Photo of the day: flipped car lying alongside “car accident pain” 1-800 billboard after accident. The driver’s injuries are not considered life-threatening. [WTSP Tampa]
[Reworded 12:30 after commenter E. Bell pointed out that the 1-800 line in question disclaims being a lawyer referral service]
P.S. From commenter Eric T.: “Theory of suit: Driver was distracted by billboard and sues advertiser.”
In addition to the main questions of proof of causation, assumption of risk, and so on raised in yesterday’s NYT story, there is this window into a little-known but well-developed area of forum-shopping:
…California’s workers’ compensation system provides a unique, and relatively unknown, haven for retired professional athletes among the 50 states, allowing hundreds of long-retired veterans each year to file claims for injuries sustained decades before. Players need not have played for California teams or be residents of the state; they had to participate in just one game in the state to be eligible to receive lifetime medical care for their injuries from the teams and their insurance carriers.
About 700 former N.F.L. players are pursuing cases in California, according to state records, with most of them in line to receive routine lump-sum settlements of about $100,000 to $200,000. This virtual assembly line has until now focused on orthopedic injuries, with torn shoulders and ravaged knees obvious casualties of the players’ former workplace. …
Because of the legal environment, the relatively new Arena Football League has avoided locating any of its teams in California.
P.S. Related Times piece on two California lawyers who have brought in “awards that probably total more than $100 million” for players. “Many retired players consider Owens and Mix heroes among their own for essentially finding cash under a mattress; others see an assembly-line process in which players do not fully understand the implications of the settlements.” And some teams have attempted to remove the proceedings to states other than California.
There’s no statute of limitations on child support, and Rosemary Douglas says she’s still owed the money for the birth of a son during the Truman Administration. [Houston Chronicle]
Correction/update: Commenter Patrick points out that this is an enforcement-of-judgment matter rather than a suit, and offers a reading of Texas law likely to be of interest to the alleged dad in the case.
Respectful Insolence, last month:
Well, that didn’t take long.
Remember when the grande dame of the anti-vaccine movement, Barbara Loe Fisher, decided that she would try to harass, intimidate, and silence Paul Offit through the filing of a frivolous libel suit against Dr. Offit, Amy Wallace (the journalist who interviewed Offit for an excellent article last year), and Condé Nast, the publisher of WIRED, which ran the article? Well, the judge has ruled, and that ruling is…dismissed.
“You don’t need to worry about nothin’, baby — I’ll cut up the competition”. [via “Five Ridiculous Lawyer Ads”, CriminalJustice.Change.org]
At the University of Florida female students in the entering class now outnumber male by 3 to 2, and a spokesman matter-of-factly explains: “Girls are being admitted because they are doing the things to be admitted and boys aren’t.” Coyote accepts the statement as rational, but tries to imagine how it would have been received if all the facts were the same but the genders were reversed.
P.S. From the Manhattan Institute’s Minding the Campus, two new articles on the controversy over lesser female representation in science, technology, engineering and math: Susan Pinker, “On Women, STEM and Hidden Bias“, and John Rosenberg, “The Misguided Push for STEM Diversity.”
GameStop has made a lucrative business out of reselling used videogames. Now a class-action lawsuit claims the sales are deceptive because buyers of the used games are often unable to access downloadable content and other perks available to first-sale buyers. [Kotaku, Screen Play]
From the city of Exeter, great moments in community outreach: “police were under fire today after admitting they had been sneaking into people’s homes through open doors and windows and gathering up their valuables into ‘swag’ bags.” The idea was to prod careless owners into improving their security efforts, but “not all residents were happy and a criminal lawyer suggested that the police may have been guilty of trespass.” [The Guardian] Earlier, and nearly as outrageous: Sept. 2 (cops in London borough “remove valuables from unlocked cars to teach the owners about safety”). More: Dueling Barstools on the differences between U.K. and U.S. law, constitutional and otherwise, on this sort of thing.
Chicago-area readers may be interested in attending a 12:15 pm lunchtime debate sponsored by the University of Chicago Law School Federalist Society between me and Tom Geoghegan about tort reform and the role (or non-role) of Republican deregulation in the litigation explosion—a debate I’ve previously engaged in in print.