“I have cerebral palsy, and it’s not my doctor’s fault.” — David Robinson, “Lawyer Logic: A Villain For Every Victim”, Wall Street Journal/OpinionJournal.com, Jul. 16).
Oft-sued Pennsylvania doctors
The litigation lobby has worked hard to advance the theme (accepted at face value in places like the New Republic) that a few bad apples in the medical profession account for most malpractice claims. On the other hand, some medical observers (see Apr. 10-13, 2003) have pointed out that if it’s true that five percent of doctors account for a majority of malpractice payouts, the most accurate description of that five percent would be not “incompetent M.D.s who should not be in practice” but rather “members of high-risk specialties in litigious localities”.
Reinforcing this latter view, a Pew Foundation project has surveyed 1,333 Pennsylvania specialists and drew responses from 824 physicians in high-risk fields including emergency medicine, general surgery, neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, obstetrics/gynecology and radiology. “Eighty-six percent of specialists had been named in a malpractice suit at least once during their careers, and 47 percent had been sued in the three years prior to the survey.” Details today at Point Of Law, which also has new posts on Eliot Spitzer and on John Kerry’s Pennsylvania fund-raising.
EDDix guide to law weblogs
An outfit called EDDix, which markets services relating to the electronic data discovery (EDD) aspects of litigation, recently published an annotated list of its 50 favorite legal-related weblogs, which includes kind words about this site (we’re among 16 deemed “must reading”). Perhaps the list was meant to boost EDDix’s profile — it’s certainly done that — but it’s worth a look in its own right. I don’t remember seeing elsewhere such a useful pocket guide to the so-called blawgosphere, including information on the people who put out the sites, and it alerted me to the existence of a number of promising sites new to me.
U.K.: ban proposed on disrespecting religions
In Great Britain, where there is no First Amendment to protect free expression, Home Secretary David Blunkett has proposed a law banning so-called hate speech directed against religion, apparently in a gesture toward Muslim clerics offended by vigorous criticisms of their preachings. David G. Green, Director of Civitas: the Institute for the Study of Civil Society, warns that such a step would endanger Britain’s history of intellectual liberty — Hume, for one, might have been open to prosecution given the rude things he said about priests — and would act as a protective charter for religious extremism by giving its adherents a way to persecute scoffers by dragging them through the courts. (“Background Briefing”, Civitas, undated). Iain Murray comments as does Mark Steyn (“Blunkett’s ban will fan the flames”, Daily Telegraph, Jul. 13)(via AtlanticBlog). More: Mick Hume, “Don’t you just hate the Illiberati?”, The Times/Spiked-Online, Jul. 12. For earlier proposals along the same lines, see Oct. 19-21, 2001.
Sue the fire-shelter makers
Central Washington state: “Nearly three years after four local firefighters died in a wildfire, some family members are suing the manufacturer of the fire shelters they were using. … They claim the instruction manual for the shelters encouraged the firefighters to set them up on rocky terrain. But hot gas from the fire was able to seep in and kill them. The lawsuit names the manufacturer and the National Association of State Foresters, which helped write the manual.” (Craig Galbraith, “Thirtymile Fire Lawsuit”, KIMA-TV (Yakima, Wash.), Jul. 9). According to a Sept. 2001 press release from the office of Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the Forest Service report on the incident found that the deaths were not caused by faulty equipment. “According to this investigation, these deaths occurred due to poor judgment at several critical junctures and a failure to follow established procedures”. (USFS fire investigation reports).
Abusive litigation, with a Bush imprimatur
Despite Republican pronouncements critical of overreaching litigation, the Bush Department of Justice has insisted on pursuing the racketeering lawsuit against cigarette makers that it inherited from the Clinton people (May 29, more). “Until the president does something about the DOJ’s rogue $280 billion lawsuit against the tobacco industry, cries about John Edwards’ trial lawyer connections will ring hollow.” (Steven Milloy (Cato Institute), “Injustice at the Justice Department”, FoxNews.com Views, Jul. 9). More: Vanessa Blum, “Drowning in Paper”, Legal Times, Mar. 18.
$2M suit against city for home plate collision
Over-35 Men’s Slow-Pitch softball player Michael Licitra is suing an opposing player, John Knowles, and the Village of Garden City for $2 million over a broken left leg suffered in a collision at home plate in September 2001. Knowles claims he legally slid head-first; Licitra claims it was a collision that violated league softball rules, though that doesn’t explain why it’s the city’s fault. (Jonathan Mummolo, “Injured softballer crying foul”, Newsday, Jul. 15) (via Romenesko). State Supreme Court Justice Bruce D. Alpert held that the doctrine of assumption of risk “did not relieve the defendant from the obligation of using reasonable care to guard against a risk which might reasonably be anticipated,” which begs the question what Garden City should’ve done differently other than ban softball.
Which, according to Alex Tabarrok, is what is happening to the British school tradition of playing conkers, which occasionally results in bruises from inadvertent (but apparently inevitable) contact. Liability concerns are causing schools to ban the game–along with rugby, soccer, and even recess. The New York Times has an article about the larger issue of the growing problem of American-style lawsuits in Britain. Medical negligence claim costs have risen more than a hundredfold after inflation in the last thirty years. (Sarah Lyall, “Britain’s Stiff Upper Lip Is Being Twisted Into a Snarl”, Jul. 13).
Ireland’s Personal Injuries Assessment Board
In a far-reaching reform intended to curb its rising litigation rate, Ireland recently adopted the system sometimes known as scheduled damages: an official panel, the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, has been established to publish recommended guidelines (the “Quantum”) for the pain and suffering component of sued-over serious injuries, thus reducing the need to litigate each damage determination afresh. Scheduled compensation and like devices are often encountered in European court systems but, aside from workers’ compensation, are virtually unknown here. I discuss the Irish reforms and their implications at more length today on Point of Law.
Baron & Budd
Ramesh Ponnuru at National Review Online (“Robber Baron?”, Jul. 15) thinks the Department of Justice would be warranted in opening a RICO probe of the Dallas-based firm based on the contents of a detailed statement attached by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) to a report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, exploring at length the allegations concerning Baron & Budd’s practices in asbestos litigation (PDF) (see pp. 81-184 and specifically 86-137). For much more, see Jun. 17 and the many links from there.
NTSB says no defect, jury says $44 million
“Parker Hannifin Corp. of Cleveland, the world’s largest maker of hydraulic equipment, was told by a Los Angeles jury to pay $43.6 million to the families of three people killed in a 1997 SilkAir crash in Indonesia.
“The Los Angeles Superior Court jury yesterday determined that defects in a rudder control system caused the Boeing 737 to plunge from 35,000 feet, killing all 104 people aboard. The National Transportation Safety Board concluded that there were no mechanical defects and the pilot intentionally caused the crash.” Boeing and SilkAir had already settled out, and the jury refused to apportion any fault to them. “‘We are incredulous,’ said Lorrie Paul Crum, a spokeswoman for Cleveland-based Parker Hannifin, who said the company will appeal. ‘This is the best case for tort reform I’ve seen yet.'” (“Parker Hannifin will appeal jury award”, Akron Beacon Journal, Jul. 8). “The trial established Parker Hannifin’s liability and relatives of about 30 other people will now go to trial in the same Los Angeles court to determine how much Parker Hannifin owes them in damages, [said Walter Lack of Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, attorney for the families]”. Parker Hannifin says it plans to appeal. (“SilkAir crash: US firm told to pay US$44m”, Business Times of Singapore, Jul. 9).