A fan downed 14 beers at a New York Giants game and drove off, causing a crash that left a child paralyzed. Now the family’s lawyers want the league to pay. “I understand they are searching for a deep pocket,” said Rutgers law prof Howard Latin. “But at a certain point, people have to be responsible for their own behavior.” (Peter Pochna, “Family sues NFL for fan’s DWI that left child paralyzed”, NorthJersey.com, Oct. 10)(reg) (& see “Sports Betting: The National Football League Versus the Trial Lawyers” (commentary), Center for Individual Freedom, Oct. 16). Update Jan. 21, 2005: jury returns $105 million award against beer concessionaire Aramark after dismissal of claims against team and league.
Annals of zero tolerance: sharing asthma inhaler
Texas: “A teenager was disciplined for sharing medication used to treat asthma, but he said it saved his girlfriend’s life, News2Houston reported Wednesday. Andra Ferguson and her boyfriend, Brandon Kivi, both 15, use the same type of asthma medicine, Albuterol Inhalation Aerosol. … But the school nurse said it was a violation of the district’s no-tolerance drug policy, and reported Kivi to the campus police. The next day, he was arrested and accused of delivering a dangerous drug. Kivi was also suspended from school for three days. He could face expulsion and sent to juvenile detention on juvenile drug charges.” (“Teenager In Trouble In Inhaler Incident”, Yahoo/KPRC, Oct. 8)(via WSJ “Best of the Web“)(see Apr. 8-9, 2002). More: Alan Brain gets the principal’s side of the story including some updates (student said not to have been expelled, police will not press charges) (Oct. 13). But see Click2Houston, Oct. 10 (student expelled until after Christmas, but has chosen to homeschool instead of returning).
Update: “Fat Wallets”
Tech Central Station runs a lengthy piece, with lots of links, on John Banzhaf’s contradictory claims in support of his fast food lawsuit crusade. (Sandy Szwarc, Oct. 10; see Sep. 23, Aug. 11, Aug. 6, Jul. 3, May 13, and many other entries in the archives; see also Tom Knott, “Fat-cat lawyers on attack against the Big Mac”, Washington Times, Oct. 1).
“Arnold’s agenda”
The governor-elect said many of the right things about litigation reform, though both friends and foes are still guessing as to how serious his commitment is. “Before the recall, the influential trial lawyers lobbying group, the Consumer Attorneys of California, had warned of judicial doom under Schwarzenegger … [CAOC president Bruce] Brusavich] worked hard to keep Schwarzenegger out of office, raising nearly $2 million from trial lawyers for Davis and Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante. … Brusavich expects Davis will sign three more plaintiffs-supported bills — one modifying the statute of limitations in toxic torts, one prohibiting pre-dispute arbitration in labor contracts, and one allowing causes of action for labor code violations — before he leaves office.” The litigation lobby also wants Davis, who’s been filling judicial vacancies at a feverish clip, to fill all the rest before leaving. Not if Arnold has his way: “Schwarzenegger Wants Davis to Stop Filling Posts and Signing Bills” reads a Friday morning headline (John M. Broder, New York Times, Oct. 10) (Jeff Chorney, The Recorder, Oct. 9).
“Why does the gun industry deserve special protection?”
…runs the rhetorical question posed by anti-gun litigators. “Because the gun industry is under special attack,” responds Eugene Volokh (Oct. 9). A version of the federal pre-emption litigation recommended in this space (Apr. 4-6; my hearing statement) may be on the way to passing Congress soon, but proponents have made what sounds like a rather major concession to win the support of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), by allowing suits to proceed against guns deemed defective; trial lawyers have long pushed the idea that the absence of some feature such as a timed trigger lock is really a “design defect” for which manufacturers ought to be held liable. If such theories are left unscathed by the new legislation, the push for gun-control-through-litigation is likely to continue (Jesse J. Holland, “Gun Makers May Win Exemption From Suits”, Washington Post, Oct. 9). See also Pejman Yousefzadeh, Oct. 9.
More: Eugene Volokh has follow-up posts on the federalism aspects of the pre-emption bill, here and here (Oct. 10)
“High school coaches file suit against irate parent”
Virginia: “Three high school girls’ basketball coaches filed a defamation lawsuit against the parent of a player who tried to get them removed by questioning their coaching tactics and alleging physical abuse. The suit was filed by Rockbridge County High School girls’ basketball coach Mike Hamilton and two assistants against Roger Koehler of Lexington, the father of a junior who has played on the varsity team for two seasons.” (AP/Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, Aug. 8; Robert Anderson, “Coaches turn tables on parent by suing him for $4 million”, Roanoke Times, Aug. 8).
Class actions and the cost of cars
Steve Blow of the Dallas Morning News, like Alex Tabarrok before him (see Sept. 19), is far from pleased with the results of the class action on behalf of otherwise uninjured owners of recalled Firestone tires; he follows up with a second column which gives details of another class action, this time against Nissan over a printed error on car leases (“Firestone, lawsuits and cost of inflation”, Oct. 4; “Isn’t it time to raise the bar for lawyers?”, Oct. 7). And across town at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, J.R. Labbe discusses the recent case (see Oct. 4) in which Philip Morris agreed to pay $2 million to a mother who by her own account left a child and a lit cigarette unattended in a car contrary to Texas law. “The public may never know why the company chose to settle this case, but you can be sure it will open the door for additional claimants looking to blame someone for their own irresponsible actions.” (“Somebody has to pay”, Oct. 5). (Corrected May 1, 2004 to remove erroneous implication that tire owners were receiving financial compensation in the class action).
New EMF suit challenges Wi-Fi in schools
Though previous scares over electromagnetic fields in overhead power lines and cellular phones have pretty much petered out, fear springs eternal and now is taking as its subject “Wi-Fi” computer-access technology: “Parents in Oak Park, Illinois, have launched a class action lawsuit against their local school board for allegedly threatening the health of children by installing wireless local area network technology in classrooms.” (Tim Richardson, “US parents sue over WLAN school fears”, The Register (UK), Oct. 8; Wi-Fi Networking News, Oct. 6 (check out the comments); complaint courtesy Wi-Fi Networking News (PDF)) (& welcome Virginia Postrel, MemeFirst, RangelMD readers). More: an update from Virginia Postrel (Oct. 10)
“Investors gain little from shareholder suits”
Highly critical analysis of the shareholder-suit biz in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “Usually, what shareholders get back is some minuscule fraction of their loss, some symbolic payment,” said Stuart Greenbaum, dean of Washington University’s Olin School of Business. “They’re of great benefit to the legal profession, but I don’t know that they do a great deal to right corporate wrongs.” (Allyce Bess, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Oct. 4) (via 10b-5 Daily).
Update: Madison County
Notorious Madison County (e.g., Mar. 24, Sep. 26, and too many other entries on this blog to list), across the river from St. Louis, continues to make news. The Illinois Supreme Court is reconsidering the state’s venue rules in the Madison County case of Gridley v. State Farm Insurance in the wake of the county’s reputation as a home for plaintiffs’ venue-shopping. In Gridley, the plaintiff is from Louisiana, all of the percipient witnesses in the case are in Louisiana, the defendant’s headquarters are in Bloomington in central Illinois, but the “plaintiffs say in documents that Madison County is the proper venue because two Madison County residents who have worked for State Farm will be called to testify about how the company handles salvage titles.” (Kevin McDermott, “Big companies aim to dent county’s popularity as venue for lawsuits”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sep. 13). The Belleville News-Democrat explores the role of plaintiffs’ lawyers’ money in Madison County. (Mike Fitzgerald, “Where money talks”, Oct. 5; see also David Bailey, “Illinois county court a corporate ‘hellhole'”, Reuters, Oct. 5). The consequences are real for the laypeople of Madison County: doctors are closing shop as medical malpractice insurance rates triple. (Shawn Clubb, “Another doctor leaving Alton”, The Telegraph, Oct. 4). But the class actions continue: Mattel finds itself a defendant to plaintiffs complaining that the “limited edition” Barbie dolls weren’t sufficiently limited, though they acknowledge that Mattel disclosed that it would make up to 35,000 of them. Plaintiffs are trying to keep the case before Judge Kardis, who issued the original decision permitting venue in Gridley. (Beth Hundsdorffer, “Litigation Barbie”, Belleville News-Democrat, Oct. 5).