Posts Tagged ‘environment’

Lawsuit Filed to Prevent Killing of Pigs on Channel Islands

A lawsuit was filed on Tuesday to halt the killing of feral pigs on Santa Cruz Island off of the California coast. The pigs are causing problems with the island’s ecosystem. Nonetheless, the plaintiffs contend that the Channel Islands National Park officials have “rushed to judgment” in deciding to kill the pigs. (Mercury News, “Lawsuit seeks to stop eradication of pigs on Santa Cruz Island,” Jul. 6, 2005).

Piping Plovers Cancel Fireworks

The piping plover is a neurotically fragile bird that abandons its low-lying nests on beaches in response to noise, and suffers from being prey for dogs, raccoons, foxes, and skunks, its only defense being relatively ineffective camoflauge. Though the Fish & Wildlife Service under the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations did not believe it necessary to create critical habitats for the thousands of plovers that remain, the Clinton administration eventually settled a lawsuit brought against it by agreeing to establish a critical habitat in 2001. (The efforts may be for naught, since plovers migrate to Canada, and not even Canada provides such dramatic protections for endangered species, much less “threatened” species.) Now, a number of towns up and down the East Coast have been required to cancel their fireworks ceremonies on the grounds that the noise might interfere with the nesting. Jerry Della Femina, the inventor of the “Meow Mix” theme-song used to “torture” Guantanamo prisoners, is especially unhappy that his annual fireworks party has been cancelled, and has been using his advertising wiles to generate publicity on the issue; in response, a local Fish & Wildlife official has threatened him with prison rape, but that hasn’t stopped Della Femina from publishing his recipe for Garlic Piping Plover. (Paul Vitello, “Clash of Beach-Nesting Species: Plover and Human”, NY Times, Jul. 2; Julia C. Mead, “Those Little Birds on the Beach Mean No Fireworks in the Sky”, NY Times, Jun. 23; Kai Ma, “Plovers force cancelation of July 4th fireworks in East Hampton”, Newsday, Jun. 24; Seth Harkness, “Fireworks canceled to keep birds safe”, Portland Press Herald, Jul. 2; Marina McGowan, “Piping Plovers Cancel Fourth of July Fireworks”, Long Island Press, Jul. 3; Kitty Merrill, “Indy Goes Inside: The Great Plover Controversy Of 2005”, The Independent, Jun. 29; Jerry Della Femina, “The Grinch Who Stole The Fourth Of July”, The Independent, Jun. 29). In Stone Harbor, New Jersey, the federal government required dredging to protect the plovers, with a cost to local taxpayers of $3 million. In exchange, nine pairs of plovers were able to establish nests, four of which produced young, and one plover of these young fledged—a three-million dollar bird. (Richard Degener, “Settlement on table in Cape spoils case”, Press of Atlantic City, Mar. 22; DOJ press release, Feb. 12, 2003).

“Affordable housing” lawsuits

In Connecticut as well as some other states, land developers have teamed up with low-income housing advocates to promote laws which impose on towns a duty to boost their level of so-called affordable housing and give homebuilders willing to include such housing in their developments a cause of action to go to court to overturn local building restrictions. Norm Pattis of Crime and Federalism (May 9) isn’t buying the idea that the resulting litigation, with its tendency to replace the formerly diverse land-use practices of different towns with homogeneous sprawl, really should count as progressive.

U.K.: fruit trees get council axe

“A council is cutting down dozens of healthy trees because it fears that it will be sued if people slip on fallen fruit. Mature crab apple and pear trees are the prime targets of the cull by Havering council, east London, which said it had never been sued by anyone over rotten, slippery fruit on the pavement but the potential existed for such action.” Homeowners have protested, to no avail so far. (David Sapsted, “Trees cut down amid fears of fruit case”, Daily Telegraph, Jun. 18).

Made ill by colleague’s perfume; jury votes $10.6 million

After eight days of deliberation, an all-female federal jury in Detroit has voted $10.6 million, including $7 million in punitive damages, $2 million for mental anguish and emotional distress and $1.6 million in compensatory damages, to former radio host Erin Weber, who said she was made ill by a co-worker’s perfume and later fired after WYCD-FM’s owner, Infinity Broadcasting, failed to resolve her complaints. Weber said that exposure to colleagues’ use of nail polish remover triggered sensitivity to the emanations of a co-worker wearing Tresor, a popular scent which Lancome describes as “romantic, sensual, emotional” and as based on such ingredients as rose and lilac. “Weber claimed exposure to Tresor caused her to lose her voice and take lengthy absences from work. She also said she once ‘felt an electric shock quell through my entire body’ and required heavy medication to combat the effects,” according to the Detroit News. In addition, Weber claimed, the co-worker, who is also a radio host, continued exposing her to the perfume despite her complaints and even walked by her on purpose. Infinity lawyer Daniel Tukel said the company had ordered the co-worker to stop wearing perfume and disputed Weber’s claim that it had “blacklisted” her from radio employment. The company says it will appeal, and a reduction in the award is likely, since federal law “generally caps punitive damages at $300,000 for the claims that Weber brought.” (David Shepardson, “Radio DJ wins $10.6 million in stink over perfume”, Detroit News, May 24; Kim North Shine, “DJ takes in sweet smell of victory”, Detroit Free Press, May 24). For some earlier posts involving claims of unusual sensitivity to widely encountered chemicals, see May 6, 2002, Apr. 25, 2001, and Jul. 3-4, 2000. For complaints about perfume, see May 17-19, 2002 and Apr. 24, 2000 (& welcome James Taranto readers). Update Jul. 6, 2007: federal judge after trial reduced Weber’s award to $814,000.

“State says rare flower planted to foil project”

Sonoma County, Calif.: “State wildlife officials believe someone planted endangered flowers at a Sebastopol building site to try to stop a disputed housing development. Saying the act amounts to criminal fraud, state Department Fish and Game botanist Gene Cooley said his agency concluded that Sebastopol meadowfoam plants found on the Laguna Vista site were transplanted from somewhere else.” (Mary Callahan, Santa Rosa Press-Democrat, May 14)(via Jonathan Adler, Commons Blog, May 14).

Harvard profs vs. kid art studio

“What does a high-powered Harvard Law School professor do when he gets in a dispute with a neighbor? He sues, of course — even if that neighbor takes care of his young son after school every day.” The lawprof, for those who don’t want to follow the link, is executive-compensation-scourge Lucian Bebchuk, who’s joined with a few other Harvard-affiliated property owners to fight their neighbor, the nonprofit Agassiz Neighborhood Council, which would like to install a children’s art studio on its property. (Steve Bailey, “Sue thy neighbor”, Boston Globe, May 6).

Belated Arbor Day special: Matthew Davis

If you see fewer trees in your California city, it’s because attorney Matthew Davis is making a practice out of suing landowners or public agencies when people are injured by falling tree limbs in highly populated areas. Cities may well find that cutting down trees is cheaper than maintaining them to a standard that avoids lawsuits, or taxpayers may find themselves footing the bill for insuring the public when the bough breaks. (Justin Scheck, “Lawyer’s Accidental Specialty in Tree Lawsuits Bears Fruit”, The Recorder, May 2).

Broken thermometer? Close down the school

When tiny amounts of hazardous materials get spilled, major disruptions can result: “Suppose Marshall University had responded to a dropped vial of phenol by asking a janitor to clean it up, cautiously. The school would have feared, and perhaps rightly so, junk-science lawsuits over mysterious symptoms that someone near the spill might claim mysteriously to have developed. Evacuating the med school and bringing in the moon-suit patrol might have been unnecessary, but it reduced the school’s tort exposure.” (Gregg Easterbrook, “Hazardous Waste”, The New Republic, Mar. 21).

Vietnamese Agent Orange case dismissed

In a 233-page ruling, federal judge Jack Weinstein has dismissed a lawsuit on behalf of Vietnamese plaintiffs demanding compensation over the use of the defoliant Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. (William Glaberson, “Agent Orange Case for Millions of Vietnamese Is Dismissed”, New York Times, Mar. 10). As Julian Ku puts it, “If the plaintiffs can’t convince Judge Weinstein, who can they convince?” The case is separate from one that has been allowed to proceed seeking compensation on behalf of U.S. veterans, despite a settlement brokered and approved by Judge Weinstein years ago which had been widely thought to have resolved that category of claim (see Jul. 4, 2003).