- Jack Thompson, call your office: FBI search turns up no evidence Virginia Tech killer owned or played videogames [Monsters and Critics]
- How many zeroes was that? Bank of America threatens ABN Amro with $220 billion suit if it reneges on deal to sell Chicago’s LaSalle Bank [Times (U.K.), Consumerist]
- Chuck Colson will be disappointed, but the rule of law wins: Supreme Court declines to intervene in Miller-Jenkins (Vermont-Virginia lesbian custody) dispute [AP; see Mar. 2 and many earlier posts]
- Oklahoma legislature passes, but governor vetoes, comprehensive liability-reform bill [Point of Law first, second, third posts]
- Good primer on California’s much-abused Prop 65 right-to-know toxics law [CalBizLit via Ted @ PoL]
- “Defensive psychiatry” and the pressure to hospitalize persons who talk of suicide [Intueri]
- Among the many other reasons not to admire RFK Jr., there’s his wind-farm hypocrisy [Mac Johnson, Energy Tribune]
- “Screed-O-Matic” simulates nastygrams dashed off by busy Hollywood lawyer Martin Singer [Portfolio]
- “Liability, health issues” cited as Carmel, Ind. officials plan to eject companion dogs from special-needs program, though no parents have complained [Indpls. Star; similar 1999 story from Ohio]
- First glimmerings of Sen. John Edwards’s national ambitions [five years ago on Overlawyered]
Posts Tagged ‘Virginia Tech’
Crime does pay
Over at That Other Website, there’s a link to a Findlaw column by Anthony Sebok, entitled, “Could Virginia Tech Be Held Liable for Cho Seung Hui’s Shootings, If An Investigation Were to Reveal It Had Been Negligent?” The subtitle of the column, which tells you all you need to know, is “The Unfortunate Answer.”
To be fair, Sebok is a law professor, and the question posed is a legitimate academic one: what, if any, legal liability does Virginia Tech face? And also to be fair, Sebok speaks the right words about how Cho bears the primary blame. But at the same time, the article illustrates that the trial lawyers of the sort Overlawyered complains about every day are not revolutionaries; they’re just doing what they’ve been taught in law school. Namely, find a legal theory under which one can blame third parties.
Sebok is careful not to declare the university liable, but at the same time, he doesn’t think there’s anything farfetched about considering that it might be. He doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with trying to assign blame to the school for the acts of a criminal. Ultimately, he’s disappointed because Virginia is “notoriously pro-defendant,” and so even if the victims’ families can blame the state, the “final indignity” is that they could likely “only” win a maximum of $100,000. For the actions of a criminal.
New Times column — the costs of health privacy
My new column in the Times (U.K.) is on the many costs of HIPAA, the federal law which even now prevents institutions from releasing the Virginia Tech psychopath’s health records (privacy rights extend after death) and played a notable role (along with the Buckley Amendment/FERPA) in restricting the chances for relevant actors to compare notes on his symptoms of madness before it was too late (Walter Olson, “Could less rigid privacy laws have prevented the Virginia tragedy?”, Apr. 20).
More: Dr. Wes has some additional HIPAA thoughts, as does Jeff Drummond at HIPAA Blog.
Virginia Tech client-chasing
That didn’t take long: according to Prof. Childs in a post yesterday, at least one legal advertiser has bought Google AdSense words in quest of victim families. Those who click on the ad get redirected to personalinjuryattorney.com.
“Laws Limit Options When a Student is Mentally Ill”
WashingtonPost.com’s “Think Tank Town” feature has a symposium on the policy implications of the Virginia Tech massacre, including contributions from Ted on fear of litigation and from me on the legal constraints on universities faced with problem students, as well as from Jim Copland (Point of Law, Manhattan Institute) on gun control.
This morning’s New York Times (Apr. 19) includes a must-read article by Tamar Lewin spelling out in more detail the problems I refer to in my short commentary. Writes Lewin:
Federal privacy and antidiscrimination laws restrict how universities can deal with students who have mental health problems.
For the most part, universities cannot tell parents about their children’s problems without the student’s consent. They cannot release any information in a student’s medical record without consent. And they cannot put students on involuntary medical leave, just because they develop a serious mental illness….
Universities can find themselves in a double bind. On the one hand, they may be liable if they fail to prevent a suicide or murder. After the death in 2000 of Elizabeth H. Shin, a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who had written several suicide notes and used the university counseling service before setting herself on fire, the Massachusetts Superior Court allowed her parents, who had not been told of her deterioration, to sue administrators for $27.7 million. The case was settled for an undisclosed amount.
On the other hand, universities may be held liable if they do take action to remove a potentially suicidal student. In August, the City University of New York agreed to pay $65,000 to a student who sued after being barred from her dormitory room at Hunter College because she was hospitalized after a suicide attempt.
Also last year, George Washington University reached a confidential settlement in a case charging that it had violated antidiscrimination laws by suspending Jordan Nott, a student who had sought hospitalization for depression….
Last month, Virginia passed a law, the first in the nation, prohibiting public colleges and universities from expelling or punishing students solely for attempting suicide or seeking mental-health treatment for suicidal thoughts.
The article also refers to the role of the Buckley Amendment (FERPA), the HIPAA medical-privacy law, and disabled-rights law, which prohibits universities from inquiring of applicants whether they suffer serious mental illness or have been prescribed psychotropic drugs. Incidentally, the Allegheny College case, in which a Pennsylvania college came under fire for not notifying parents about their son’s suicidal thoughts, was discussed in a W$J article last month: Elizabeth Bernstein, “After a Suicide, Privacy on Trial”, Mar. 24. And Mary Johnson suspects that HIPAA will turn out to have played a role in the calamitous dropping of the ball regarding Cho’s behavior (Apr. 18). More: Raja Mishra and Marcella Bombardieri, “School says its options were few despite his troubling behavior”, Boston Globe, Apr. 19; Ribstein.
And: How well did privacy laws/policies work? Why, just perfectly:
Ms. Norris, who taught Mr. Cho in a 10-student creative writing workshop last fall, was disturbed enough by his writings that she contacted the associate dean of students, Mary Ann Lewis. Ms. Norris said the faculty was instructed to report problem students to Ms. Lewis.
“You go to her to find out if there are any other complaints about a student,” Ms. Norris said, adding that Ms. Lewis had said she had no record of any problem with Mr. Cho despite his long and troubled history at the university.
“I do not know why she would not have that information,” she said. “I just know that she did not have it.”
(Shaila Dewan and Marc Santora, “University Says It Wasn’t Involved in Gunman’s Treatment”, New York Times, Apr. 19). And Barbara Oakley, a professor at Oakland University in Michigan, has an op-ed in today’s Times, recounting her experience with a disturbing student: “It must have seemed far more likely that Rick could sue for being thrown out of school, than that I — or anyone else — could ever be hurt.” (“The Killer in the Lecture Hall”, Apr. 19). The tease-quote from the Times’s editors: “Do universities fear lawsuits more than violent students?”
New low for Jack Thompson?
“In the wake of Monday’s horrific shootings at Virginia Tech, video game scourge Jack Thompson went on Fox News and argued that violent video games were probably to blame. … he went on TV to make the claims before anyone really knew anything about the shooter or his reason for doing what he did.” (Daniel Terdiman, Gaming Blog, Apr. 17; video clip; Brian Crecente, “Dissecting Jack’s Lies”, Kotaku, Apr. 17). More: Mike Musgrove, Post I.T., Washington Post.com; Geek.com; Palgn.com.au (Australian); Wired.com Game/Life blog (TV’s “Dr. Phil” takes same line).
Quote of the day
“She said she notified authorities about Cho, but said she was told that there would be too many legal hurdles to intervene.” — Lucinda Roy, a writing professor who’d noticed the disturbed personality of the Virginia Tech killer-to-be and tried to take an interest in his case, quoted in an ABC News report. (Ned Potter, David Schoetz, Richard Esposito, Pierre Thomas, and staff, “Killer’s Note: You Caused Me To Do This”, Apr. 17). More: Apr. 19.