Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘AAJ’

“People Over Profits”: ATLA Astroturf lobbying over vaccines

The trial lawyers’ lobby has a new technique for pressing its opposition to proposals that would reduce or eliminate liability for drug companies to manufacture vaccines.

Run a Google or Yahoo search for “bird flu” or “avian flu” and a sponsored link will pop up, leading to ads by a group called People Over Profits — which is actually a unit of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. They bear such headlines as “Bird Flu and Viagra: What do they have in common?” and “President Bush and Bird Flu: What Bush is not telling you.” (The group also purchased the search term “Rafael Palmeiro,” not because he has anything to do with the issue but because the ballplayer gets Googled a lot in the steroids controversy.)

Now even Web searchers aren’t safe from lobbying! And since sponsors can monitor the traffic, says ATLA spokeswoman Chris Mather, “you can change your message during the day if it’s not working.”

(Howard Kurtz, “CIA Article Sidebar: A Story of Deja Vu”, Washington Post, Nov. 14). Of course, it’s more important for trial lawyers to have lawsuit opportunities than for manufacturers to be able to make vaccines. More: Apr. 11, Oct. 19, 2004, Dec. 24, 2003.

Filed under: , ,

Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s coffee case

Thirteen courts have reported opinions looking at product-liability/failure-to-warn claims alleging that coffee was “unreasonably dangerous” and the provider was thus liable when the plaintiff spilled coffee on him- or herself. Twelve courts correctly threw the case out. Another trial court in New Mexico, however, didn’t, and became a national icon when the jury claimed that Stella Liebeck deserved $2.9 million in compensatory and punitive damages because McDonald’s dared to sell the 79-year-old hot 170-degree coffee.

The case is ludicrous on its face, as a matter of law and as a matter of common sense. Eleven years later, this should be beyond debate, yet somehow, it keeps coming up in the blogs, and we keep having to refute it. (Dec. 10, 2003, Aug. 3, 2004, Aug. 4, 2004).

Amazingly, rather than argue that the tort system shouldn’t be judged by the occasional outlier, the litigation lobby has succeeded in persuading some in the media and on the left that the Liebeck case is actually an aspirational result for the tort system, and, not only that, but that anyone who says otherwise is just a foolish right-winger buying into “urban legends” (Aug. 14, Aug. 16, and links therein). Even the Mikkelsons at snopes.com have made the mistake of buying into the trial lawyer hype, calling the case “perfectly legitimate” and effectively classifying the common-sense understanding of the case as an urban legend.

But the real urban legend has to be that the case has any legitimacy. Worse, this urban legend is being taught to a generation of law students by professors like Jonathan Turley and Michael McCann. Now, any peripheral mention of the McDonald’s coffee case provokes a gigantic backlash from the left, who, while congratulating themselves on their seeing past the common-sense view of the case and being above urban legends, spread a number of urban legends of their own about the case. Witness the 200-plus comment outpouring at Kevin Drum’s Political Animal blog. This post provides a partial rebuttal to some of the things said in that thread, and will hopefully serve as a FAQ in the future.

Read On…

Filed under: , , , , , , , , ,

Winnebago/Stella Award myths, pt. 4

Reader Gerald Affeldt writes:

I first heard a version of the “Winnebago cruise control” story while I was in the Navy stationed at Whiting Field in Milton, Fla. in 1977. And I’ve heard different versions of it over the years.

The earliest version I heard, as well as a number of later versions, had an ethnic angle. At the time, the U.S. Navy was training pilots for the Shah of Iran, and what with language and customs difference, the trainees weren’t considered technically acute. So the first version of the story I heard was of a supposed Iranian driver. Over the years versions I heard involved a number of other ethnic groups. Just plug in who you wanted.

In the first version I heard, the vehicle was a conversion van. Bed in the back, couple of captain chairs and large mural on the side. Didn’t start hearing motorhome versions till the 90’s. So I guess it’s plug in the popular large vehicle of the time.

In the early versions, the point of the story was just that the driver was too dumb to know cruise control wasn’t the same as an autopilot. I never heard of a lawyer being involved until a few years ago. Guess the story’s age was showing and it needed spicing up.

Most people telling it thought it was true. A friend had seen it in a paper, etc. I guess the whole story works because of the number of stupid people in the world.

For those who came in late, the L.A. Times on Sunday printed a prominent piece on the Winnebago and other “Stella Award” tall tales, which it suggested were “fabrications” spread by the tort reform movement (see Ted’s and my take on the story, as well as our four-year-old debunking of the tales themselves with credit to Snopes). Regarding Mr. Affeldt’s recollections, a few observations:

* You’d think before running an article suggesting that the tales’ wide circulation over the Net reflects a campaign of purposeful disinformation, L.A. Times reporter Myron Levin might have done a little digging into the origins of the tales to find out things like where and when the earliest sightings occur. But there’s scant sign that he did.

* As a visit to the generally excellent urban-legends site Snopes.com will make clear, it’s typical of garden-variety urban legends — the kind whose circulation reflects mere credulity on the part of reader/forwarders, as opposed to a conscious plot to hoodwink the public — that they are older than the tale-tellers realize them to be, and have gone through mutations reflecting what in musicology would be called the folk process.

* To be sure, Mr. Affeldt’s recollections do not conclusively refute the ATLA/L.A. Times thesis that the Winnebago and similar tales have been purposely fabricated. After all, even if there were already an urban legend in wide circulation about a clueless driver’s mistaking cruise control for autopilot, it’s conceivable that the plotters came up with the sly stroke of inserting a lawsuit into the narrative as part of their unceasing efforts to sap public confidence in the U.S. legal system. Of course, it bears repeating that ATLA-‘n’-L.A.T. have offered zero evidence of any such thing happening.

* One other thing missing from the L.A. Times account: any showing that the lawsuit-reform groups mentioned, such as ATRA and Common Good, or any similarly prominent group, have in fact circulated the Winnebago/Stella Award stories at all. Credulity being part of the human condition, of course, there are no doubt instances where the newsletter editor of the East Kankakee Citizens for Lawsuit Reform was taken in by a Stella email from his Aunt Fran and passed it along. That the L.A. Times piece does not adduce even one instance of serious backing from such groups should have raised a flag about the quote from Prof. Turley claiming that such stories have been devised with “skill” for purposes of “influencing policy”.

* Thanks to Patterico, Gail Heriot and Southern California Law Blog for linking to our earlier discussion. Among some bloggers of an opposite persuasion, the L.A. Times piece seems to have come as a confirmation of their own dearly held preconceptions on the subject, as with Ezra Klein, John Cole, and Mr. Furious, to some of whose comments sections Ted has paid a visit.

Filed under: , , , , ,

L.A. Times on “lawsuit urban legends”, cont’d

A few further thoughts on the absurdly one-sided Los Angeles Times piece that Ted nails below:

To me, the most outrageous moment in the piece comes early, when GWU lawprof Jonathan Turley is quoted saying of stories like the bogus “Winnebago cruise control” tale: “The people that created these stories did so with remarkable skill,” that skill being aimed at “influencing policy”. Turley thus clearly implies that the silly Winnebago story, or the list of supposed “Stella Awards”, or both, were purposely fabricated by sinister if unknown persons in order to influence policy debates, as opposed to, say, originally being someone’s idea of satire and then being passed along by people who wrongly believed them genuine. LAT reporter Myron Levin permits this very serious charge of deliberate fabrication to hang in the air unexamined and unanswered, which does much to set the tone of his piece.

Yet Prof. Turley, a figure much quoted in the press and frequently on camera, offers precisely zero evidence to back up his serious charge that someone deliberately made up the Winnebago/Stella stories and passed them off as real in hopes of influencing policy. Okay, Prof. Turley, either document that charge, or retract it — or else face a very reasonable suspicion that you yourself are willing to fabricate serious charges for which you lack any evidence.

The Association of Trial Lawyers of America for months has been pushing the theme that the L.A. Times ran with today and it, too, offers not the slightest evidence for its claim that someone purposely fabricated the Winnebago/Stella stories to influence policy debates. ATLA’s floating of that theme (“Updated
February 2005”) can be found here (claiming stories are “designed [emphasis added] to perpetuate the myth that there is a ‘lawsuit crisis’ in America … clearly are part of a massive disinformation campaign designed to undermine Americans’ confidence in our legal system,” etc., etc.) Curiously, for an article that raises concerns about supposed attempts by well-organized groups to influence press coverage, the LAT story never mentions ATLA at all, merely alluding vaguely to trial lawyers in a place or two.

Much of this is of course old news to readers of Overlawyered, which four years ago printed an extensive debunking of the bogus stories that the L.A. Times says legal reformers are eager to circulate. We know through referrer traffic that large numbers of web users continue to land on our entry by searching on strings such as “winnebago + cruise control + lawsuit” (& welcome Patterico, Gail Heriot, Southern California Law Blog readers).

Filed under: , , ,

Senate passes Class Action Fairness Act

By a 72-26 vote, with 18 Democrats and Vermont’s Jeffords joining a unanimous roster of Republicans, the Senate has approved this bill, which would 1) move most interstate class actions from state into federal court and 2) regulate various practices such as the use of coupon settlements. House approval and a Presidential signature are expected in short order, giving the returning Bush administration its first major legislative victory and dealing a rare defeat to the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. Such defeats have been so rare that CAFA, though hardly radical and not a little watered down from earlier versions, probably constitutes the most ambitious tort-reform measure to pass at the federal level in recent decades. (New York Times).

For some of this site’s past posts on the bill, see Apr. 25-27, Jun. 12-15 and Jun. 25, and Sept. 28, and Oct. 21, 2003. Jim Copland and others have wall-to-wall coverage of the new developments at Point of Law, including posts on the roll call; background (including links to four past Manhattan Institute studies on the issue); the “magnet-court” problem; and last but not least, a new Manhattan Institute study by Yale law prof George Priest taking a closer look at some widely circulated statistics about class settlements, and opining that CAFA would be a useful if limited first step in addressing the problems raised by such litigation.

Elsewhere on the web, some plaintiff’s-side observers are pointing out that the new rules ushered in by the bill will likely be actively beneficial to the practice of some lawyers who specialize in filing such suits (though detrimental to others’), and that some businesses that get sued are likely to find their position worsened (not only may they find it harder to enter cheap coupon settlements, for example, but they may face a proliferation of one-state-only class actions). See, in particular, Evan Schaeffer and C. E. Petit (“Scrivener’s Error”). Meanwhile, Dwight Meredith perhaps surprisingly “do[es] not oppose the proposed reform of class action suits” but believes its GOP sponsors are being inconsistent, and Bill Childs wonders if there’s more to the debate besides money. Finally, Baseball Crank points out a possibly headache-making technical aspect of the bill.

Filed under: , , , ,

Ted’s mythbusting at Point of Law

Maybe he’s too modest to mention it here, but over at our sister website, Ted has been on a roll with several devastating posts correcting fallacies that have circulated during the past week’s intense news coverage of liability reform:

* The George Soros-sponsored, David Brock-run media gadfly organization, Media Matters for America, recently criticized the Washington Post for running coverage that was not (to its taste) sufficiently critical of medical malpractice reform. Trouble is, as Ted shows, Media Matters itself blundered into whopping errors on the subject, badly misrepresenting the views of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). “This is what MMFA gets for relying on ATLA fact sheets instead of primary sources.”

* Pointing to evidence that payouts by 98 Massachusetts doctors accounted for more than 13 percent of one year’s malpractice payouts in the state, the New York Times concluded that cracking down on bad doctors could greatly help the malpractice crisis. But the numbers announced in the study warrant no such conclusion;

* The Association of Trial Lawyers of America is out with a supposed fact sheet on medical malpractice, which (no surprise) Ted finds to be full of gross distortions. Equally embarrassing, he catches Illinois Democratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky posting on her official website a huge chunk of the lame ATLA argumentation, cut and pasted without acknowledgment of its interest-group origins. (Allen Adomite at Illinois Civil Justice League has more).

* Finally, Ted discovers the Alabama Trial Lawyers Association claiming that a profitable year in the property insurance business is reason to doubt that there’s a crisis in the liability insurance business.

Filed under: , , , , ,

With a little help from their friends

The Association of Trial Lawyers of America has decided to cultivate friends on both sides of the aisle. Long viewed as a friend of Democrats, the organization is beginning to see the wisdom of courting Republicans, too:

ATLA stepped up its courting of Republicans — particularly in the Senate — about three years ago. David Casey Jr., a Democrat who at the time was ATLA’s vice president, invited Mr. Parkinson, the Republican lawyer, to his San Diego law office….Mr. Parkinson went to see Sen. Hatch, who, he says, told him, “Not all Republican senators and House members favor the wholesale dismantling of the civil-justice system, but the view is that you’re completely Democratic.” If ATLA “would just try to be fair to both sides, they’re going to find the reception” among Republicans more welcoming, Sen. Hatch says in an interview.

How “fair” do they have to be to get a warm welcome? Let’s look at the numbers for the politicians mentioned in the article: Orrin G. Hatch, Saxby Chambliss, Lindsey Graham, and John T. Doolittle. Evidently, their work is paying off:

The trial bar’s Republican push again showed results last month, when Sen. Kyl tried once more to pass his attorney-fee cap for tobacco cases. This time, 15 Republicans opposed it, two more than last time.

Money talks. And trial lawyers have no shortage of money.

Filed under: , , ,

Does tort reform affect insurance rates?

In my radio interview last week, I was asked about the Wisconsin Association of Trial Lawyers’ claim that tort reform measures have no effect on medical insurance rates. ATLA’s “fact sheet” on medical malpractice reform makes the same claim. A 2003 HHS compilation of studies on the matter, linked on our old medical page, refutes that proposition. (HHS, “Confronting the New Health Care Crisis”, Mar. 3, 2003 at Tables 6 and 7).

Read On…

Filed under: , , , , , , ,

Oh, working for them

Two years ago we noted that the Environmental Working Group, a frequent source of anti-business stories in the press, seemed to be rather deeply involved with the litigation biz (see May 23, 2001). The group more recently has come in for sharp criticism from the conservative Capital Research Center (Bonner R. Cohen, “The Environmental Working Group: Peddlers of Fear”, Jan.) (PDF)(mentions this site) and from the American Tort Reform Association (also mentions this site).

Looking over EWG’s website recently, we noticed a page dated Nov. 17 of last year on the MTBE liability controversy (on which, see Nov. 25). It seems EWG took out big ads in Roll Call and The Hill calling for oil companies to be held liable for underwater spread of the gasoline additive (sample ad in PDF format, linked from Nov. 17 page). On EWG’s own webpage (see bottom of left column) appears the following notice: “Advertisements paid for by Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA)”. Curiously, that reader advisory didn’t appear in the sample ad itself. Wasn’t there room to fit it in?

And today EWG released a report that echoes the major assertions of the plaintiff’s trial bar on the topic of asbestos, and adds some controversial claims of its own, including a claim that deaths from asbestos-related disease are on the rise. The report doesn’t have much to say about perjury mills or about the domination of the asbestos docket by unimpaired claimants. It turns out (as you learn if you reach this page) that the new report “would not have been possible without the financial, intellectual and material support of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA)”, and in particular a “grant in the amount of $176,000 from ATLA to the EWG Action Fund.” You might almost think there’s a pattern here.

Filed under: , , ,