- Bill Moyers calls his lawyers. [Adler @ Volokh]
- Jim Copland: 9/11 suits against New York City over emergency recovery work “simply wrong.” [New York Post]
- Did the PSLRA help shareholders? [Point of Law]
- 32-year-old Oregon grocery store employee sues, claiming that Green Day stole his never-recorded high-school writings. [Above the Law]
- Does one assume the risk of a broken nose if one agrees to a sparring match at a karate school? [TortsProf]
- “At KFC (né Kentucky Fried Chicken), the chicken is still fried. At Altria (né Philip Morris), the cigarettes still cause cancer. And at the American Association for Justice, some will say that the trial lawyers are still chasing ambulances.” [New York Times via Point of Law]
- More on global warming lawsuits. [Point of Law]
- Dahlia Lithwick, wrong again when bashing conservatives? Quelle surprise! [Ponnuru @ Bench Memos; see also Kaus] Earlier: POL Oct. 6 and links therein. Best commentary on New Jersey gay marriage decision is at Volokh.
- Michael Dimino asks for examples of frivolous lawsuits. What’s the over-under until it turns into a debate over the McDonald’s coffee case? [Prawfsblawg]
- Unintended consequences of campaign finance reform. [Zywicki @ Volokh; Washington Times]
- Who’s your least favorite Supreme Court justice? [Above the Law]
- More on Borat and the law. [Slate] Earlier on OL: Dec. 9 and links therein.
- “Thrilled Juror Feels Like Murder Trial Being Put On Just For Her.” [Onion]
- A revealing post by the Milberg Weiss Fellow at DMI: companies make “too much” profit. I respond: “Again, if you really think the problem is that insurance companies charge ‘too much’ and make ‘too much’ money, then the profitable solution is to take advantage of this opportunity and open a competing insurance company that charges less instead of whining about it. (Or, you could use a fraction of the profits to hire a dozen bloggers and thus solve the problem at the same time keeping the whining constant.)” [Dugger]
Posts Tagged ‘New Jersey’
‘Tis better to have loft and lost…
Via Volokh (where commenters have a lot to say, and are about to start arguing about coffee), humorist and California judge William Bedsworth comments on the New Jersey college-student-falls-out-of-bed-loft case we covered August 16:
Tragically, “There were no warning labels on the bed, and it had never ‘cross[ed his] mind’ or ‘occurred to’ plaintiff that he could fall or that the bed was dangerous in any way. He testified that had he seen a warning, he would have been ‘aware of the hazard that was present’ and slept closer to the wall, as he had done after the accident.” Honest. Says so right in the opinion.
And he had an expert, George Widas, who testified that industry standards in the bed-making industry require that the manufacturer affix a warning “that says make sure that you protect yourself from this fall hazard.” According to Widas, the warning label should have had “black letters on an orange background” and included a warning that both identified the hazard and explained how to avoid it.
So the label should have said — in Day-Glo green letters on a phosphorescent-pink background -— “THIS IS A BED. USE ONLY WHILE AWAKE.” Or perhaps “IF YOUR IQ IS NOT THIS TALL, YOU CANNOT RIDE ON THIS BED.” Or how about an arrow pointing downward, with the legend “FALLING IN THIS DIRECTION COULD BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH. FALL ONLY UPWARD OR TO THE SIDE.” …
U.K.: “Inmate sues for falling from bunk”
A prisoner at Bullingdon near Bicester, Oxfordshire, “is suing the Prison Service after he cut himself falling from the top bunk in his cell”. The inmate told a prisoners’ magazine that bunk beds were “an accident waiting to happen”. (BBC, Aug. 27). As Ted noted Aug. 16, a New Jersey appeals court recently overturned a jury verdict awarded to a student who fell from a loft bed, ruling the dangers obvious.
NJ court: No warning that one might fall out of loft bed required
Donald Mathews, a Stockton State College senior living on campus, woke up in the middle of an October 11, 1999, nap and fell out of bed, injuring himself. For this, he blamed the manufacturer of his loft bed for failing to warn that people might hurt themselves by falling out of bed. A jury agreed, and awarded $179,001.
(Because Mathews claimed that he fell out of bed because he was startled, it’s not clear how a warning would have helped, unless he was seeking an audible recording regularly repeating, much like airport moving walkways, “Caution! The bed is above the ground!” Of course, this might interfere with sleep, but wakefulness is watchfulness.)
A unanimous appellate state court reversed on the obvious grounds that the danger was open and obvious and didn’t require a warning (the same grounds on which the McDonald’s coffee case should have been thrown out), but plaintiffs’ lawyer Gary Piserchia threatens an appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court. (Robert Schwaneberg, “Suit over loft bed falls short”, Newark Star-Ledger, Aug. 16, via Lattman).
Breaking: $105 million Aramark verdict reversed
The New Jersey court’s opinion yesterday in Verni v. Harry M. Stevens ordered a new trial because of the unfairly prejudicial evidence introduced at trial. (Laura Mansnerus, “Court Overturns Jury Award Against Stadium Concessionaire”, NY Times, Aug. 4; Kibret Markos, “Paralyzed Cliffside girl may have to go through new trial”, NorthJersey.com, Aug. 4).
Plaintiffs sought to blame a drunk-driving accident several hours after a Giants game on stadium beer vendors, a feat eased when the drunk driver, Daniel Lanzano, settled with plaintiffs and changed his testimony to be consistent with their theory of the case. Lanzano drank at two go-go bars after the game. The court also noted the failure of the jury to be instructed to consider the relative liability of other settling parties that the plaintiffs had sued in a shotgun complaint, including the NFL, the Giants, Toyota, and Michael Holder, who committed the sin of drinking with Lanzano that day. We had provided extensive coverage from the beginnings of the suit: Oct. 10, 2003; Jan. 21, 2005; a must-read Feb. 2, 2005 post; Jun. 6.
Update: another aspect of the appellate court opinion is that it recognized corporate boundaries. The trial court sought to hold Aramark liable for alleged negligence of its subsidiaries.
Fantasy sports leagues? Shut ’em down
A class-action law firm, Gardy & Notis, is suing ESPN, Viacom, Disney, CBS, Hearst, and The Sporting News, among others, alleging that their participation in the thriving field of fantasy sports leagues violates the anti-gambling laws of New Jersey. DeadSpin notes (Jul. 31) that named plaintiff Charles Humphrey “is a resident of Colorado, not New Jersey, and he points out in the suit that he, in fact, has never played any of these fantasy games, unlike you, you heathens.” Humphrey’s press release is here and the complaint (PDF) is here (via Bill Childs and Kevin Heller). The complaint asserts a right to recovery under qui tam (bounty-hunting) laws of Illinois, Georgia and the District of Columbia which allow random outsiders to file lawsuits to recover moneys reaped by way of unlawful gambling.
Upset at photo, sues high school yearbook editors
Tyler Bennett wore boxer shorts instead of a jock strap when playing basketball for Colts Neck High School, and a resulting action photo published in the school’s yearbook inadvertently revealed more (or perhaps less) than Bennett would have liked. Some students didn’t return the yearbooks when they were recalled the business day after they were released, and an opposing basketball player teased Bennett the next year. Bennett claimed untold emotional distress (though he never sought counseling or medical assistance for his trauma) and sued the school board, three officials, two teachers, the publishing company, and nine students; the latter have had to hire their own attorneys at their own expense if their parents didn’t have homeowner’s insurance. “Some of the students weren’t even editors. The yearbook at Colts Neck High School is produced by a journalism class and some noneditors in the class jumped into the “editors” picture before it was snapped for the yearbook. Not able to determine who was responsible for content, [attorney Steven] Kessel named everyone in the picture.” Bennett even threw in a child pornography charge.
The trial court tossed the case (though only after depositions and summary judgment briefing) and an appeals court summarily affirmed, but Kessel says he’ll appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which will add to the legal expenses of the defendants. Though the case was meritless, the court refused sanctions because the suit technically wasn’t “frivolous” because it wasn’t brought in “bad faith,” exhibiting once again the disconnect between the legal definition of “frivolous” in many states and the popular understanding of the adjective. (Henry Gottlieb, “Former Student Sues Over Revealing Yearbook Photo”, New Jersey Law Journal, Jul. 17; James Quirk, “Judge: Embarrassed ex-Colts Neck student has no claim in yearbook case”, Asbury Park Press, Jun. 24 (via Romenesko); Bennett v. Board of Education (unpublished)).
Student’s death a mystery; family to sue college
The death in March of John Fiocco, Jr., at the College of New Jersey remains shrouded in mystery. He was last seen drunk in a dormitory at 3 a.m.; a month later his remains were found in a landfill among trash brought from dumpsters at the college. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, police “have said they do not know whether alcohol played a role in Fiocco’s death, or whether there was foul play.” Nonetheless, Fiocco’s family, represented by attorney Glenn A. Zeitz of Haddonfield, N.J., is planning to sue the college for more than $5 million, arguing that it should have hired more security, done more to enforce underage drinking laws, and kept students away from the trash system. (Jan Hefler, “Family to sue college over son’s death”, Jun. 6).
NSA phone snooping
Here come the first of what will doubtless be many lawsuits against telephone companies: two New Jersey lawyers want $5 billion from Verizon. (Beth DeFalco, “Verizon sued for giving NSA phone records”, AP/San Jose Mercury News, May 12). Orin Kerr has more (here, here and here), while Riehl World View checks out one of the lawyers involved (May 13). Also: Heather Mac Donald, “Information Please”, Weekly Standard, May 22. P.S. And now Verizon, decrying “glaring and repeated falsehoods” in the media, “said it was not asked by the government agency to provide, nor did Verizon give out, customer phone records from any of its businesses, or any customer call data.” (David Ellis, “Verizon denies giving out phone info”, CNN Money, May 16). More: Carolyn Elefant.
“Eastern Law Firms Roll the Dice on Indian Law”
Tribal land claims are getting to be big business (see Jan. 12, etc.), and prominent law firms including Philadelphia’s Cozen O’Connor and Roseland, N.J.’s Lowenstein Sandler are among those lining up to assist Indian tribes (and their wealthy non-Indian backers) in filing lawsuits against hapless landowners as leverage for casino schemes. And here’s a choice quote from Robert Odawi Porter, director of the Syracuse University Center for Indigenous Law, Governance and Citizenship:
In cases where land-claim suits are funded by outsiders, the tribe is usually a passive participant in the litigation, says Porter. Such arrangements are permitted under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, which gives states authority to negotiate revenue-sharing agreements with tribal casinos.
“Everything is dictated by the developer — I call it the ‘sit back and take a check approach,'” Porter says.
(Charles Toutant, New Jersey Law Journal/Law.com, Mar. 20).
Also, updates: in late 2004 a federal court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Delaware Indians’ claim to land in the Allentown, Pa. area (Northampton County) including Binney & Smith’s Crayola factory (PDF, at Indianz.com)(see Feb. 9, 2004). And, alas, none other than the Bush Justice Department has weighed in with a petition for certiorari urging the Supreme Court to overturn a Second Circuit panel’s landmark ruling (see Jul. 29, 2005) which threw out the Cayugas’ lawsuit as not pressed in a timely enough way, a ruling which (if it stands) would cast doubt on the validity of of most of the new wave of Indian land litigation.