In Australia, Kelly Rae Hennessey is suing McDonald’s claiming she suffered a loss of libido after biting into a cheeseburger that contained a rock, according to a report in the Melbourne Herald Sun. As a result of the contaminated burger, purchased from a drive-through in Adelaide in 2000, “Hennessey says she’s suffered a loss of libido, as well as depression, nightmares, anxiety, nausea, palpitations, diarrhea, shortness of breath and toothache.” (“Woman sues over bad burger”, UPI/InterestAlert, Sept. 26).
Pennsylvania malpractice roundup
The IssuesPA/Pew Poll has found that a remarkable 26 percent of Pennsylvanians polled “said rising malpractice insurance costs have forced their family to change doctors in the past year”, and that state residents polled also favored a constitutional cap on pain and suffering damages by a margin of 68 percent to 24 percent. (The state legislature has refused to allow such a measure to reach the ballot.)(doctor availability survey, Sept.; caps survey, Aug.). The Scranton Times Tribune, a newspaper heretofore known for skepticism about the extent of a malpractice crisis, now credits reports that the number of local doctors practicing in key specialties “has declined sharply in recent years” and that specialties with high legal risk are disproportionately affected (Jeff Sonderman, “Area losing its specialists”, Sept. 12). And in a Sept. 3 speech in Scranton, President Bush “cited the tale of Carbondale physician Neal Davis … Dr. Davis, a longtime family practitioner, stopped delivering patients’ children in January because he could no longer afford obstetrics insurance.” The result, said Bush, was that “then-expectant mother Mary Coar of Honesdale [was] out in the cold”; she wound up driving 50 miles each way to see different doctors. (Chris Burk, “Bush stresses liability reform by tale of Carbondale doctor”, Scranton Times Tribune, Sept. 4). More on Pa. malpractice: Jul. 16, May 20, Jan. 18, 2004; Sept. 12 and Jul. 23, 2003, etc.
Lawsuits of the future
John Michael Dunton of Anaheim was not criminally charged after his five-month-old died of heatstroke September 9 after her father left her in his van for four hours instead of at her babysitter. Dunton held a press conference with his attorney: “I hope that the auto industry or the car seat manufacturers will have some kind of alarm or bell so [parents] won’t forget their kid in a car.” (Wendy Thermos, “After Child’s Hot-Car Death, Father Backs Alarm Systems for Parents”, LA Times, Sep. 25). One awaits with trepidation the first parent/attorney combination with the chutzpah to sue the auto industry for this oversight. Readers of Romenesko are appalled, though Michael Kaufman, tongue firmly in cheek, writes
We really need these warning systems all over the house. For example, I can’t tell you how many times I have started doing laundry without realizing that little Jimmy was still wearing the clothes that I was throwing in the washing machine. If I only had an early warning system on my washer/dryer. Or when I made the bed with Suzie still sleeping. I am actually thinking of suing Allstate for not warning me when I moved and left all the kids behind.
Coors shareholder? Operators are standing by
“A New York-based class-action law firm is trolling the Internet for Coors shareholders concerned that they will be financially hurt by the company’s proposed marriage to Molson.” Manhattan attorneys Ronen Sarraf and Joseph Gentile posted a message on a Yahoo financial urging “upset Coors shareholders to send their grievance to an e-mail address. The message goes on to say: ‘An attorney will get in touch with you.'” The message boards “can be a good place to win business, [Sarraf] said. … ‘As for intensifying any dislike the public has against lawyers, there is very little one can do about that'”. (Tom McGhee, “Lawyers on Net seek investors worried by deal”, Denver Post, Jul. 27)(via Colorado Civil Justice League).
9/11 fund may have been a mistake
Even Ken Feinberg, the man who ran it, acknowledges as much. Must-read column from Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby (“Why the 9/11 fund was a mistake”, Sept. 27). One remarkable passage among many:
“You would get situations like this,” Feinberg said. ” `Mr. Feinberg, I’m the brother of the victim. Don’t let my sister get a nickel. The victim hated his sister, trust me.’ Then the sister comes in. `Is my brother spreading rumors. . .? My [deceased] brother and I loved each other.’
“Or: `Mr. Feinberg, I’m the biological parent of my son who was killed. Don’t you dare give the fiancee any money. That marriage was never going to take place.’ Then the fiancee comes in. `We were going to be married on October 11th.’ And you go back to the biological parent. `They were going to be married October 11th. You threw a shower for them. You said you were gaining a daughter, not losing a son.’ `Yeah, but on Sept. 10, my son told me it was off.’ “
Attention publishers
[Bumped 9/27 for the benefit of readers who weren’t around when it ran last Thursday. Thanks to readers who’ve responded thus far.] Here’s a proposition that may be of interest to commercial publishers or, conceivably, to some nonprofit organizations:
And for something completely different
I’ve written a literary review of a historical novel (Emma Donoghue’s Life Mask) for Sunday’s New York Times Book Review; it has nothing at all to do with problems of the legal system. I’m at work on a second review for the same outlet and hope the relationship will be a long and happy one. (Walter Olson, “Women in Love”, Sept. 26).
Back on topic: yesterday’s publicity roundup omitted a few recent clips. To wit: I’m quoted in an article in Legal Affairs on the controversial new “litigation-finance” industry, which advances money to plaintiffs (often at very high interest rates) in exchange for a share of the booty (Daniel Brook, Legal Affairs, Sept./Oct.)(see Aug. 4, 2003). My Manhattan Institute colleague Robert Goldberg quotes me in a piece on the attacks on FDA general counsel Dan Troy over his initiative to have the agency intervene in state-court liability suits which threaten to contravene FDA policies (“The sacking of Troy”, Washington Times, Jul. 25)(see Jul. 14). And very kind things are said at PokerPulse Forums about me, about this site, and about my book The Rule of Lawyers in the course of a discussion of the lawsuits under California’s s. 17200 against Google, Yahoo, etc. for supposedly promoting online gambling (see Aug. 9).
Update: blame it on Riyadh
Even though the 9/11 commission (debunking certain widely circulated stories to the contrary) concluded that the government of Saudi Arabia did not fund al-Qaeda, several institutional victims of the terrorist attacks, including Cantor Fitzgerald Securities and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, recently filed suit against a long list of foreign entities including the Saudi government and various financial institutions for their alleged role in the attacks (Larry Neumeister, “Port Authority to Join Suit Against Saudi Arabia Over 9/11 Attack”, AP/Law.com, Sept. 13). The U.S. government has been highly critical of the freelance use of private litigation to second-guess the state of U.S.-Saudi relations, which has in no way deterred colorful asbestos-tobacco zillionaire Ron Motley from setting up his own mini-CIA-cum-State-Department-for-profit toward that end (Jennifer Senior, “Intruders in the House of Saud, Part II: A Nation Unto Himself”, New York Times Magazine, Mar. 14)(see Jul. 11, 2003). And in the New York Observer, Nina Burleigh in February profiled attorney Brian Alexander of the prominent plaintiff’s air-crash firm of Kreindler & Kreindler, who had “already filed a suit — on behalf of the families of more than 1,000 9/11 families?against a list of foreign entities hundreds of pages long.” (“Air Disasters, Legal Fees And Justice for the Victims”, New York Observer, Feb. 23).
Welcome “All Things Considered” listeners
National Public Radio’s widely aired news show ran a piece yesterday afternoon (Saturday) on lawsuit reform as a factor in the election; the reporter first interviewed me at a couple of minutes’ length, and then turned the floor over to two professors who took the opposite view. The second of the two profs carried on at length about supposed public misunderstanding of the McDonald’s coffee (Stella Liebeck) case in a way that made me wish Ted had gotten some air time. I’m likewise quoted in a Denver Post article analyzing Congress’s failure to pass any litigation reform this term (Anne C. Mulkern, “Lawsuit caps lose support at roll call”, Sept. 13). Karen Selick kindly referenced me this summer in a piece for Canada’s National Post (“Stacking the deck against big tobacco”, Jun. 2, not online). And New York’s esteemed Observer, the one on the orange paper, carried in its last issue a favorable-in-context reference to “the [unnamed] Overlawyered.com guy”, meaning in this case me rather than Ted. (Tom Scocca, “Blogging Off Daily Can Make You Blind”, New York Observer, Sept. 20).
Bushmaster settles D.C. sniper case
Bushmaster Firearms Inc. of Windham, Maine, has agreed to pay $550,000 and Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply of Tacoma, Wash. has agreed to pay $2 million to settle families’ lawsuits over the 2002 D.C. sniper shootings (see Jul. 1, 2003). Dennis Henigan of the gun-control-through-litigation Brady Campaign was the lawyer representing the families. “Authorities believe that Malvo shoplifted the rifle from Bull’s Eye, where he and Muhammad had been seen checking out the Bushmaster that later disappeared.” The Bradyites’ theory was that the killings were the gun store’s fault because it lost too many guns, and the manufacturer’s fault because it did not cut off the gun store for losing too many guns. Henigan crowed that the settlement represented the first-ever payment by a manufacturer over charges of negligent distribution and the biggest-ever payment by a distributor. (Tom Jackman, “Gunmaker, Store Agree To Payout in Sniper Case”, Washington Post, Sept. 10). I’m quoted in a subscriber-only BestWire article discussing the implications of the settlement (“Bushmaster Settlement Raises New Liability Questions for Gun Makers”, BestWire, Sept. 13)($). Jeff Soyer also comments (Sept. 10).
Both companies’ contribution to the settlement will apparently come from liability insurance proceeds. Reports the Portland, Me. paper (David Hench, “Gun firm settles in sniper lawsuit”, Portland Press Herald, Sept. 10):
In explaining its decision to settle, Bushmaster said half of its policy limits had already been spent on defending the legal case, and the insurance company believed defending the case would exhaust the money available for coverage.
“The balance of the insurance policy not spent on legal fees, approximately $550,000, will go to the victims’ families for their grief,” said the company’s chairman, Richard E. Dyke.
“Bushmaster strongly believes and vigorously supports the rights of citizens to own and use firearms, and the settlement of this case in no way compromises that stand,” the company said in its release. “The Brady Group’s . . . attempt to eliminate gun rights of citizens has failed legislatively and will continue to fail with these frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.”
But with the decision costing the company’s insurer $1 million, insurers could pressure Bushmaster and other gun manufacturers to make changes.
The legal assault on the firearms industry is richly funded by George Soros, among others; if you’d like to make a contribution to combat such suits there are several legal defense funds working on behalf of companies that get sued, including the National Shooting Sports Foundation‘s Hunting and Shooting Sports Heritage Fund, which allows you to earmark your contribution specifically for legal defense.