“Although [filmmaker Morgan Spurlock in Super-Size Me] generally presents critics of McDonald’s as public-spirited activists, he can’t resist taking a shot at Samuel Hirsch [Jul. 25 and Sept. 12, 2002; Jan. 23, Mar. 25-30 and Jun. 20, 2003], the lawyer who filed the first two obesity lawsuits against fast food restaurants. When Hirsch is asked his motive for getting involved in such litigation, he looks puzzled. ‘You mean, motive besides monetary compensation?’ he says. ‘You want to hear a noble cause?’ That’s his only appearance in the film.” (Jacob Sullum, “Big Mac Attack”, Reason, Jul.). Update Mar. 23, 2005: Hirsch sues Spurlock and film distributor.
Posts Tagged ‘personal responsibility’
Personal Responsibility and Addiction
OK, I am feeling a little guilty that during my week of guest blogging I didn’t really focus on core Overlawyered topics. To make partial amends, let me ask a couple of questions drawn from the intersection of Overlawyered’s and Vice Squad’s areas of interest. Should drug users be held responsible for their decisions to use drugs? Should addicts be held accountable for other criminal acts that are undertaken either under the influence of drugs, or to serve the needs of drug acquisition? If addiction is a disease, shouldn’t addicts be excused for their habits or for their actions, even otherwise criminal actions, that flow from their addictions?
With respect to serious crimes, the law agrees with our general intuition: a condition of intoxication or addiction is not an excuse for criminal behavior. Nevertheless, many people are willing to be indulgent of less serious social indiscretions if the perpetrator “had a bit too much to drink.” Chronic addicts, however, often become unsympathetic characters — even compassionate social workers find themselves “blaming the victim” (the client or patient) when they deal extensively with junkies.
Many treatment programs, including Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and Gamblers Anonymous, explicitly adopt a disease perspective towards their respective addictions. Nevertheless, these programs do not absolve the addict of responsibility for his or her behavior — quite the contrary, they emphasize personal accountability. Even if biological conditions make drug use a nearly overwhelming necessity for some addicts, it is the drug use which is the necessity — not bank robbery or car theft or other crimes. And generally even the drug use will be deterred if a police officer is standing over their shoulder.
Incidentally, in the mid-1960s it looked as if the US Supreme Court might make the status of addiction an excuse for some sorts of crimes. This impression was squelched via the 1968 case of Powell v. Texas.
Welcome CFOX listeners
The Vancouver radio station lists us as one of its “Geek of the Week” sites (Jul. 25). First-time visitors often enjoy our personal responsibility items, and we’ve got a section for items from Canada.
“Injured While Drunk, Man Wants Cruise Line Suit Reinstated”
Tipple your way to court, latest: “A drunken passenger who fell two decks from a staircase while aboard Royal Caribbean’s Monarch of the Seas asked Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal on Monday to reinstate his personal injury lawsuit against the cruise line.” In oral argument, the appellate court’s chief judge appeared inclined to reinstate the suit, rejecting the cruise line’s argument that it is covered by a state law protecting sellers of liquor from being sued. (Kelly Cramer, Miami Daily Business Review, Jun. 29). More tipple-your-way-to-court cases: Apr. 19, Apr. 7, Apr. 3, 2004; Dec. 21, Dec. 17, Oct. 13, Aug. 16, Aug. 8, Jul. 21, 2003, and earlier cases.
Put out fewer flags
Writes Matt Conigliaro at Abstract Appeal, the Florida legal weblog: “Remember the green or yellow or red flags that could be seen on Florida’s beaches, letting would-be swimmers know whether it was safe, risky, or dangerous to enter the water? They won’t be found any longer on state park beaches without lifeguards, on the theory that it’s better to have no flag than the wrong flag, and without lifeguards present, changing the flags in a timely fashion is too difficult.
“That’s one way to look at, as presented in this story from the AP. Another way would be to look at the lawsuit mentioned in the story — a man dove into riptide-filled waters to save a struggling couple despite red flags and wound up drowning himself, and his family sued the state for providing inadequate warnings — and wonder if the Florida Legislature’s calculus in abandoning the flag system was not as simple as: say something, get sued for saying it wrong; say nothing, avoid suit.” (Abstract Appeal, Jun. 21). The AP story Conigliaro cites has been taken down, but other news clips detail the lawsuit recently filed by survivors of Daniel F. Heede, 52, of Barnhart, Mo., over his 2002 drowning at St. Andrew State Park, and the Florida Legislature’s vote to remove warning flags from state parks without lifeguards. See “Lawsuit Leads Florida To Pull Warning Flags From Beach Parks”, WFTV, Jun. 21.
“Parents sue rescue crews in son’s death after fall”
Sue those rescuers: “The parents of a 15-year-old Redmond boy who died after a fall in the Crooked River Gorge [in Oregon] have filed a $9.5 million suit in U.S. District Court against the fire district and rescue workers who responded to the accident. Patricia and Michael Keller allege that their son [Elijah Keller] did not receive proper medical care from rescuers. …According to the suit, the teenager wasn’t strapped down properly when rescuers hauled him up on a stretcher, and ‘his head fell sharply down to his chest during the lift up the side of the cliff.’ … Attorney Robert Lowry, who is representing the Crooked River Ranch Rural Fire Protection District and the rescue workers named in the suit, said Keller wasn’t walking along the precipice’s edge, but leaping from rock to rock when one rock broke loose. He said those who responded did everything they could to save the teenager.” (“Briefly”, The Oregonian, Jun. 20). Commenting on the case: “Rural communities depend on the no-questions-asked courage and compassion of thousands of men and women serving without pay as firefighters, EMTs and search and rescue volunteers. … these volunteers and professional first responders keep getting signals that mistakes, no matter how they happen, carry a punishing multimillion-dollar liability”. (“A delicate balance: We sue rural volunteer rescuers at our peril” (editorial), Eugene Register-Guard, Jun. 22).
Update: Hotel settles “Murder by Mercedes” case
An attorney for the Hilton hotel in Clear Lake, Texas, in whose parking lot wronged wife Clara Harris ran down her cheating husband, confirms that the hotel has reached a settlement of the lawsuit filed on behalf of David Harris’s children for failing to prevent the 2002 incident. (see Feb. 24, 2003). The hotel’s management was “accused in the lawsuit of failing to provide effective security, notify police in time to prevent Harris’ death or train employees to deal with domestic disputes.” After a widely publicized trial, Clara Harris was sentenced to 20 years in prison. The Blue Moon detective agency, which had been engaged by Mrs. Harris to investigate her husband, has also settled a lawsuit in the case. (“Lawsuit by slain orthodontist’s children tentatively settled”, AP/KRTK Houston, Jun. 24).
Australia roundup
Striking a blow for personal responsibility, the High Court of Australia has ruled that a woman who drank too much at a bar and later injured herself cannot recover from the drinking establishment on the grounds it should have cut her off sooner. Chief Justice Murray Gleeson “said the onus should not be on clubs to prevent injury to those who drank to excess” and wrote: “There are many forms of excessive eating and drinking that involve health risks, but, as a rule, we leave it to individuals to decide for themselves how much they eat and drink. There are sound reasons for that, associated with values of autonomy and privacy.” (Michael Pelly, “Blaming the barman is out: court”, Sydney Morning Herald (soon to adopt registration), Jun. 16)(see May 12, 2003). Judges from the highest courts of New South Wales and Queensland are among the latest to be taken in by a widely circulated list of amusing but entirely fictitious court cases which supposedly won “Stella Awards”; our debunking appeared August 2001. (“Our Stella judges”, MediaWatch, Jun. 14). And the High Court in April heard a case which seeks to overturn the longstanding prohibition on negligence suits against barristers by clients harmed by the errors and omissions they make in advancing legal arguments. “Immunity for advocates has been abandoned in many other countries, including Canada and the United States. However, many Australian barristers argue that the risk of being sued would lead to spiralling insurance premiums and costly litigation.” (Sonia Harford, “Lawyers wait on High Court case”, Melbourne Age, Apr. 25).
Update: Coors suit dropped
Ends with a whimper dept.: “After being threatened with sanctions for frivolous litigation, a Reno lawyer said …he has dropped a lawsuit against Coors Brewing Co. filed for the mother of a young man who died in a car wreck while driving drunk. …when a lawyer for Coors threatened [attorney Ken McKenna] and [client Jodie] Pisco with sanctions, they decided to back off, he said.” Too bad sanctions have been made so hard to get in most courts, since their deterrent effect on wrongful lawsuits is often clear, as in this instance. The original case (see Apr. 19) had drawn worldwide publicity. (“Lawyer drops suit against Coors in man’s death”, Reno Gazette-Journal, Jun. 2; Steven Milloy, “Lawsuits, Alcohol Advertising and Money”, FoxNews.com, May 21).
Blue-ribbon excuses: post-traumatic slavery syndrome
By reader acclaim, from Oregon: “A Portland lawyer says suffering by African Americans at the hands of slave owners is to blame in the death of a 2-year-old Beaverton boy. Randall Vogt is offering the untested theory, called post traumatic slave syndrome, in his defense of Isaac Cortez Bynum, who is charged with murder by abuse in the June 30 death of his son, Ryshawn Lamar Bynum. Vogt says he will argue — ‘in a general way’ — that masters beat slaves, so Bynum was justified in beating his son.” However, attorney Vogt may find it a challenge to secure the admissibility of the slavery-trauma theory, which has been accepted by neither the courts nor the psychiatric profession. Washington County Circuit Judge Nancy W. Campbell threw out pretrial testimony by Joy DeGruy-Leary, an assistant professor in the Portland State University Graduate School of Social Work, to the effect that the brutality of slavery, together with continuing racism, oppression and societal inequality, helps explain self-destructive, violent or aggressive behavior in African-Americans. Judge Campbell said she would reconsider allowing the defense in Bynum’s September trial, but only “if his lawyer can show the slave theory is an accepted mental disorder with a valid scientific basis and specifically applies to this case.” (Holly Danks, “Judge rejects slave trauma as defense for killing”, The Oregonian, May 31). According to David Bernstein, writing two years ago, the standards for admission of expert testimony in Oregon are not as tight as might be wished (“Disinterested in Daubert: State Courts Lag Behind In Opposing ‘Junk’ Science”, Washington Legal Foundation (PDF) Legal Opinion Letter, Jun. 21, 2002)(search on “Oregon” or scroll to near end of piece).