Notwithstanding Ted’s debunking post of Aug. 25 (see also Sept. 5), the press continues to take this subject seriously, complete with its supposed legal ramifications. (Jay Akasie, “‘Addiction’ to BlackBerries May Bring on Lawsuits”, New York Sun, Sept. 7). Jonathan Adler leads a discussion at Volokh Conspiracy (Sept. 7).
“If my client hadn’t been blind he wouldn’t have been arrested for dangerous driving”
That proved to be a losing argument for British attorney Timothy Gascoyne, who defended the sightless Omed Aziz from a charge of dangerous driving after Aziz was apprehended operating his Peugeot 405 in a wrong lane approaching oncoming traffic on the ring road in the West Midlands. The winning argument, which prosecuting attorney Peter Love got to make: “A blind man controlling a vehicle is inherently dangerous. A careful and competent driver would not dream of driving in this manner.” Aziz, of Wednesbury, drove for half a mile following the instructions of a friend in the passenger seat (who was also not a lawful driver) on braking and steering. (Nick Britten, “I’m perfectly safe on the roads, says blind driver”, Daily Telegraph, Sept. 5; “Blind man drove car for half-a-mile”, Western Mail, Sept. 5).
“As so often, aggressive IP lawyers trumped smart business strategy”
Virginia Postrel says Marvel Comics did itself no favors recently by taking a tough negotiating stance over The Atlantic’s proposed cover use of one of its images. (Sept. 6). I had no idea anyone was asserting trademark rights over the word superhero. (Corrected Sept. 10 to fix error about how The Atlantic was going to use the image — see comments.)
$2 million 9/11 fee under fire
“Laura Balemian, whose husband Edward J. Mardovich died in the World Trade Center, received one of the largest awards paid out by the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund: $6.7 million. But she in turn paid out what is almost certainly the highest legal fee. While the vast majority of victims were represented before the fund pro bono or for a nominal fee, Balemian paid her lawyer, Thomas J. Troiano, a one-third contingent fee, or over $2 million.” In an affidavit, 9/11 fund special master Kenneth Feinberg calls Troiano’s fee “shocking and unconscionable”, and says that fund guidelines recommend that attorney fees be kept under 5 percent of family recoveries; Troiano, however, says Mrs. Balemian knew what she was getting into and that his efforts produced outstanding results. (Anthony Lin, “Attorney’s $2 Million 9/11 Fee Called ‘Shocking, Unconscionable'”, New York Law Journal, Aug. 29; Alfonso A. Castillo, “9/11 widow battles over attorney’s fee”, Newsday, Sept. 1; MyShingle, Aug. 28).
Update: Story also covered in this American Justice Partnership publication (PDF).
Second British gambling CEO detained
“The chairman of British betting company Sportingbet, Peter Dicks, was detained by American authorities in the early hours of today in what is being seen as a further crackdown on online gambling. The detention of Mr Dicks, 64, comes just two months after David Carruthers, the chief executive of BetOnSports was arrested in Texas on alleged fraud and racketeering charges. Mr Carruthers, who has maintained his innocence, was on his way to the company’s offices in Costa Rica.” (Miles Costello, “Sportingbet boss detained in US”, Times Online (UK), Sept. 7). For our earlier coverage, see my Times Online column on Carruthers’ arrest as well as Jul. 20 and Jul. 27.
Jumps off pier on Ecstasy; dad wants $10M
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina: “Police said Jeffrey Rothman died in March 2001 at age 20 after jumping off Second Avenue Pier, and an autopsy determined that he had taken the drug Ecstasy and died accidentally. His father, David Rothman, charges that the police department did not follow proper procedures, did not treat the case as a possible homicide and showed a general lack of professionalism.” The senior Rothman, who is filing his suit without a lawyer, says it’s not about the money and talks of using the $10 million for charity. (Lisa Fleisher, “Trial date set in lawsuit against MB, police”, Myrtle Beach (S.C.) Sun-News, Aug. 24; comments at Fark).
Do new studies portend litigation rationality on vaccines?
Orac, whose blog has done much to rebut vaccine conspiracy theories published in the mainstream media, expresses hope (via Childs) that a new study showing the likelihood of autism increases with the age of the father will add to the weight of evidence showing that autism is genetic, rather than caused by vaccines.
Of course, Orac is presuming that litigation-driven theories and for-hire-expert testimony have any basis in rationality or science. We have known for nearly twenty years that “sudden acceleration” is much more likely to occur to elderly, new, or very short drivers, and demonstrating conclusively that it is purely a function of pedal misapplication, yet we still see lawsuits (and verdicts!) today alleging that (apparently age-discriminating) magnetic interference with defective cruise control causes accidents (e.g., Aug. 7).
Think Tank Town
I have a short op-ed in Washingtonpost.com on the eat-one’s-cake-and-have-it-too trend in civil litigation to attempt to undo contracts after the fact. (cross-posted at Point of Law)
But where are the customers’ Lamborghinis?
Houston plaintiff’s lawyer John O’Quinn, famed for his huge fee hauls in asbestos, tobacco and silicone breast implant cases, was the winning bidder at $500,000 at a Labor Day auction of a Lamborghini race car signed by celebrities. O’Quinn “also spent $335,000 on a Batmobile used in the film ‘Batman Forever.’ His other purchases at the auction included $250,000 for a 1938 Cadillac Town Car used by Pope Pius XII and $290,000 for a 1941 Packard limousine used by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.” (AP/Houston Chronicle, Sept. 5; Houstonist, Sept. 5)(title allusion).
Speak freely, until Friday
“As of Friday, when the 60-day blackout period for ‘electioneering communications’ by nonprofit interest groups begins, political speech will enjoy less protection than dirty movies. While a sexually explicit film is protected by the First Amendment if it has some socially redeeming value, an ‘electioneering communication’ is forbidden even if it deals with important and timely public policy issues.” (Jacob Sullum, syndicated/Reason.com, Sept. 6).