Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Driver only 49% responsible for running red light

71-year-old Doris Christous had just left a Wal-Mart in New Hampshire when she decided that she was waiting too long for a red light to change–so, rather than waiting for a safe right turn, she darted out across five lanes of traffic against the light. Unfortunately, David DeBenedetto was driving through a green light at the time, hit Christous’s Bonneville and flipped, killing him at the scene when his pickup truck landed on him while he was being ejected out of the passenger-side window.

DeBenedetto’s family sued CLD Engineering Consultants, the engineering firm that redesigned the expansion of the intersection–not the road into or out of the Wal-Mart. The police officer who investigated the accident testified in defense of CLD, but a jury found them 49% liable, even though they were just following the dictates of the state Department of Transportation (2% liable). So CLD is on the hook for $2.6 million of a $5.2 million damages award. (John Basilesco, “Jury awards $2.6 million to family”, The Eagle-Tribune, Feb. 3; John Basilesco, “Officer: Sensors not to blame in traffic death”, The Eagle-Tribune, Feb. 1; Chris Markuns, “Widow’s work helps keep dangerous drivers in check”, The Eagle-Tribune, Jun. 7, 2000, John Basilesco, “Another senior who caused fatal crash may get only ticket”, The Eagle-Tribune, Nov. 11, 1999, John Basilesco, “Death caused by ill-timed traffic signal?”, The Eagle-Tribune, Jun. 2, 1999). It’s unclear whether the jury was permitted to consider the percentage fault of the settling parties. Or why, if the engineering firm was so at fault, other drivers stuck at the light over the previous years managed not to kill anybody.

The plaintiff’s expert, Ronald A. Morra, blamed CLD at trial. According to the press account, he had previously provided a sworn statement that the accident was the fault of the company that installed the signal control system, but changed his story–perhaps after that defendant settled with the plaintiff. (John Basilesco, “Traffic light timing focus of lawsuit”, The Eagle-Tribune, Jan. 28).

Filed under: ,

“$1.2 million? Thanks but no thanks”

At least 30 residents of the Downriver section of Wayne County, Mich., south of Detroit, “have rejected up to $550 per family member, which is their share of a $1.2 million settlement prompted when about 2,500 residents evacuated their homes during a July 2001 chemical leak. To be eligible, all they had to do was sign a form that said they been home in the affected areas of Grosse Ile, Wyandotte, Riverview or Trenton at the time of the leak. While some acknowledged that they weren’t home, several others said they didn’t support the lawsuit or deserve the money.” Trenton retiree Thelma Diemer says she wasn’t hurt and went shopping during the evacuation: “I didn’t feel I was being honest accepting the money and you have to think about the hereafter, especially when you’re 86.” (David Shepherdson, Detroit News, Feb. 4)(via National Review Online)

Filed under: , ,

“Beware of Dog” sign? Take it down

“My ‘Beware of Dog’ signs came down years ago, after I interviewed an attorney who made a good piece of his living suing on behalf of dog-bite victims. Keeping a dog who is known to be vicious is a far more serious issue than having one who has never been a problem before. Putting up a ‘Beware of Dog’ sign, the attorney said, could arguably be an indication that a dog’s owners knew he was a problem.” (“Pet Connection” columnist Gina Spadafori, “Retrievers Rule: Beware of signs that lead to lawsuits”, syndicated/Sacramento Bee, Jan. 25) (via Common Good’s Society Watch). (& letter to the editor, Feb. 13).

“Music Industry Sues 83-Year-Old Dead Woman”

“Gertrude Walton was recently targeted by the recording industry in a lawsuit that accused her of illegally trading music over the Internet. But Walton died in December after a long illness, and according to her daughter, the 83-year-old hated computers.” (AP/ABCNews, Feb. 4). Glenn Reynolds (Feb. 5) guesses that it’s another “bot-based complaint” (more).

Filed under: ,

“The ad FOX won’t run”

If you’ve spend much time browsing weblogs lately, you’ve probably noticed the near-ubiquitous blog ad, placed by a trial-lawyer-allied group, complaining that Rupert’s minions won’t air their broadcast commercial supportive of medical malpractice suits. But the blog ad conceals a rather significant fact about the controversy, as I point out at Point of Law this morning. Lots of other good new stuff there too, including Ted on revelations of silica/asbestos double-dipping; a new column by Stuart Taylor, Jr. critical of the tort reform ideas popular at the moment in Congress (Jim Copland summarizes); welcoming a new weblog on international law; Vioxx and the quest for “smoking guns”; a P.R. exec is chosen to head ATLA; and Ted on historic preservation.

Filed under:

NY Times op-ed: city gun-liability law

I’ve got an op-ed in today’s New York Times criticizing the new Gotham law, signed by Mayor Bloomberg last month, which presumes to impose liability for street crime on gun manufacturers and dealers unless they adopt a strict “code of conduct” for their sales nationwide, not just in New York City. I note that it will add impetus to the drive in Congress for a law pre-empting abusive gun lawsuits. The new law “insults the right to democratic self-governance of the 273 million Americans who don’t live in New York City. …The mayor and City Council of New York seem to think they can make laws that bind the rest of the country. That’s an arrogant stance — and when the rest of the country is heard from, it’s apt to be a losing stance as well.” The piece is part of the Times’s new geographically zoned Sunday op-ed program and ran in city but not suburban editions of the paper. (Walter Olson, “The wrong target”, New York Times, Feb. 6). For the other side, here’s the press release and bill description from the measure’s sponsor, Councilman David Yassky, the city council’s press release (PDF), and the bill text. (bumped Sun. evening 2/6) Update Feb. 20: Yassky responds.

Filed under: , , ,

If the government wants to save money, it could start here

Logan Young loves Alabama football. He loves it so much that he paid a Memphis-area high school coach $150,000 in exchange for the coach steering a top recruit to Alabama. This act was certainly immoral and violated about twenty NCAA violations. But because the coach works for a public school, the act was also bribery of a state official. And so the federal government prosecuted Young under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), and convicted him for conspiracy, bribery and money laundering. (AP, “Shady boosters can now fear federal prosecutors,” (Feb. 5); “The real outrage was Young’s conduct,” Birmingham News, Feb. 6). Was this really the best use of government resources? RICO, a statute originally targeted at organized crime, has been extended far beyond this purpose and is now used to go after abortion protestors and immoral boosters. I do not agree with what Logan did, but I would argue that the detriment to society is not so great to warrant such an expenditure of tax dollars and judicial resources.

Filed under: , , ,

Irate sports parent ends up in court

A few days ago I noted that a high school coach landed a $700,000 victory against an out-of-control parent (Feb. 4). Now another irate sports parent has ended up in court. Demetri Antoniou approached a player he felt was threatening his son and warned him to “stay away from my (expletive) kid.” “The Dec. 10, 2001, incident was over in a matter of seconds. The man…never made contact with the boy…” But the parents of the boy he approached took offense and filed a lawsuit for unspecified damages. “Antoniou’s attorney says his client admits that he said things he now wishes he hadn’t. But he denies threatening Hale and thinks a lawsuit is an out-of-proportion response to the situation.” (Gregory Kesich, “Outburst at son’s game lands father in court,” Portland (ME) Press Herald, Feb. 4).

Filed under:

Neil Pakett v. Phillies

You may recall the Center for Justice & Democracy’s Zany Immunity Law Awards criticized the three states that provided immunity to baseball stadiums for spectator injuries. The immunity is based on the common-law doctrine of assumption of the risk, made explicit on the back of baseball tickets and announcements at baseball games. Nevertheless, dentist Neil Pakett is suing the Phillies for compensation for injuries he received when he unsuccessfully tried to catch a foul ball hit by shortstop Jimmy Rollins. The case has been thrown out by the trial court, but Pakett is arguing that the fact that the Phillies built a backstop creates a duty for them to have built a backstop that would’ve protected him. The Phillies will likely win, but they’ve sure spent a great deal of money defending themselves against the eventuality that they have a judge who wants to make new law, and a statutory immunity law would’ve provided a clearer rule that would have discouraged the suit in the first place. (Mark Levy, AP/LA Times, Feb. 4). Update: Phillies’ win affirmed.

Filed under: , , , ,