive between the eyes with a lawsuit,” said S. David Worhatch, an employee rights attorney in Stow, Ohio, who is currently handling a half-dozen employment-related lawsuits targeting individuals directly….

“Individuals will think twice before engaging in such conduct if they realize they can be personally exposed to liability.” he said….

Ginger McRae, an employment law expert who testifies in employment lawsuits and consults businesses on employment practices… noted that “[i]n the past few years, I’ve definitely seen more of a trend to this, and definitely in the state cases where there are state tort claims. That is where the plaintiffs lawyers really have the most freedom to name who they want.”

Plaintiffs attorneys note that state courts are easier venues in which to try personal lawsuits, largely because state discrimination and employment laws are looser than federal ones and allow for individuals to be held personally liable for various workplace violations.

Query: where the story reads “Plaintiffs attorneys don’t see it that way,” wouldn’t it make more sense for it to have read “Plaintiffs attorneys see it exactly the same way”? (Tresa Baldas, “Employment Litigation Gets Personal for Company Managers”, National Law Journal, Aug. 16).

“Limits proposed on fast-food restaurants”

“Amid worries of an obesity epidemic and its related illnesses, including high blood pressure, diabetes and heart disease, Los Angeles officials, among others around the country, are proposing to limit new fast-food restaurants — a tactic that could be called health zoning.” Zoning restrictions on fast-food outlets in towns such as Concord, Mass. and Calistoga, Calif. are typically based on traffic or aesthetic concerns, rather than a determination to second-guess what residents choose to eat. The proposed L.A. restrictions would not be city-wide but would instead be specifically targeted to the city’s poorest sections in and around South Central. Mark Vallianatos, director of something called the Center for Food and Justice at Occidental College (more about it), says “bringing health policy and environmental policy together with land-use planning” is “the wave of the future.” (Tami Abdollah, L.A. Times, Sept. 10)(via FEE).