Councilman Joel Rivera, who heads the New York City Council health committee, likes that idea on grounds of protecting city residents from their own choices (as opposed to on grounds of protecting neighbors against traffic, litter, etc.) (“Councilman: Limit fast food places to fight fat”, AM New York, Jun. 21; Carl Campanile and Mathew Charles, “Make That Fast Food ‘To Go’: Council Big”, New York Post, Jun. 22; KipEsquire, Jun. 22; The Rant Shack, Jun. 22). Similarly, from Ireland: Feb. 17, 2004.
“Erin Brockovich Takes Role as Plaintiff in Medicare Suits”
For those who never expected to see the words “glamourpuss” and “Medicare” in the same sentence: “The onetime legal assistant, whose environmental crusade against a utility company inspired a hit movie starring Julia Roberts, has lent her name as plaintiff in lawsuits against several California hospitals and convalescent homes.” Two law firms, including Wilkes & McHugh, have engaged Brockovich as the public face of bounty-hunting “whistleblower” suits pursuing the adventuresome theory that hospitals defraud the government by accepting Medicare reimbursement for further medical care occasioned by their own earlier errors, even when no legal process has yet determined the earlier medical decisions to have been erroneous. The “lawsuits do not involve specific allegations of wrongdoing “. Ms. Brockovich is managed by the William Morris talent agency. (Daniel Yi, Los Angeles Times, Jun. 7). For much more on her activities, follow links from Nov. 3, 2005. Update Nov. 18: federal judge in San Diego tosses two suits.
Lawsuits it would be prudent not to become involved in
An example: one would not wish to be sued for defamation by the chief justice of one’s own state, as is happening at the moment to the Kane County Chronicle, which is facing a lawsuit from Illinois Supreme Court Justice Bob Thomas over a series of critical columns in the suburban paper. Noway, nohow would one wish one’s name to turn up as the defendant in such an action (Christi Parsons, “Chief justice doesn’t just get mad, he sues”, Chicago Tribune, Jun. 18).
Disney World ride fatality
Writes Prof. Childs (Jun. 15) of the lawsuit over the death of a four-year-old hours after taking part in the Mission:Space ride:
Setting aside the allegation of a failure to respond properly (about which I know nothing), the lawsuit presents a fairly fundamental question in amusement litigation: when a ride does exactly what it is supposed to do, and when that action is well-disclosed to riders and is safe for the vast majority of people, who, if anyone, is responsible when that action causes foreseeable injuries to people with unknown preexisting conditions?…
As for a warnings claim, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a ride with such thorough signage.
Update: Tony Twist $15M verdict upheld
We covered the case—where a hockey player complained that a comic-book character had the same name—on July 13, 2004. Todd MacFarlane still has the chance for discretionary review by the Missouri and U.S. Supreme Courts, though the former has already ruled against him once. Eugene Volokh will be sure to have insightful commentary on the First Amendment implications; here’s his earlier take, predicting a “good chance” of Supreme Court review and reversal. Beyond the First Amendment implications, the damages are ludicrous.
Another McDonald’s coffee urban legend
The McDonald’s coffee case came up in a comment-board discussion of the MySpace suit on the WSJ Law Blog, and, as is common thanks to a tremendously successful propaganda campaign by the plaintiffs’ bar, a law student popped up to “debunk” the story. He justified the ludicrous award by arguing that the coffee was so hot to “melt the plaintiff’s pantyhose to her skin.” Well, that is rather hot coffee, if true, since the melting point of nylon is hundreds of degrees higher than the boiling point for coffee, so I would have no problem holding McDonald’s liable if they were selling coffee at a temperature where it ceases to be liquid or solid.
Of course, it’s not true that the coffee was so hot to melt pantyhose (and Stella Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants), but one looks forward to Jonathan Turley decrying this urban legend that’s distorting the debate over legal reform.
By reader acclaim: MySpace sued over alleged assault by date
On MySpace, a 19-year-old Texas youth approached a 14-year-old girl; his profile claimed that he was a high school senior on the football team. She says that following a series of emails and phone calls, she went out with him and their evening on the town culminated in his sexually assaulting her, for which Rupert Murdoch should pay $30 million as owner of the social networking site. Still to come: suits against shopping malls, ice cream shops and music venues for providing environments in which older teens can approach younger ones and sweet-talk them into eventual dangerous situations. (Claire Osborn, “Teen, mom sue MySpace.com for $30 million”, Austin American-Statesman, Jun. 20). Prof. Childs has more, here and here, as do Joanne Jacobs, KipEsquire and Shakespeare’s Sister.
Devastated by cheating spouse
So devastated, in fact, that even years after her husband Gary walked out on her for another woman, Sherry Leskun was too transfixed by the injustice to tackle the job market: a British Columbia court ruled that she was “bitter to the point of obsession with his misconduct and in consequence has been unable to make a new life.” Reason enough to maintain support payments at a level set to compensate for her lack of earnings? The Supreme Court of Canada is expected to decide soon. (Bruce Cheadle, “Supreme Court set to rule on whether a cheating spouse is debilitating”, CP/Maclean’s, Jun. 20).
Michigan drug liability law
Trial lawyers in Michigan continue to agitate for repeal of the law, which, uniquely among the 50 states, affords manufacturers a defense in product liability actions for pharmaceuticals marketed in compliance with FDA regulation. At the Manhattan Institute (with which I’m associated), a new report from the Trial Lawyers Inc. project defends the law (“The Move to Reverse Michigan’s Model Reforms”, June). Also see Point of Law, Apr. 11.
On Hellholes
Madison County plaintiffs’ lawyer Evan Schaeffer writes, partially tongue in cheek:
Meanwhile, I’m working on a propaganda campaign of my own. I’m going to take ATRA’s term and turn it on its head. Rather than “judicial hellholes,” I’ll be focusing on those jurisdictions in which the playing field is tilted in favor of big business. I’m calling them “consumer hellholes.” What do you think?
Unfortunately for Evan, there will never be a proper analogue; in these hypothetical “hellholes”, even if they exist, consumers that prefer a court system unfairly biased towards plaintiffs can completely avoid the effects of reform by moving to such a jurisdiction. If tort reform really makes people worse off, then people will leave the states with reform for the states where the plaintiffs’ bar controls one of the three branches. In contrast, businesses have very little power to avoid being sued in judicial hellholes; and consumers who don’t live in the judicial hellhole have little ability to escape the detrimental effects that the hellhole has in crafting nationwide liability. The $500 “tort tax” on automobiles that covers the cost of the liability system has to be paid whereever a car is sold because the manufacturer can’t bar the buyer from taking the car into the hellhole forum.
What bothers the ATLA-ites is that consumers have shown that they prefer tort reform, and the benefits tort reform brings: judicial hellholes are consumer hellholes, because we all bear the costs of runaway litigation and its effect on the economy.