Lawsuit-funding companies, which advance litigants cash in exchange for a share of the eventual booty, have apparently departed the state of Ohio since a decision this summer by the Ohio Supreme Court (see Aug. 4) finding that such activities violate a 180-year-old state law against champerty and permit intermeddlers to “gorge upon the fruits of litigation”. “Several states, including Massachusetts, New Hampshire and South Carolina, have lifted their prohibitions against the practice. At least 100 lawsuit-funding companies have emerged nationwide since 1998 when Perry Walton, a litigation-finance pioneer from Nevada, started holding seminars to teach other entrepreneurs how to make money by doing what some critics say is akin to betting on lawsuits.” (“Lawsuit-funding companies avoid Ohio after court ruling”, AP/Miami Herald, Oct. 1)(more on champerty, from The Litigation Explosion).
Posts Tagged ‘Massachusetts’
Update: two personal-responsibility cases
Updating a case covered on Mar. 28, 2000: a Texas court of appeals earlier this year reversed an award of $43 million (voted as $65 million by the jury, then reduced by the trial judge) against Honda to the survivors of a woman who accidentally rolled her car off a boat ramp into Galveston Bay and at autopsy was found to have .17 alcohol in her bloodstream. Her survivors argued that she was trapped in the sinking car by her seat belt, but the appeals court said they had not shown that any alternative belt design would have been any safer overall. Incidentally, this particular Galveston boozy pier roll-off award is guaranteed to be a different case entirely from the Galveston boozy pier roll-off award discussed in this space Aug. 28, in which the city of Galveston and its pier lessee were supposedly the ones to blame, the verdict came in at $10.5 million, and an appeals court again threw it out (Mary Alice Robbins, “Texas Court Reverses $43M Judgment Against Automaker”, Texas Lawyer, Feb. 19).
In an even more belated update, pool owners in Massachusetts were given a reason to heave a sigh of relief when the plaintiff cited in our Jan. 24, 2000 item, an experienced swimmer of 21 years old, lost his appeal before the state’s highest court in which he had argued that his girlfriend’s grandparents should have warned him not to dive into the shallow end (Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, “Open and Obvious Danger Doctrine Reaffirmed”, Winter 2001; for details of case see also Cathleen F. Crowley, “Court decision could impact pool owners”, Lawrence Eagle Tribune, Jan. 4, 2000).
Couldn’t get $11 M for drinking himself into coma
From Lowell, Mass. comes word that a jury has rejected a suit asking that Joseph Albert be awarded millions of dollars for drinking himself into a coma. Attorney Peter J. Nicosia of Tyngsboro asked $11 million in a “dramshop liability” suit against Gus & Paul’s Tavern for serving an undetermined number of beers over two hours to Albert, who was found by police later that night with a blood-alcohol level at a startling .48. Complicating Nicosia’s case was a deposition from a boon companion of Albert’s saying that the plaintiff had been drinking from a bottle of Jack Daniel’s whiskey after leaving the tavern. “I played that off to be basically an untrue story and basically a red herring,” said attorney Nicosia of the Jack Daniels. “The bottle was never found; no one ever saw him drink it.” The jury evidently wasn’t persuaded. (Jeanne Greeley, “Tragic Dram-Shop Case Just Had Too Many Holes”, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, Jun. 30). In another of last year’s big defense wins in the Bay State, a jury decided it wasn’t General Motors’ fault that a mother had left her Chevy Astro van running with the keys in the ignition and occupied by her infant with her 4-year-old sister; the pre-schooler climbed into the front and shifted the transmission, causing the van to roll into a pond. (Kelly Winget, “Tot rolls van into pond”, Lawrence Eagle-Tribune, Jul. 18, 2000).
Archived family law items, pre-July 2003
[probate and estate law cases]
“Decorating for reconciliation“, May 29, 2003.
“Pet custody as legal practice area“, Feb. 17, 2003; “Officious intermeddlers, pet division” (lawyers intervene on behalf of couple’s cats and dogs), May 14-15, 2002.
Custody and visitation, 2003: “‘The Politics of Family Destruction’” (Stephen Baskerville), Jan. 7-8. 2002: “Rethinking grandparent visitation“, Oct. 21; “‘Avoiding court is best defence’“, Jan. 14-15. 2001: “Columnist-fest” (John Tierney), May 25-27; “Solomon’s child“, Jan. 26-28. 1999: “Spreading to Australia?” (smoking and child custody), Dec. 29-30; “Chicago’s $4 million kid” (custody battle royal), Sept. 17-19.
Child support, 2003: “‘The Politics of Family Destruction’” (bans on fathering more children), Jan. 7-8 (& Nov. 28, 2001). 2001: “Wrong guy? Doesn’t seem to matter“, Aug. 7-8; “‘Judge orders parents to support 50-year-old son’“, Aug. 7-8. 2000: “State errors unfairly cast some dads as deadbeats“, Sept. 8-10; “Not child’s father, must pay anyway” (plus: “throwaway dads”), May 22; “Pilloried, broke, alone” (Donna LaFramboise on “deadbeat dads”), Apr. 10. 1999: “Beating up on ‘deadbeat dads’“, Aug. 23.
“Lawyers fret about bad image“, Oct. 3, 2002.
“Hizzoner’s divorce, settled at last“, Jul. 16-17, 2002.
“Lawyer’s 44-hour workday” (social service agency, uncontested adoptions), Jun. 28-30, 2002.
“Anti-circumcision suit advances“, Aug. 19, 2002; “By reader acclaim: suing over circumcision“, Feb. 28-March 1, 2001; “Folk medicine meets child abuse reporting” (“coining” of skin), May 31-Jun. 2, 2002.
Restraining orders: “‘The Politics of Family Destruction’“, Jan. 7-8, 2003; “A menace in principle“, Mar. 4, 2002; “Fateful carpool“, Aug. 23-24, 2000; “Stay away, I’ve got a court order“, Aug. 11-13; “Recommended reading” (Dan Lynch in Albany Times-Union), Jan. 25, 2000; “Hitting below the belt“, Oct. 26, 1999; “Injunctive injustice“, Oct. 14; “Weekend reading” (“Why is Daddy in jail?…For the crime of wanting to see his child”), Sept. 25-26, 1999; “Hitting below the belt” (Cathy Young, Salon).
“Mom wants to be sued” (for negligent injury to fetus), Jan. 4-6, 2002.
“‘Wrongful life’ comes to France“, Dec. 11, 2001; “Meet the ‘wrongful-birth’ bar“, Aug. 22-23 (& letter to the editor, Sept. 3; more on wrongful birth/life: Jan. 9-10, May 20-21, Jul. 1-2, 2002; Nov. 22-23, Sept. 8-10, June 8, May 9, Jan. 8-9, 2000).
“Women’s rights: British law, or Islamic?“, Nov. 13, 2001.
“Rush to reconcile“, Sept. 27, 2001.
“Why she’s quitting law practice” (Canadian lawyer Karen Selick), Aug. 13-14, 2001.
“Canadian court: divorce settlements never final“, May 15, 2001; “Down repressed-memory lane II: distracted when she signed” (separation agreement), Dec. 29-30, 1999.
“‘Halt cohabiting or no bail, judge tells defendants’” (1805 N.C. law), May 8, 2001; “Dusting ’em off” (old laws against “alienation of affection”, cohabitation), May 18-21, 2000.
“‘State running background checks on new parents’” (Michigan), Apr. 3-4, 2001; “Expanding definitions of child abuse“, Feb. 16-19, 2001; “Battered? Hand over your kids“, July 13, 2000.
“‘Victim is sued for support’” (Canada: husband shot by wife may have to pay her), Feb. 9-11, 2001; “Pay us for this service” (husband dunned for cost of defending wife charged with murdering their kids), Dec. 22, 1999.
“Do as the Douglases do” (pre-nuptial agreements), Jan. 10, 2001.
“Behind the subway ads” (1-800-DIVORCE, etc.), Dec. 18-19, 2000; “State of legal ethics” (ad for will-contest litigation), Oct. 5-6; “Honey, you’ve got mail” (solicitations from divorce lawyers arrive before unsuspecting spouses know they’re being divorced), July 15, 1999.
“Family law roundup” (English couple’s divorce costs ?840,000; frequent flier miles argued over; charges of clubby Marin County, Calif. courts), Nov. 7, 2000.
“Dangerous divorce opponents” (when spouse is lawyer), Sept. 21, 2000.
“The asset hider“, May 16, 2000; “No, honey, nothing special happened today” (woman seeking divorce fails to tell husband she just won California lottery), Nov. 20-21, 1999.
“Columnist-fest: liberal aims, illiberal means” (Stuart Taylor on same-sex marriage, William Raspberry on grandparents’ rights), Feb. 24, 2000.
“Scorched-earth divorce tactics? Pay up” (Massachusetts decisions adopt loser-pays as sanction), Jan. 31, 2000.
“Dear Abby: Please help…” (sue married man for breach of promise to follow through on divorce?), Jan. 11, 2000.
“Christmas lawyer humor” (Richard Crouch, “Joys of the season for divorce lawyers”), Dec. 23-26, 1999.
“Splitsville, N.Y.” (New York magazine cover story), Dec. 17-18, 1999.
“Weekend reading” (some celebrities tuck nondisclosure contracts into the envelope with wedding invitations), Aug. 7-8, 1999.
Articles by Overlawyered.com editor Walter Olson:
“Free To Commit” (Louisiana covenant marriage law), Reason, October 1997.
“At Law: Divorce Court New York Style“, City Journal, Spring 1993.
“Kidlib and Mrs. Clinton: The Hand that Rocks the Cradle” (children’s rights), National Review, May 11, 1992.
“Suing Ourselves to Death“, (vagueness of custody standards; excerpt, The Litigation Explosion), Washington Post, April 28, 1991.
Countless websites deal with divorce, custody and other family-law topics. A great many of these are put up by persons outraged at what they’ve gone through in their own experiences in court. Among sites with a reformist focus, many align themselves with one or another camp among family roles: thus there are sites that focus on husbands’ legal woes and those that focus on wives’; sites for custodial and for non-custodial parents, for birth parents, for adoptive parents and for adoptees; and so forth. Yet dissatisfaction with the legal system’s handling of family breakup, and outrage at exorbitant costs, tactical gamesmanship, judges with too much arbitrary power, unreliable expert opinion, and outright perjury and invention, are themes that weave through sites from all sides. Indeed, one lesson from comparing a variety of sites is that innocent parties of every sex, age and condition are victimized by legal hardball — and that the process produces many more losers than winners.
Books of interest:
Karen Winner, “Divorced from Justice : The Abuse of Women and Children by Divorce Lawyers and Judges”
Cathy Young, “Ceasefire! Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality“.
Richard Ofshe and Ethan Watters, “Making Monsters: False Memories, Psychotherapy, and Sexual Hysteria”
Margaret Hagen, “Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice” (currently unavailable)
Archived harassment law items, pre-July 2003
“‘Prosecutor had ordeal as defendant’“, May 14, 2003.
Sex abuse charges, 2003: “‘Sex, God and Greed’“, May 28; “‘No Crueler Tyrannies’” (Dorothy Rabinowitz), May 8 (& Apr. 17, 2001). 2002: “‘Reno owes the public answers’“, May 7; “Updates” (rape shield laws), Jan. 9-10 (& more on Jovanovic case: Dec. 23-26, 1999). 2001: “Sued if you do dept.: co-worker’s claim of rape“, Nov. 7-8; “‘Teen sex offenders face years of stigma’“, Nov. 5; “‘Crying wolf’“, Oct. 30; “‘Proposed Law Would Consider Alcohol as Date-Rape Drug’” (Wisc.), Oct. 3-4. 2000: “Federal commerce power genuinely limited, Supreme Court rules” (strikes down VAWA’s lawsuit provision), May 16 (and see Wendy Kaminer, Feb. 24); “Updating Jane Austen“, Apr. 28-30; “Court rejects ‘telephone sex slave’ charge“, Apr. 24; “Philadelphia: feminist groups to be consulted on whether to classify incidents as rape“, Mar. 27 (and see Cathy Young, April 6); 1999: “Okay, we admit it: we admire these lawyers” (Wenatchee defenders), Sept. 4-6; “Personal hell“, Jul. 31-Aug. 1.
“Employers liable for not filtering raunchy spam?“, Apr. 10-13, 2003.
Watch those emails: “Employers liable for not filtering raunchy spam?“, Apr. 10-13, 2003; “Why we lose workplace privacy“, Aug. 9, 2001; “Watch those fwds” (Dow Chemical fires employees for email use), Aug. 21-22, 2000; “Oops: D.A.’s and judge’s fwding of sex pics deemed ‘unfortunate event’“, April 11; “Harassment-law roundup” (email-shredding software), Feb. 19-21; “Emails that ended 20 Times careers“, Feb. 8-9, 2000; “Please — there are terminals present” (Bloomberg censors its terminals), July 30, 1999.
“After failed workplace romance, a $1.3 million bill“, Feb. 6-9, 2003.
“Incoherence of sexual harassment law“, Oct. 15, 2002.
Sued either way: “Investigate, but gently“, Sept. 25-26, 2002; “‘Ex-Teach’s Suit: Kids Abused Me’“, Jun. 26-27, 2002; “Sued if you do dept.: co-worker’s claim of rape“, Nov. 7-8, 2001; “EEOC: unfiltered computers ‘harass’ librarians“, Jun. 4, 2001; “Customer offense” (supermarket bagger with Tourette’s), Jun. 9-11, 2000; “Columnist-fest” (Mona Charen on Mar. 10-12 story, below), Apr. 6; “Accused of harassment; wins $2 million from employer“, Mar. 10-12 (& update Jun. 2, 2003: award reversed); “‘Judgment reversed in Seinfeld case’“, Feb. 26-27, 2000; “Employment-law retaliation: real frogs from ‘totally bogus’ gardens“, Sept. 29, 1999.
“Banish those desk photos of spouse at beach“, Aug. 29-Sept. 2, 2002.
“Clipboard-throwing manager = $30 million clipping for grocery chain“, Apr. 19-21, 2002 (& update Jul. 26-28: damages cut to $8 million); “‘$3 million awarded in harassment’” (Illinois police department), Dec. 19, 2001; “Fieger’s firecrackers frequently fizzle” ($20 million harassment verdict against Chrysler), May 31, 2001; “The stuffed-grape-leaf standard” (feminist litigator asserts that $300K isn’t that much money), August 14-15, 1999.
“‘Surgeon halts operation over foreign nurses’ poor English’” (U.K.: he’s then threatened with disciplinary action for racism), Jul. 25, 2002.
“Catharine MacKinnon, call your office“, May 16, 2002.
“An eggshell psyche at U.Va. Law“, Apr. 8-9, 2002.
“Jail for schoolyard taunts?“, Feb. 27-28, 2002; “‘Boy faces jail for slapping girl’s bottom’“, Jan. 5-7, 2001; “Annals of zero tolerance” (six-year-old’s “sexual harassment”), May 22, 2000.
“European workplace notes” (UK: harassment of dyslexic), Feb. 25-26, 2002.
“Firehouse blues” (girly mags, Alaska), Feb. 20-21, 2002.
“‘Woman Wins Verdict, but no Money, Against Seagal’“, Jan. 4-6, 2002.
Office dating, “love contracts”: “Love contracts“, Dec. 10, 2001; “Ask the experts (if that’ll help)“, Oct. 19, 2000; “Ministry of love-discouragement“, May 3; “‘Love contracts’ spreading to U.K.“, Dec. 31, 1999-Jan. 2, 2000; “Weekend reading: evergreens” (“love contract” for office romances), Dec. 3-5, 1999.
“Employee’s right to jubilate over Sept. 11 attack“, Oct. 9, 2001.
“‘Lawsuit demands AOL stop anti-Islamic chat’“, Sept. 3, 2001.
“‘We often turn irresponsibility into legal actions against others’” (Robyn Blumner on U. of South Fla. art student harassment case), Aug. 13-14, 2001.
“Chandra, Monica, and sex-harass law“, July 27-29, 2001.
“Spoof memo draws EEOC probe“, June 26, 2001.
“‘Hearsay harassment’ not actionable“, June 12, 2001.
“EEOC: unfiltered computers ‘harass’ librarians“, June 4, 2001 (& see “Columnist-fest” (Wendy McElroy), June 22-24.
“Mistletoe dangerous even when absent“, April 18, 2001.
“‘2000’s Ten Wackiest Employment Lawsuits’” (too much sex talk in sex shop), April 13-15, 2001.
“Appeals panel: schools’ harassment rule unconstitutional“, Feb. 27, 2001; “Weekend reading” (Supreme Court’s invention of Title IX harassment law), August 21-22, 1999.
Business climate: “Why we lose workplace privacy“, Aug. 9, 2001; “Ask the experts (if that’ll help)“, Oct. 19, 2000; “The scarlet %+#?*^)&!” (companies cut clients loose for profane language), March 7, 2000; “‘Personally agree with’ harassment policy — or you’re out the door“, Sept. 22, 1999; “EEOC encourages anonymous harassment complaints“, Sept. 3, 1999.
Hate speech, hate crime laws: see free speech and media law page.
“Columnist-fest” (Sarah McCarthy on Paula Jones case), Nov. 14, 2000.
“Don’t meet with her alone“, Nov. 1, 2000.
“Ask the experts (if that’ll help)“, Oct. 19, 2000.
“White House pastry chef harassment suit“, Sept. 18, 2000.
“Harassment law roundup” (Confederate flags on employee cars, Jeffrey Rosen book, Avis v. Aguilar, do-as-we-say case), Sept. 11, 2000.
“Embarrassing Lawsuit Hall of Fame” (Mass. agency finds flatulence not harassing), Aug. 14, 2000.
“From the U.K.: watch your language” (college, job bureau restrict use of “lady”, “hardworking”), June 13, 2000.
“Victim of the century?” (principal collects disability benefits for sexual compulsion), June 2-4, 2000; “Doctor sues insurer, claims sex addiction“, Oct. 13, 1999.
“What the French think of American harassment law“, May 25, 2000.
“The four rules of sexual harassment controversies” (Claudia Kennedy case; female-on-male touching case; spanking initiation), May 15, 2000.
“Comment of the day“, May 5-7, 2000; “Recommended reading” (Roland White in London Times on chill to office banter), Jan. 25, 2000.
“Harassment-law roundup” (bathroom graffiti; Boston bar owner’s insensitive decorations; pin-ups and porn in police station), May 4, 2000.
“Book feature: ‘The Kinder, Gentler Military’“, April 3, 2000.
“The shame of the ACLU” (Aguilar v. Avis: ACLU intervenes on anti- free-speech side), Sept. 7, 1999; “Speech police go after opinion articles, editorial cartoons“, August 28-29, 1999.
“Harassment-law roundup” (Internet startups vulnerable), May 4, 2000; “Dot-coms as perfect defendants“, Jan. 17; “Harassment-law roundup” (Juno case), Feb. 19-21, 2000.
“Oops! Didn’t mean nothing by that, ma’am” (“Hello, good looking” directed at harassment trainer), Dec. 21, 1999.
“Suppression of conversation vs. improvement of conversation“, Nov. 12, 1999 (excerpts from Joan Kennedy Taylor book); “Risks of harm“, Nov. 13-14, 1999; “Harassment-law roundup” (Taylor book discussed), Feb. 19-21, 2000.
“Courts actually begin to define ‘harassment’; activists in shock“, August 6, 1999.
“Please — there are terminals present” (South Park on sexual harassment), July 30, 1999.
——————————————————————————–
Articles by Overlawyered.com editor Walter Olson:
“Title IX’s Invisible Ink” (Supreme Court invents right to sue schools over student-on-student harassment), Reason, August/September 1999.
“A Legacy of Dirty Laundry” (brief contribution to symposium on harassment law), The Women’s Quarterly, Winter 1999.
“Have the Harassment Rules Changed?“, Wall Street Journal, April 6, 1998 (judge’s dismissal of Paula Jones lawsuit).
“Punch the Clock, Sue the Boss“, New York Times, March 20, 1998.
“Shut Up, They Explained” (“zero-tolerance”), Reason, June 1997.
“The Long Arm of Harassment Law“, New York Times, July 7, 1996.
?When Sensitivity Training Is the Law? (Connecticut law requires training of managers), Wall Street Journal, January 20, 1993.
In addition, The Excuse Factory (1997) includes two chapters on harassment law, namely chapter 4 (“Fear of Flirting”) and chapter 14 (“Workplace Cleansing”). Neither is online.
|
Other resources: Websites “Freedom of Speech vs. Workplace Harassment Law” (highly informative site maintained by Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School) Organizations
The shelf of books critical of the overreach of harassment law got at least three important additions in 1999. Daphne Patai of the University of Massachusetts, known already as a co-author of Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales From the Strange World of Women’s Studies, published Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. Cathy Young, columnist for the Detroit News, published Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality. And Joan Kennedy Taylor, associated with the Cato Institute, published What to Do When You Don’t Want to Call the Cops: Or a Non-Adversarial Approach to Sexual Harassment. (Also see our editor’s 1997 contribution, The Excuse Factory.) |