“Recovered memory” doubter sued

Prof. Elizabeth Loftus, the psychologist whose writings and expert testimony have been highly influential in casting doubt on the reliability of buried and then putatively recovered memories of abuse (see Mar. 22 and links from there), is the defendant in a lawsuit filed by a “Jane Doe” abuse complainant whose allegations Loftus critically examined in a 2002 article for Skeptical Inquirer (the valuable magazine of CSICOP, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims for the Paranormal). Trial is expected soon: “If she loses, not only will academic freedom have arguably suffered a grievous blow, but on a personal level, Loftus herself could face bankruptcy.” “Jane Doe” also “filed an ethics complaint against Loftus with the University of Washington. Though the university eventually cleared Loftus of breaking research protocols — after seizing all of her files on the case and preventing her from publishing her work for almost two years — its support was so lukewarm, and its unwillingness to stand by its controversial psychologist during the current lawsuit so clear, that Loftus was only too happy to accept an offer from Irvine.” (Sasha Abramsky, “Memory and Manipulation”, L.A. Weekly, Aug. 20-26) (via Brian Doherty, Reason “Hit and Run”, Aug. 24). Update: see Jun. 26, 2005 (L.A. Times covers case).

Gun dealer settles for $850K

Perry J. Bruce purchased ten guns between 1994 and 1997 from Jon K. Sauers of Sauers Trading in South Williamsport, Pennsylvania, and dozens from other gun shops in the area. The guns were sold to Bruce legally–he had no record–but Bruce would then go on to illegally resell the guns on the street for a profit, eventually leading to his conviction for gun trafficking in 1998. On April 19, 1999, one of those guns was found by a child under a parked car; that child proceeded to shoot and kill 7-year-old Nafis Jefferson. So, given that someone illegally sold a gun to someone who eventually negligently left on the ground where it was found by someone who then negligently (or worse) killed someone, the mother, with the help of the Brady Center and co-counsel Mark LeWinter, sued… Sauers, who legally sold the gun, and Rossi, who manufactured the gun, and Taurus, which bought Rossi. (Taurus was sued because they failed to “recall and retrofit” the gun with safety devices–as if a Philadelphia thug who leaves his gun under a parked car was going to turn in his illegally possessed gun to be outfitted with a childproof lock.)

As the Philadelphia Inquirer reports,

Sauers testified in a deposition in the Jefferson case that he complied with state and federal law, properly filling out all forms in each sale to Bruce.

But he never asked Bruce why he was buying all the guns.

Asked why he never questioned Bruce, Sauers replied in the deposition: “I don’t know what my reason would be to ask him. I didn’t think it was any of my business.”

Sauers settled out of the suit for $850,000. I still haven’t seen an explanation in the Brady Center materials what Sauers was supposed to have done differently, though they emphasize that Bruce was unemployed and used his welfare card for identification. (Is the state of being poor is reason enough to preclude someone from buying a gun?) “There is a risk of liability that is now real for gun sellers all across the country,” the Brady Center’s Dennis Henigan said, and we couldn’t say it better ourselves. (L. Stuart Ditzen, “Dealer settles suit over gunplay”, Aug. 24; AP, Apr. 21; our gun coverage).

Lawyer ads: clip, post, help someone sue

Evan Schaeffer, who’s poked fun before at the way plaintiff’s lawyers from elsewhere in the country endeavor to solicit business in his own Madison County, has some thoughts (Aug. 23) prompted by a Minnesota lawyer’s advertisement which includes a LOT OF CAPITAL LETTERING and which lays out a “Chinese menu” of potential complaints which might entitle the prospective client to money damages. Touchingly, the ad in the Alton, Ill. Telegraph addresses the danger that some local residents might be so unfortunate as not to be exposed to its message: “CLIP AND SAVE. Please take this notice and post it in your nursing home, church, community center or anywhere that it may reach people who are suffering and need help.”

Iraq: suing swords into plowshares?

Tying down the military Gulliver with writs: “The mother of a Scottish soldier killed in Iraq plans to sue the Ministry of Defence over her son’s death. Rose Gentle believes the MoD was negligent and breached its duty of care” by not equipping the patrol on which her 19-year-old son Gordon was serving with an electronic signal jamming device that might have prevented a roadside bombing in Basra in June in which the younger Gordon lost his life. (“Soldier’s mother plans to sue MoD”, BBC, Aug. 27). (& letter to the editor, Oct. 31). In the U.S., meanwhile, attorneys with the far-left National Lawyers Guild (see Apr. 27, 2000) “plan to open another front against the war in Iraq …with a federal lawsuit targeting Pentagon orders forcing military reservists to remain on active duty. The so-called ‘stop-loss’ orders have kept people in the military beyond the end-dates of their enlistments since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.” (Jeff Chorney, “Challenge to Be Filed to Military’s ‘Stop-Loss’ Orders”, The Recorder, Aug. 17).

“‘Hurt feelings’ win killer $1200”

“A man jailed for brutally murdering a teenage girl has been awarded [NZ]$1200 compensation for hurt feelings and humiliation while in prison.” (Bridget Carter, New Zealand Herald, Aug. 23). “In a decision that prompted political anger, the Human Rights Review Tribunal said inmate Andrew MacMillan had suffered “injury to his feelings, loss of dignity and humiliation” when he was denied access to [a letter written about him]. MacMillan was jailed in 1988 for raping and killing Jayne McLellan, 17.” (“Convicted NZ murderer compensated for hurt feelings”, ABC News Online, Aug. 23; “Rapist-killer wins cash award for hurt feelings”, Sydney Morning Herald, Aug. 23).

Sues over restaurant review

Restaurateur Phil Romano earlier this month “slapped Dallas Morning News restaurant critic Dotty Griffith and the Belo Corp., the newspaper’s parent, with a suit alleging fraud, malice, defamation and an ‘attempt to cripple the business of one of Dallas’ finest new restaurants’ via an April 16 restaurant review. That finest new restaurant is Il Mulino New York, the Romano-shepherded Dallas extension of the much heralded Greenwich Village venue founded in 1981 by Fernando and Gino Masci.” (Mark Stuertz, “Eat My Briefs”, Dallas Observer, Aug. 12; Sean Mehegan, “The Porcini Was Praiseworthy, but a Lawsuit Was Served Next”, New York Times, Aug. 23). Update Jan. 3, 2006: parties settle with paper agreeing to run second review.

CD Price Fixing settlement

Attorneys’ fees for the Compact Disc Antitrust Litigation Settlement were based in part on the idea that there would be $75.7 million in “non-cash consideration”–charitable donations of 5.5 million CDs, valued at 20% below “suggested retail price.” The CDs have started to arrive at local libraries, and SiliconValley.com, compiling local news reports, is finding that the $75.7 million figure is generous, given the nature of the CDs being distributed, which include such titles as “Martha Stewart Living: Spooky Scary Sounds for Halloween”, “Music from the HBO Original Movie BoyCott”, and “John Lithgow Singin’ In The Bathtub.” North Carolina libraries got 1,300 copies of country-rocker Clay Davidson’s “Unconditional”; a Washington state school district reportedly got a similar number of Whitney Houston singles of “The Star Spangled Banner.” Michigan finds that the only Elvis available is not Presley or Costello, but Crespo. “There’s nothing here you would want to buy even for $1.99,” a Virginia librarian complained. (John Paczkowski, Aug. 4 (sixth item) (via Postrel); Tonya Shipley, “Library looks to positive side of free CDs”, Zanesville Times Recorder, Aug. 3; Sam Hodges, “Libraries: CD deal more headache than hit”, Charlotte Observer, Jul. 30; Robert Snell, “Martha? Yanni?”, Flint Journal, Aug. 22; AP, Aug. 2; Fred Carroll, “Lots of CDs, but who’ll listen?”, Hampton Roads Daily Press, Aug. 19; dozens of other local articles). The only reason for this fiction was to rationalize a multi-million-dollar payment to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, a payment that may well exceed the actual (as opposed to settlement-named) value of the free CDs.

Sunburst Works Refinery $41M verdict

In 1955, there was a gasoline pipeline leak at the Sunburst Works Refinery that caused minor contamination of a 19-acre underground site. Texaco cleaned the spill at the time, and did further millions of dollars of cleanup starting in 1993. State regulators determined that there was no health effects, and that benzene levels in Sunburst, Montana were no different than in areas unaffected by the spill. The state Department of Environmental Quality ruled that nothing more needed to be done beyond additional monitoring, not least because the groundwater at issue isn’t used for anything–even livestock find it “naturally too briny” to drink.

Not good enough, say some residents and their lawyers, who blame the half-century-old spill for a variety of illnesses from arthritis to mononucleosis. They sued to require additional multi-million dollar cleanup. The plaintiffs originally sought damages for decreased property values, though townpeople who refused to join the lawsuit say that the main cause of the decreased property values is bad publicity from the 2001 lawsuit. (There are only 82 plaintiffs in a town of about 400.) Texaco acknowledges responsibility for the spill, but disputed the need to spend millions more on a clean-up methodology of little efficacy. The judge refused to allow Texaco to introduce evidence that they did exactly what the Montana regulators asked them to do, and a jury awarded a $41 million verdict, including $25 million in punitive damages. Texaco will appeal. The case is important because the verdict could encourage other “double-whammy” lawsuits on companies who have already been spending millions to comply with the extensive state and federal environmental regulations. (Kathleen A. Schultz, “Texaco to appeal Sunburst ruling”, Great Falls Tribune, Aug. 20; “Jury Rules Against ChevronTexaco In Cleanup Suit”, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 20 (sub – $); Reuters, Aug. 20; Kathleen A. Schultz, “Texaco must pay Sunburst $41M”, Aug. 19; Kathleen A. Schultz, “Texaco-Sunburst trial gets under way”, Jul. 26).