Schwarzenegger punitive damage plan

My op-ed on the subject appears in today’s Wall Street Journal. (Walter Olson, “More Punitives to the People!”, Jun. 2)($$). The California governor’s proposal to have the state take 75 percent of punitive awards has gotten a more favorable reception from the left/liberal side of the blogosphere than some might have expected; see Nathan Newman (calling it “the right idea”)(May 17), Atrios (“not a bad idea”) May 17, plaintiff’s attorney Dwight Meredith (more)(“I have no major objection to having a portion of punitive damages go to the state.”)(May 26)(and see Jun. 1 on the governor’s fanciful revenue scoring), and Kevin Drum (“probably a good idea”) May 29.

See also Adam Liptak, “Schwarzenegger Sees Money for State in Punitive Damages”, New York Times, May 30. More editorial and commentary links: Dan Walters, “Arnold enters battle over tort reform”, Sacramento Bee/Alameda Times-Star, May 29; “Sensible concept, suspicious numbers” (editorial), San Jose Mercury News, May 25 (reg); Phil Yost, “Governor’s budget counts on windfall that won’t arrive”, San Jose Mercury News, May 30 (reg); “A lawyer joke” (editorial), San Francisco Chronicle, May 27; George Skelton, “Proposal to Tap Punitive Damage Awards Has Many Agendas”, Los Angeles Times, May 24; “State profit in punishment” (editorial), Los Angeles Times, May 24. Further: Martin Grace has some more information about collections under the Georgia “split-award” statute (Jun. 2), and Paul Caron at TaxProfBlog discussed the proposal May 20.

Fingerprint evidence

Not quite the infallible science it seemed, as many were beginning to grasp even before the fiasco of the Brandon Mayfield case. (Jennifer L. Mnookin (University of Virginia Law School), “The Achilles’ Heel of Fingerprints”, Washington Post, May 29). More: David Feige, “Printing problems”, Slate, May 27.

NYC lead-paint law begins wreaking havoc

Exactly as predicted (see Dec. 15, Feb. 13): “Two months before it goes into effect on Aug. 2, the city’s new lead-paint legislation has caused nonprofit groups and private developers to shelve plans to redevelop buildings for low- and moderate-income tenants. … Frank Anelante, president of Lemle & Wolf, a developer and manager of lower-income apartments, primarily in the Bronx, said he had halted the rehabilitation of two five-story walk-ups in upper Manhattan because the procedures required by the law made apartment reconstruction impractical.” According to John M. McCarthy, executive vice president of the Community Preservation Corporation, the largest provider of mortgages for the city’s older midsize apartment buildings, the new law “leaves owners extremely vulnerable to damages in a lawsuit. We can’t provide mortgages under those circumstances unless the owner is able to get insurance at a reasonable cost.” (Alan S. Oser, “Lead-Paint Law Frustrates Plans for Low-Income Housing”, New York Times, May 28).

Papa John’s Suit

Michael Harris, a 19-year-old delivering pizzas for Papa John’s, gossiped with a manager that his supervisor, Robert Shields, was sleeping with an employee. Shields found out, and he and Harris decided to resolve their differences by agreeing that Shields would punch Harris in the chest. Unfortunately, the punch caused cardiac arrhythmia and killed Harris. Harris’s family sued Papa John’s, and the Iowa Supreme Court ruled May 12 that a jury would need to decide if the punch was an “adverse employment action” entitling the family to damages from the employer, or a private matter.

Publication day

Today is official publication day for the paperback edition of my book The Rule of Lawyers: How the New Litigation Elite Threatens America’s Rule of Law, which came out in hardcover last year. (Amazon is still listing it as forthcoming, but I’ve seen advance copies and shipments should be arriving at stores.) If you’ve only read the hardcover version, you’re missing the newly written Afterword in which I talk about the fast-food litigation, Texas’s comprehensive lawsuit reform, and many other recent topics. C’mon, order your copy today — or better yet, a bunch of copies to distribute to readers who need to catch up on this topic.

Ala.: trial lawyers bankroll “Ten Commandments” backers

Seven leading plaintiff’s law firms, which ordinarily donate to Democrats, have made themselves the leading backers of a so-called “Ten Commandments slate” of candidates for the Alabama Supreme Court backed by ousted Chief Justice Roy Moore, a hero to some on the religious right. Firms including Beasley, Allen of Montgomery; Cunningham, Bounds of Mobile; and Hare, Wynn, Newell and Newton of Birmingham have (through PACs) contributed 98 percent of the funding of Republican candidates Pam Baschab and Jerry Stokes, and about 44 percent of the support for Tom Parker. All three are running in the GOP primary against business-backed candidates. (Kyle Wingfield, “Parker, Baschab, Stokes get nearly $1 million from trial lawyers”, AP/AlabamaLive, May 28; Stan Bailey, “Brown spends over $1 million on race”, Birmingham News/AlabamaLive, May 28; Shaila K. Dewan, “The Big Name in Alabama’s Primary Isn’t on the Ballot”, New York Times, May 30). Update Jun. 4: one of the Moore-backed candidates wins.

One gateway latte, hold the sugar

“If you’re not alarmed by this situation [the availability of temptingly dessert-like coffee drinks at Starbucks] because you think coffee is no big deal, you must not be aware of the fact that the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse has identified caffeine as a gateway drug. Last year it reported that ‘girls and young women who drink coffee are significantly likelier than girls and young women who do not to be smokers…and drink alcohol.'” (Jacob Sullum, “Bad Taste”, syndicated/Reason Online, May 28; Reason “Hit and Run”, May 24).

Blue-ribbon excuses: post-traumatic slavery syndrome

By reader acclaim, from Oregon: “A Portland lawyer says suffering by African Americans at the hands of slave owners is to blame in the death of a 2-year-old Beaverton boy. Randall Vogt is offering the untested theory, called post traumatic slave syndrome, in his defense of Isaac Cortez Bynum, who is charged with murder by abuse in the June 30 death of his son, Ryshawn Lamar Bynum. Vogt says he will argue — ‘in a general way’ — that masters beat slaves, so Bynum was justified in beating his son.” However, attorney Vogt may find it a challenge to secure the admissibility of the slavery-trauma theory, which has been accepted by neither the courts nor the psychiatric profession. Washington County Circuit Judge Nancy W. Campbell threw out pretrial testimony by Joy DeGruy-Leary, an assistant professor in the Portland State University Graduate School of Social Work, to the effect that the brutality of slavery, together with continuing racism, oppression and societal inequality, helps explain self-destructive, violent or aggressive behavior in African-Americans. Judge Campbell said she would reconsider allowing the defense in Bynum’s September trial, but only “if his lawyer can show the slave theory is an accepted mental disorder with a valid scientific basis and specifically applies to this case.” (Holly Danks, “Judge rejects slave trauma as defense for killing”, The Oregonian, May 31). According to David Bernstein, writing two years ago, the standards for admission of expert testimony in Oregon are not as tight as might be wished (“Disinterested in Daubert: State Courts Lag Behind In Opposing ‘Junk’ Science”, Washington Legal Foundation (PDF) Legal Opinion Letter, Jun. 21, 2002)(search on “Oregon” or scroll to near end of piece).