David Giacalone (following up on earlier comments by Denise Howell and others) expects careless and ethically lax attorneys to face a Google nemesis (Mar. 7).
Ford’s $31 million sweetheart verdict
The famously pro-plaintiff jurisdiction of Zavala County, Texas once again lived up to its reputation the other day when one of its juries returned a $31 million verdict against the Ford Motor Co. in the case of the rollover of a 2000 Explorer which killed two occupants and injured two others. Legal commentators around the web are abuzz about the most remarkable angle of the story, namely that until deep into the trial Ford did not learn that one of the jurors, Crystal City city manager Diana Palacios, was the girlfriend of Jesse Gamez, one of the lawyers on the team of plaintiff’s attorneys headed by Houston’s Mikal Watts. Ford also presented evidence that Palacios, incredibly, had actually solicited two of the crash victims for her boyfriend to represent. Nonetheless, Judge Amado Abascal refused to declare a mistrial, instead dismissing Palacios from the jury and issuing a supposedly curative instruction to the remaining jurors. David Bernstein, Tom Kirkendall and John Steele comment. (John MacCormack, “Juror’s relationship with lawyer stalls Ford trial”, San Antonio Express-News, Feb. 23). (Addendum: one of John Steele’s readers has drawn his attention to this 1997 Texas Supreme Court opinion which co-stars the very same Mr. Gamez and Ms. Palacios in a Norplant case — very curious stuff.)
The other issues raised by the verdict, however, deserve attention as well. The accident was caused by the speeding of the vehicle’s driver, and none of the four occupants was wearing a seat belt; all were ejected. Attorney Watts (Apr. 12-14, 2002) advanced the theory that the injuries were Ford’s fault because it should have used laminated instead of conventional glass in the side windows as a sort of substitute restraint system. (John MacCormack, “Zavala jurors hit Ford for $28 million”, San Antonio Express-News, Mar. 2). Notes the Detroit News:
Ford said laminated glass wouldn’t have kept the women from being ejected and was hardly ever used in side windows when the vehicle was made.
“At that time, 99.9 percent of all vehicles made by all manufacturers, through the 2000 model year, had the kind of tempered glass used in this vehicle,” Vokes said. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration doesn’t require laminated glass in side windows, she said.
(“Explorer suit costs Ford $31 million”, Detroit News, Mar. 3) AutoBlog has a short write-up with a good comments section; note in particular comment #22, on one possible safety advantage of not using laminated glass on cars’ sides. More: Mar. 22, May 13, May 16, May 29.
Office “love contracts”
Continue on the upswing, reports the NLJ. The use of such contracts is “not a majority rule yet, but it’s increasing,” according to April Boyer of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham’s Miami office, while Stephen Tedesco, a partner in the San Francisco office of Littler Mendelson, says he’s “completed hundreds of the contracts for his clients over the past few years”. (Lindsay Fortado, “Workplace ‘Love Contracts’ on the Rise”, National Law Journal, Mar. 3). See Dec. 3-5 and Dec. 31, 1999, May 3, 2000, and Dec. 10, 2001, among other entries on our harassment-law page.
Welcome New York Times readers
Legal correspondent Adam Liptak quotes me in a Sunday Week in Review piece on the prospect that lawyers, restrained from asking for unlimited non-economic damages, will instead seek and obtain higher economic damages from juries. I should make clear for the record, by the way, that despite my quoted remark expressing one reason to be skeptical that such limits can be readily gotten around, I haven’t yet seen Columbia law prof Catherine Sharkey’s forthcoming paper, and intend to keep an open mind about it. (Adam Liptak, “Go Ahead. Test a Lawyer’s Ingenuity. Try to Limit Damages”, New York Times, Mar. 6).
Update: Mississippi “60 Minutes” suit
More than two years ago (see Dec. 16-17, 2002), following a CBS “60 Minutes” installment exposing “jackpot justice” in Jefferson County, Mississippi, two former jurors struck back with an intimidating lawsuit against the network and two local interviewees. Now Ted reports at Point of Law (Mar. 4) that the Fifth Circuit has affirmed the suit’s dismissal by a federal district court; that court “assumed jurisdiction after it found that state defendants had been fraudulently joined in an attempt to defeat federal jurisdiction”.
Cited in House report
The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2004 didn’t pass (though it’s been reintroduced) but Rep. Sensenbrenner’s majority report for the House Judiciary Committee nearly gave us (well, okay, nearly gave Stuart Taylor, Jr.) the chance to make permanent legislative history (see footnote 81).
U.K.: No moor tourists, please
Don’t make plans to visit Vixen Tor on Dartmoor any time soon: “The owner, Mary Alford, was afraid of being sued by members of the public who injured themselves on the tor, which was named after Vixana, a witch who reputedly died there and was turned to stone.” (Richard Savill, “Owner asked to restore access to Vixen Tor”, Telegraph (U.K.), Mar. 5).
More: Via Decs & Excs, Mar. 6, comes word that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has now called for a “real debate over risk”:
Mr Blair said that the fears of public service workers over the potential for a US-style litigation culture had made a deep impact on him.
“I was quite shocked to be told by people who were running a nursery that they were worried about letting the kids out into the playground when it was wet, in case one of them slipped and fell and they ended up having a legal case,” he said.
“We have got to look at a way of getting people protection on that.”
(Andrew Woodcock, “Blair Questions ‘Needless Panic’ over Issues”, The Scotsman, Mar. 5). For more on the “compensation culture” debate, see our U.K. page.
A logical place for a bus stop
That is, except for the ADA implications, or so MNKurmudge hears (Dec. 17).
Zulu Coconut Suit
Remember those “Zany Immunity Law Awards” from the “Center for Justice and Democracy” that complained that Louisiana gave immunity from suit for some injuries from thrown Mardi Gras prizes? The law was passed in 1987 when liability fears stopped the Zulu Krewe from the popular tradition of tossing decorated coconuts. But the lawsuits continue claiming to fit within the loopholes, and though Zulu, which had already limited itself to handing coconuts out, usually wins them, they’re having trouble finding affordable liability coverage because of the cost of defending the suits. “‘We’re protected by the law,’ said Gary Thornton, chairman of Zulu’s governing board, ‘but it doesn’t stop people from filing lawsuits against us.'” At least five other krewes have been sued for this year’s Mardi Gras over other thrown prizes. (Leslie Williams, “Girl hit by Zulu coconut sues krewe”, New Orleans Times-Picayune, Mar. 1; “Zulu reigns supreme as crowd favorite”, Louisiana Weekly, Feb. 7) (via RiskProf).
McCain-Feingold
Expect it to begin serving soon as the basis for regulation of bloggers’ political speech, predicts Brad Smith of the Federal Election Commission. (Declan McCullagh, “The coming crackdown on blogging” (interview with Bradley Smith), CNet/News.com, Mar. 3). Michelle Malkin has a roundup of reactions (Mar. 3). More: Prof. Bainbridge follows up (Mar. 6).