Sanity prevails in the Carlsbad, N.M. case we noted last Jul. 25: “A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed on behalf of 26 firefighters and emergency medical personnel seeking damages from El Paso Natural Gas Co. for emotional pain and suffering they say they suffered after an August 2000 pipeline explosion.” The emergency response personnel were physically uninjured themselves but wanted cash for the trauma of witnessing the disaster scene. U.S. District Judge William Lynch, however, cited a longstanding principle of law known as the firefighter’s rule, which “states that a firefighter or police officer is prohibited from recovering damages for injuries arising from the normal, inherent and foreseeable risks of his profession.” (Erin Green, “Firefighters’ lawsuit dismissed”, Carlsbad Current-Argus, Mar. 22).
Sues airline in tipsy escalator mishap
Floyd W. Shuler, 61, of West Virginia, is suing an airline “alleging it didn’t notify him that drinking alcohol at night might adversely affect passengers before he fell down an escalator at Southwest Florida International Airport.” “US Airways failed to warn (Shuler) and its other passengers of the increased effect that consumption of alcoholic beverages has on airline passengers who consume alcoholic beverages while in flight and while flying at night,” according to the lawsuit, which was filed in Fort Myers. The suit also claims the escalator stopped unexpectedly after Shuler stepped onto it and that it was improperly maintained. (Kristen Zambo, “Man sues airline after falling down escalator after drinking on flight”, Naples Daily News, Mar. 31)(see Dec. 17, Oct. 13, Aug. 8, Jul. 30, Jul. 21; many more tipple-your-way-to-court cases). Update Apr. 3: Shuler says he never intended to sue.
Calif. anti-Microsoft lawyers want $294 million payday
Plaintiff’s lawyers who pressed and then settled a class action against Microsoft supposedly on behalf of 14 million California consumers now want fees and costs to a tune approaching $300 million, but Microsoft has been fighting the request as excessive. Lead counsel Townsend and Townsend and Crew “is requesting at least $97 million in fees and costs for itself and another $197 million for 34 other firms that worked on the case,” which resulted in an all-voucher settlement valued (or so it seems) at $1.1 billion. But lawyers for the software giant say the firm “piggybacked on the U.S. government’s antitrust case and other private litigation”. Microsoft says Townsend partner Eugene Crew would get $3,019 for each of the 6,198 hours he says he spent on the case; collectively, the lawyers are seeking high hourly fees for each of the 209,000 hours they claim to have spent on the case, many of which were in fact assigned to paralegals and other underlings. (Brenda Sandburg, “Microsoft Says Class Fee Request Doesn’t Compute”, The Recorder, Feb. 23). As usual in this sort of case, the lawyers have brought in a parade of law profs and other eminences to testify to the total reasonableness of their fee request –why, they were a bargain! But Larry Schonbrun, the Berkeley, Calif. sole practitioner who has made himself into a chief thorn in the side of the class action business (see Oct. 12)(more), is objecting: “In a filing on behalf of two class members, Schonbrun said a final fee award should not be decided until the court knows how many class members redeem their vouchers.” (Brenda Sandburg, “Show Me the Money”, The Recorder, Jan. 20). David Giacalone (Feb. 22) headlines his item on the story: “Putting the Piggy in Piggyback”. Instant update: hearing to review the settlement begins in San Francisco courtroom of Superior Court Judge Paul Alvarado (Brenda Sandburg, “Microsoft Settlement Getting Another Look”, The Recorder, Mar. 31). More coverage: see May 12. Update Sept. 23: judge slashes request to $112 million.
Inmates’ fraudulent liens
Across the country, reports Court TV, prison inmates are harassing lawyers and court personnel by filing liens against them for supposed violations of the inmates’ copyright in their own names. The copyright-in-one’s-name premise may be supremely absurd — an egregious example of the homespun legal reasoning I once described, in the context of tax protests, as “folk law” — but it works surprisingly well as a means of harassment: the target’s credit standing may be frozen until he manages to get the lien on his house removed, which can be an expensive and time-consuming undertaking (Emanuella Grinberg, “What’s in a name? A fortune, some inmates say”, Court TV, Mar. 17). Curmudgeonly Clerk (Mar. 30) cites several federal cases that have arisen from this abuse (complete with an opinion by Judge Easterbrook) and points out that despite the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the system clearly has a way to go in curbing unfounded inmate litigation.
Pooh heirs v. Disney: now we are dismissed
“The Walt Disney Company prevailed on Monday in a 13-year legal dispute over royalties related to its Winnie the Pooh franchise when a judge dismissed the case, contending the plaintiff altered confidential memorandums and covered up the theft of documents obtained by a private investigator who sifted through the company’s trash. Judge Charles W. McCoy of Los Angeles Superior Court wrote in his decision that the misconduct of the Slesinger family, which sued Disney in 1991 after contending the company cheated it out of royalty fees, was ‘so egregious that no remedy short of terminating sanctions’ would adequately protect Disney and the justice system from further abuse.” The family is vowing to appeal (Laura Holson, “After 13 Years, Judge Dismisses Case on Pooh Bear Royalties”, New York Times, Mar. 30). Earlier in the case, Disney had drawn sanctions “for deliberately destroying 40 boxes of documents that could have been relevant to the case, including a file marked ‘Winnie the Pooh-legal problems'”; see “The Document-Shredding Facility at Pooh Corner”, Aug. 24-26, 2001. For more on the propensity of some investigators retained in litigation to rifle adversaries’ garbage and commit other invasions of privacy, see Nov. 11, 2003 (FBI probe of Hollywood lawyers); Jul. 28-30, 2000 (Terry Lenzner, Oracle). More: Southern California Law Blog has followed the case.
Nurse Cullen’s references, again
Among the reasons dangerous employees’ reputations often don’t catch up with them, according to USA Today: “Laws that strictly limit what employers can ask applicants, including about arrests. In California, workers are entitled to triple damages if they prove a misrepresentation by a former employer cost them a job offer.” The paper weighs in with an editorial recommending stronger laws shielding employers from being sued over candid references (“How dangerous employees continue to get new jobs”, Mar. 22)(see Mar. 3 and links from there).
Get hacked, go to jail
Hacker and virus incursions could spell not only disruption and possible civil liability for companies whose computer systems are compromised, but also civil and even criminal penalties potentially including prison terms for the companies’ executives, it’s being warned. “Though health-care, banking and deceptive-business laws all create security obligations, a new accounting-reform law being phased in is likely to have the biggest impact. The 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act holds executives liable for computer security by requiring them to pledge that companies’ ‘internal controls’ are adequate, and auditors are starting to include cybersecurity in that category, said Shannon Kellogg, director of government affairs at RSA Security.” (“Online security: who’s liable?”, Reuters/Wired News, Mar. 28). For more on hackee liability and related issues, see May 29, 2001; Jul. 12, Feb. 26-27, and Feb. 10-11, 2000.
Campus taverns: sued if they do…
Pressured by University of Wisconsin officials and by a federal campaign against underage and binge drinking, 24 taverns near the university’s Madison campus agreed voluntarily a year and a half ago to stop cheap-drink promotions on weekends. Can you guess the sequel? A Minneapolis law firm has now swooped down with a class-action antitrust suit filed on behalf of three named UW-Madison students. The suit accuses the taverns of unlawful restraint of trade and demands what it says could be tens of millions of dollars in treble damages on behalf of “the victims of price fixing — basically anyone who patronized the downtown taverns on Friday or Saturday nights and paid full price”. It also names the university and the Madison-Dane County Tavern League. Not being sued, apparently, is the federal government, even though the bars’ agreement to limit weekend drink specials came about “as part of the federally funded PACE project. PACE, which stands for Policy, Alternatives, Community and Education, is in the seventh year of a comprehensive campus-community partnership designed to reduce the negative consequences of high-risk drinking.” (Mike Ivey and Aaron Nathans, “Students sue 24 campus bars”, Capital Times (Madison), Mar. 24). In other campus-drinking-related news, the Milwaukee paper reported last month that Seattle’s Hagens Berman and other law firms who are gearing up big courtroom campaigns against brewers and distillers (see Feb. 16, Dec. 1) were likely to try a demonization campaign against Budweiser’s talking frog and similar marketing devices akin to the successful campaign to demonize R.J. Reynolds’s Joe Camel mascot (Tom Daykin, “Beer may suffer the Joe Camel effect”, Feb. 21). Plus: Vice Squad has more (Mar. 29)(& welcome Reason “Hit & Run” readers). Update May 2, 2005: judge dismisses Madison tavern case after defendants spend $250,000.
Happy birthday, Love Canal
In Reason, Ronald Bailey fact-checks the New York Times on the purported environmental catastrophe near Buffalo that touched off a hundred copycat toxic-tort episodes as well as the federal Superfund program (Mar. 24).
“Tall passengers come up short in lawsuit”
“A California Court of Appeals panel rejected a lawsuit against several airlines, including American and Southwest, by the Tall Club of Silicon Valley which sought preferential seating in roomier exit rows for men at least 6 foot, 2 inches and women at least 5 foot, 10 inches.” (Reuters/Houston Chronicle, Mar. 3)(via Legal Humour)(& letter to the editor, Apr. 2).