“The six straight men who sued to prevent the broadcast of an UK reality show in which, unbeknownst to them, they competed for the affection of a preoperative Mexican transsexual quickly got over their claims of injury and public humiliation in return for a cash payment, clearing the way for the program to debut on UK television”. (see Oct. 31, Nov. 5). Various reports pegged the undisclosed settlement “at anywhere between $150,000 and $250,000 a man”. (Steve Rogers, “Lawsuit settled, ‘Crying Game’-like ‘There’s Something About Miriam’ premieres in UK”, RealityTVWorld, Feb. 23; Debi Enker, “Reality reaches new low”, Melbourne Age, May 20) (via Curmudgeonly Clerk, May 20).
Posts Tagged ‘emotional distress’
Damage caps for me, but not for thee
Most of organized lawyerdom, as we know, strongly opposes any notion of capping damages recoverable by victims, even as applied to “non-economic” damages claimed for intangible harms such as pain and suffering or emotional distress. It turns out, however, that the bar enthusiastically supports the capping in nearly every state of one particular form of compensation, namely, the compensation of clients who are embezzled from or otherwise defrauded by their lawyers. In Pennsylvania, for example, the official Pennsylvania Lawyer Fund for Client Security (more) caps damages payable to defrauded clients at $75,000, although the loss actually sustained by the victimized client often runs far higher than that. Columnist Don Spatz of the Reading, Pa. Eagle notices the irony: “Even if you can prove your lawyer stole $200,000 from you, you’re out of luck. There’s a cap. … I haven’t heard lawyers worry about caps taking away those victims’ rights.” (“First, lawyer, heal thyself”, Reading Eagle, Mar. 24, at HALT site).
It should be noted that the damages clients attempt to recover after being defrauded by their lawyers are typically direct out-of-pocket economic losses, as opposed to money for humiliation, psychic distress and the like. Yet lawyers in most states have secured payout caps even lower than Pennsylvania’s $75,000, often much lower: Illinois lawyers cap their collective responsibility at a paltry $10,000 per case, for example, and Nevada’s at $15,000. (2002 ABA Center for Professional Responsibility survey of state plans, reprinted at Michigan Bar Association site, PDF, scroll to Chart II, part 2). Perhaps these lawyers are worried that setting caps at a more generous level (or, heaven forfend, removing them entirely) would increase the premiums currently assessed against them to cover the risk pools. In Pennsylvania, according to columnist Spatz, these premiums were recently running at the very extravagant level of $45 per lawyer per year.
In a number of states, it should be noted, lawyers impose an effective cap of zero on this particular kind of claim, by the simple method of not having established any collective client protection scheme at all. And there is a certain very plausible logic to that position: why after all should rank and file attorneys be asked to clean up the messes left by their errant brethren? Is a lawyer his brother’s keeper? It’s just that this argument would sit better were the leaders of the bar not constantly denouncing the medical profession for its alleged failure to police itself.
Insurer on hook for $150K for $8K chiropractor bill
In May 1995, Dawn Goodson’s car was rear-ended by a car insured by American Standard. Fourteen months later, in July 1996, Goodson and her children spent $8,000 on a chiropractor. Goodson submitted an insurance claim three months later.
You might imagine a wee bit of skepticism on the part of the insurance company. Goodson hadn’t gone through American Standard’s PPO, which meant that the bills were higher than they would have been; moreover, American Standard was skeptical that a chiropractor’s 1996 treatment for three individuals was medically necessary as a result of the 1995 accident, and asked for an independent medical evaluation. Nevertheless, American Standard, after initially offering to pay part of the bill, eventually paid the full medical bills in April 1998.
Not good enough: Goodson sued three months later, seeking damages for “emotional distress.” A jury awarded $75,000, and doubled it with $75,000 of punitive damages. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed Monday, holding that the eighteen-month delay in full payment was grounds for recovery of non-economic damages. You can guess what the eventual consequence will be for Colorado insurance rates now that an insurer is potentially subject to penalties of over 2000% for questioning a claim, but the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association paints it as a victory for the consumers who will now have to pay for the meritless claims insurers will pay out of fear of lawsuit. (Howard Pankratz, “Court says tardy insurers liable for emotional damages without proof of loss”, Denver Post, May 4; Karen Abbott, “Insurer is ordered to pay family $300,000”, Rocky Mountain News, May 4; Goodson v. American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin opinion).
QFC mad cow class action
In other grocery lawsuit news: you may remember back in December that a single Canadian cow was found to have mad cow disease, and as a safety precaution, tens of thousands of pounds of beef were voluntarily recalled in addition to the 10,510 pounds the USDA ordered recalled. Well, it seems that a Seattle-area woman, Jill Crowson, is bringing a class action against supermarket chain QFC. Says the suit, it wasn’t enough for QFC to merely pull the meat from its shelves, post signs, and make public announcements; even though coverage of the lone mad cow dominated headlines for a week, QFC should also have taken the individual step of contacting customers who purchased beef to warn them–and presumably have managed to accomplish this instantaneously on Christmas Eve, since QFC learned about the beef on December 24 and Ms. Crowson ate it on December 25.
Now, it’s exceedingly unlikely that Ms. Crowson or her family has suffered any injury from her Christmas-day tacos. First, it’s unlikely that Ms. Crowson had any meat from the infected cow; second, it’s extremely unlikely (and there is no evidence) that one will contract variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease from the muscle meat of a cow (the real danger is the relatively unpopular brain and spinal cord); third, even those who do eat infected brain and spinal tissue are unlikely to contract vCJD, which has stricken 150 people out of the millions exposed worldwide. Ms. Crowson probably suffered more risk driving to and from the grocery store or her lawyer’s office. Nevertheless, she wishes damages for the ”stress and fear” of vCJD–though if such longshot risks cause her such anxiety, one would think she would do more due diligence in life. (Lewis Kamb, “QFC says it acted appropriately in beef recall”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Mar. 6; “Seattle family sues grocery chain over mad cow claim”, AP, Mar. 6; Kyung M. Song, “Clyde Hill woman sues QFC over suspect meat”, Seattle Times, Mar. 6; complaint; QFC statement).
Grocery worker wins ADA case
37-year-old grocery worker David Warnes took a donut from an Entenmann’s box, ate half of it, and returned the other half to the box on the shelf. The Giant Eagle supermarket fired him — and bought itself a lawsuit. Mr. Warnes has Down Syndrome and, his mother explains, “impulsively” ate the doughnut without understanding the consequences of his actions. Somehow, this case got to a jury, which ruled in Mr. Warnes’s favor; the supermarket reached a settlement rather than risk punitive damages. “The lawsuit sought damages for lost wages, reimbursement for the difficulty Warnes would have in finding another job, emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation.” “Warnes’ attorney, Timothy O’Brien, said his client was ‘very happy’ with the jury’s decision.” “‘He was pleased,’ said his mother, Carol. ‘[But] he doesn’t really comprehend the legal system.'” That makes two of us, at least in this case. (Torsten Ove, “Giant Eagle reaches settlement with former employee”, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mar. 6; Robert Baird, “Grocery worker wins lawsuit”, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Mar. 5).
Radio Shack receipt suit
A customer from the Long Island suburb Wyandanch had her address entered into a Radio Shack computer by a prankster under her town’s nickname “Crimedanch.” Tanisha Torres, who acknowledges that she’s heard other people use the nickname, was so “embarrassed, flustered and shamed” that, after having that address printed out on a Radio Shack receipt on several occasions, she ran to a lawyer, Andrew Siben, who has sued the retail chain. (Robin Topping, “No Writing Off This Receipt”, Newsday, Feb. 4) (via Obscure Store). We think Mr. Siben is suffering from a failure of imagination: if Radio Shack has such potency that it can force a customer to shop there again and again even as it was repeatedly causing her such emotional distress, then it must have a degree of market power that potentially violates the antitrust laws.
Siben was previously quoted by Newsday lamenting that a spate of good weather had reduced his office’s workload of slip-and-fall cases. (A.J. Carter, “A Weather-Related Slowdown”, Jul. 29, 2002). Siben made his first mark in this space for an $80,000 settlement in a $4 million suit against the Upper Room Tabernacle Church, explaining to the New York Post that the plaintiff “was caused to fall by the Holy Spirit but unfortunately there was no-one there to catch her when she fell.” (Feb. 11-12, 2002; “Worshipper’s Holy Spirit Fall Nets Her $80,000 From Church”, New York Post, Feb. 2, 2002). Siben also represented Edwin Devito in his $5 million suit against American Airlines; Devito claims he was “knocked to the floor” (but not hospitalized) and suffered nightmares when a jet engine from Flight 587 crashed near where he was working. (AP, Sep. 9, 2002).
Ferry-fear funding foreseen
New York City taxpayers are probably going to be liable not only for the physical injuries inflicted in Wednesday’s Staten Island Ferry crash — which include ten deaths and about 60 injuries resulting in hospitalization, some of them horrific — but also for damages potentially payable to all of the unhurt passengers, widely estimated to number 1,500. A “federal maritime doctrine allows all those who were in the face of danger and who suffered emotional distress to file for compensation, even if they were not physically injured”. Among likely claims, according to Columbia law dean David Leebron, are those from “passengers who claim to now have a fear of ferries that affects their ability to commute and earn a living”. (“City Could Face a Deluge of Suits Over Ferry Crash”, New York Times, Oct. 18; “Staten Island ferry pilot to be investigated”, AP/Globe and Mail, Oct. 16). For awards of $300,000-$6.5 million in the related area of suits by air-crash survivors with minor or no injuries, see Oct. 8, 1999, Oct. 19, 2000, and Aug. 24-26, 2001. (& welcome Samizdata.net readers)
Ladies Man
Col. Kassem Saleh has apparently been making himself a little too popular with the ladies. It’s a fascinating question of whether one can get in trouble for “just talking” if one didn’t actually engage in any harassment at all. Indeed, the women seem to be complaining that they wanted more Saleh, not less.
More on jackpot justice
Michigan: A federal jury awarded $270.05 in general damages and $875,000 in punitive damages to a 74-year-old woman who claimed she was “questioned, photographed, held against her will and finally tossed out” of a casino after she found an abandoned nickel credit in a deserted slot machine. Plaintiff Estella Romanski prevailed on her claims for violation of her civil rights, false arrest and false imprisonment, while Detroit’s MotorCity Casino defeated her claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
MotorCity spokesman Jack Barthwell told a reporter that the practice of so-called “slot walking” is discouraged to ensure “that proper taxes are paid, and to preserve order in the casino. … Because it’s not your money, you’re taking something that doesn’t belong to you. We believe it’s owned by the person who bet it or by the casino.” But Romanski’s lawyer “said the jury was instructed that under Michigan law the finder of lost or abandoned property has superior title to it than the owner of the locality where the property is found.” Barthwell said the casino plans to appeal, but may first ask the court to reduce damages. (Leonard Post, “Casino Visitor Parlays Nickel Into Legal Jackpot,” The Nat’l Law Journal, Aug. 4) (via law.com) (see also earlier Overlawyered.com report, Jul. 25). [Update Feb. 28, 2007: Supreme Court denies casino’s certiorari petition.]
Candy-bar confrontation results in bias suit
Alaska: “Jamila Glauber, who was told to leave a city bus for eating a bite-size Snickers bar March 22, 2002, filed suit in Juneau on Monday against Capital Transit, the city and Tad Zurek, the bus driver. Glauber, represented by Anchorage attorney Jay W. Trumble, claims the actions of the defendants caused her severe emotional distress and were based on her race and national origin. As an Arab-American of Yemeni origin, she is protected from such actions under the Alaska Human Rights Act, the suit notes.” (“Woman sues Capital Transit over 2002 incident”, Juneau Empire, Jul. 23).