Gary Charbonneau had a gambling history, including substantial wins, which devolved into compulsive gambling in 2002. He blames this on his Parkinson’s disease medication, Mirapex, which he started taking in 1997. Mirapex changed its warning label to include reports of a correlation while Charbonneau was taking the drug; Charbonneau’s doctor kept prescribing the drug. Nevertheless, Charbonneau was able to persuade a jury that the failure to warn was what was responsible for his $200,000 gambling losses (much of which came from gambling illegally) and resulting marital troubles. The jury verdict even awarded $8 million in punitive damages, giving a whole new meaning to jackpot justice (though one would expect the trial court to reduce this substantially). The only press coverage of this lawsuit, aside from a handful of blogs (Pharmalot; TortsProf; InjuryBoard), is in an op-ed I wrote for today’s Examiner about the case and about how a Supreme Court case and Congressional legislation could affect it. (Theodore H. Frank, “Jackpot justice gets new meaning,” DC Examiner, Aug. 19).
Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’
“The Era of Big Punitive Damage Awards Is Not Over”
Today’s Wall Street Journal has a short version of my take on the Exxon Shipping v. Baker decision. Cf. also my Federalist Society podcast.
Exxon Shipping v. Baker podcast
I’ve done a podcast for the Federalist Society on the Supreme Court punitive damages decision in Exxon Shipping v. Baker.
June 29 roundup
- New FASB regulation may provide fodder for trial lawyers: publicly disclose your internal analysis of liability (thus giving away crucial settlement information and attracting more lawsuits), and/or face lawsuits when your disclosure turns out to be incorrect. [CFO.com; CFO.com; NLJ/law.com ($); FASB RFC]
- NBC settles a “You-made-me-commit-suicide-by-exposing-my-pedophilia” lawsuit. [LA Times; WSJ Law Blog; Conradt v. NBC Universal]
- A victim of overwarning? 17-year-old loses hat on Six Flags Batman roller-coaster ride, ignores multiple warning signs to jump multiple fences into unauthorized area, retrieves hat, loses head. [FoxNews/AP; Atlanta Journal-Constitution; TortsProf]
- Lots of Ninth Circuit reversals this term, as per usual. [The Recorder/law.com]
- A no-Twinkie defense doesn’t fly in a maid-beating case. [CNN/AP via ATL]
- The Chinese government demonstrates that it can enforce laws against IP piracy when it wants to [Marginal Revolution]
- “Justice Scalia said he thought that the United States was ‘over-lawed,’ leading to too many lawyers in the country. ‘I don’t think our legal system should be that complex. I think that any system that requires that many of the country’s best minds, and they are the best minds, is too complex. If you look at the figures, where does the top of the class in college go to? It goes into law. They don’t go into teaching. Now I love the law, there is nothing I would rather do but it doesn’t produce anything.'” [Telegraph]
- Above the Law commenters decidedly unimpressed by my looks. Looking forward to feminists rushing to my defense against “silencing insults.” [Above the Law]
Federalist Society web forum on the SCOTUS term
Case Western’s Jon Adler, Boston University Law’s Jack Beermann, Northwestern Law’s Steve Calabresi, Cooper & Kirk’s Chuck Cooper, BakerBotts’ Allyson Ho, Erik S. Jaffe, P.C.’s Erik Jaffe, Georgetown Law’s Marty Lederman, NYU Law’s Rick Pildes, and the Ethics & Public Policy Center’s Ed Whelan are discussing the Supreme Court Term on the Federalist Society website.
Interviewed on KTUU-2, Anchorage
Anchorage is beautiful this time of year, but, alas, my interview discussing the Exxon Shipping v. Baker case was over the phone. Not sure when they’ll run the clip, but probably tonight, since the decision has a good chance of being issued tomorrow.
Update: Here’s the story.
Supreme Court grants certiorari in Philip Morris v. Williams (again)
Oregon Supreme Court plays chicken with SCOTUS over $79.5 million punitive damages award in Williams v. Philip Morris case. [Sebok @ Findlaw; Krauss @ IBD; POL Feb. 1]
Economists’ amicus brief in Wyeth v. Levine
I’m proud to be part of the amicus brief in Wyeth v. Levine filed by leading economists John E. Calfee, Ernst R. Berndt, Robert Hahn, Tomas Philipson, Paul H. Rubin, and W. Kip Viscusi. It provides an excellent explanation why FDA preemption is good for consumer safety and health policy, and why failure-to-warn litigation by trial lawyers hurts consumer safety. (You may notice that none of the public-policy arguments against preemption you see in the blogosphere fairly address these economic arguments.)
For everything you could possibly want to know about the Wyeth v. Levine case, do see Beck & Herrmann’s roundup of their excellent posts on the subject, and keep an eye out for their discussion of the top-side briefs undoubtedly coming soon.
On Heading Right Radio
Ed Morrissey of the Captain’s Quarters Blog interviews me about the Stoneridge case and argument, and about Sarbanes-Oxley. Morrissey comments further about the case.
On Bloomberg TV
I’m scheduled to be on Bloomberg TV at 5 pm Eastern talking about the Stoneridge case. See also Point of Law October 6 for more links.