Posts Tagged ‘newspapers’

The frivolous side of Funny Cide

Peter Lattman reported on Gary Farmer, a Florida judge who decided to try his hand at humorous legal writing in the course of deciding a lawsuit. Discussion of the opinion around the internet (see, e.g., Orin Kerr) focused on the propriety of a judge turning his job into a forum for self-promotion. Regardless of whether judges are allowed to have fun with their work, in my opinion, it wasn’t very funny at all. But perhaps I had lost my sense of humor after reading the ridiculous nature of the lawsuit.

The case was brought by the owners of the championship racehorse Funny Cide against the publishers of the Miami Herald, for a newspaper report that the horse’s jockey had used an illegal device to help him win the Kentucky Derby. The report was false, and the paper ran a correction. But that wasn’t good enough for the owners of Funny Cide; they sued in May 2005.

Their complaint? Although Funny Cide won the Preakness, the false report caused the horse to lose the Belmont Stakes, and hence miss out on the Triple Crown, which would have been worth large sums of money.

Their theory? Funny Cide’s jockey was so motivated to disprove the false report that he worked the horse too hard in the Preakness, which tired the horse out so it couldn’t win the Belmont three weeks later.

As you can imagine, this theory is (to use the technical legal term) loony. Even if they had a snowball’s chance of proving causation — as if there were no other possible reason a horse might lose a race? — they would also have to show that it was foreseeable by the Herald that their report would cause this to happen. This they obviously could not do, and so the court granted summary judgment to the newspaper. What makes this case especially egregious, though, is that the humorous opinion being discussed above wasn’t written by the trial court; Gary Farmer is an appellate judge. That’s correct: the horse’s owners appealed the dismissal of their frivolous lawsuit.

In case you were wondering, Bruce Rogow was listed as one of the attorneys for the horse’s owners.

Mr. Rogow has taught Civil Procedure, Federal Jurisdiction, Constitutional Law, Appellate Practice, Criminal Law and Legal Ethics.

Islamic Society of Boston uses litigation to silence its critics

Pajamas Media’s Martin Solomon reports on the Islamic Society of Boston’s extensive use of litigation to silence critics, ranging from moderate Muslims to a local interfaith group to local reporters and newspapers, who question whether the organization has ties to Islamic radicals. The David Project has a set of links to court documents. Daniel Pipes has also been covering the matter. ISB’s attorney is Howard Cooper, who recently won affirmance of a $2.1 million verdict against the Boston Herald, which had criticized a local judge (May 11). See also Jeff Jacoby, “New questions for the ISB”, Boston Globe, Apr. 25. Earlier on Overlawyered: Aug. 27 (ISB subpoenas talk show); May 19; Jan. 5, 2006.

Update: Boston Herald libel award upheld

“Massachusetts’ highest court on Monday upheld a $2 million verdict against the Boston Herald won by a state Superior Court judge who said the newspaper libelously depicted him as soft on crime and insensitive to the suffering of a 14-year-old rape victim.” Better be careful what you say about Judge Ernest Murphy in future. (AP coverage; Romenesko first, second posts; Dan Kennedy, Media Nation; Childs). Earlier coverage: Dec. 8 and Dec. 23, 2005.

Door-inserted newspaper delivery

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel explains that it’s discontinuing the practice because stepping onto porches and placing the paper behind the screen is just too dangerous, at least legally:

…A more critical reason for the new delivery policy is to insure distributor safety and to protect our subscribers from liability issues. Should an Independent News Distributor become injured while delivering on your property, you, as the homeowner are legally liable for damages. One of the major reasons Journal Sentinel is moving to doorstep delivery is to avoid this situation for both our customers and our distributors. …

Sincerely,

Sheila Davidson
[Vice President/Circulation]

(Romenesko, Apr. 23).

His reputation to protect

Defamation-suit Hall of Fame: a New Zealand prisoner serving a life sentence for the notoriously brutal murder of a 17-year-old girl has won cash compensation from newspapers which described him as a rapist. “Andrew Ronald MacMillan was granted legal aid – a government- funded scheme which allows people who cannot afford legal representation to get a lawyer – to sue Fairfax Media, publishers of New Zealand newspapers The Press and Dominion Post, for defamation and punitive damages.” The victim, whose body was discovered nearly naked, had suffered violence in intimate places, but authorities never charged MacMillan with rape in the case. (“Murderer gets compensation from paper over rape allegation”, DPA/MonstersAndCritics.com, Apr. 10). Two and a half years ago MacMillan won $1200 for hurt feelings and humiliation because the Corrections Department had not shown him the text of a letter accusing him of misbehavior while on prison furlough. (Bridget Carter, “‘Hurt feelings’ win killer $1200 compensation”, New Zealand Herald, Aug. 23, 2004).

Lawsuits against restaurant critics

New York Times legal correspondent Adam Liptak has a good article summing up the state of play on legal actions arising from unkind reviews of eateries, including several cases familiar to our readers (Feb. 27, Philadelphia; Feb. 10, Belfast; Jan. 3, 2006, Dallas)(“Serving You Tonight Will Be Our Lawyer”, Mar. 7). More: PhilaFoodie.

“Philly Inquirer sued over three-sentence restaurant review”

That’s Romenesko’s summary of this news item about a lawsuit by Chops Restaurant against food critic Craig LaBan over a review published in the city’s best-known newspaper, which the item rudely refers to as the InqWaster (Dan Gross, “Chops sues LaBan”, Philadelphia Daily News, Feb. 21). More on lawsuits over restaurant reviews: Jan. 3, 2006 (Dallas); Feb. 10, 2007 (Belfast).

Northern Ireland: jury awards £25K for bad restaurant review

“The Irish News must pay £25,000 plus court costs to a west Belfast Italian restaurant owner after a jury found a food critic’s review to be defamatory.” (“£25K for food critic’s poison pen”, BBC, Feb. 8). Journalist Caroline Workman, in a review of Ciaran Convery’s restaurant Goodfellas, had “described his staff as unhelpful, his cola as flat, and his chicken marsala ‘so sweet as to be inedible'”. Guardian restaurant critic Matthew Norman described the jury verdict as “very worrying news”: “You really cannot overstate the imbecility of a libel jury: what we really need now is a sustained campaign against our ludicrous libel laws.” (Maev Kennedy, “Critics bite back after restaurant reviewer sued for calling chicken too sweet”, Guardian, Feb. 10).

Lott v. Levitt, Part VIII, and Karla Knafel v. Chicago Sun-Times

The major claim of libel from the use of “replicates” in Freakonomics was thrown out because it could reasonably be constructed to have an innocent meaning; a smaller claim regarding Levitt’s accusations in an e-mail to a single person in response to a solicited query remain. John Lott’s link to the decision suggests a world where he isn’t going to give up even on the first claim, but that decision is soundly based on the recent precedent in Knafel v. Chicago Sun-Times, 413 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 2005), a case of relevance to Overlawyered. In Knafel, columnist Richard Roeper criticized a woman suing Michael Jordan over an affair that they had:

In other words, you had sex with a famous, wealthy man, and you claim he promised to pay you $5 million to keep quiet about it, and now you want your money.

Knafel was once an aspiring singer. She’s now reportedly a hair designer. But, based on the money she’s been paid already and the additional funds she’s seeking in exchange for her affair with Jordan, she’s making herself sound like someone who once worked in a profession that’s a lot older than singing or hair designing.

Knafel sued over the column; the court noted that “Roeper almost certainly refers to prostitution when he talks about an ‘older’ profession,” but held that the possibility of an innocent construction permitted a motion to dismiss. (See also Media Law Prof blog from 2005.) And that passage was significantly less ambiguous than that in Lott’s case.

(Via Deltoid via Cowen.) Earlier coverage: Aug. 21 and links therein.