Cultural vandalism dept.: the Blair government has pushed through the House of Commons its ban on fox hunting. (“Hunt ban forced through Commons”, BBC, Nov. 19) (via Englishman’s Castle)(more on the hounds of John Peel).
Archive for November, 2004
Victory in Illinois
In another spectacular rebuke for the proponents of gun-control-through-litigation, the Illinois Supreme Court has unanimously tossed out both Chicago’s lawsuit and a lawsuit by private parties seeking to hold gun companies liable for “negligent marketing” and alleging that sales of guns at suburban gun shops constitute a public nuisance along the lines of smoke or stray animals. (John O’Connor, “Chicago gun suits tossed”, AP/Chicago Tribune, Nov. 18). Chicago’s case had been thrown out by a trial court (see Sept. 20, 2000) and then reinstated by an appeals court before yesterday’s denouement. The Illinois Supreme Court is considered among the nation’s most unfriendly by business defendants, but Chicago’s theories were too extreme and too unrooted in precedent to pass muster even there. (City of Chicago v. Beretta; Young v. Bryco Arms). Smallest Minority has much more on the decisions (Nov. 18).
Most of the 30+ municipal gun suits have now been dismissed, but the burden of fighting the litigation has been a crushing one for many defendants, which are often small and family-owned. Their tormentors in the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun groups — funded by George Soros as well as deep-pocketed foundations — show no signs of relenting in their strategy of filing an unending series of flimsy suits in an attempt to achieve through lawyering what voters have denied them at the ballot box. Federal pre-emption, as discussed yesterday, is thus more needed than ever; and it would also help if courts began considering the issuance of sanctions against the groups that file such meritless suits. Update Nov. 22: Steve Chapman comments.
Muscovite files McDonald’s coffee-spill case
“The fashion to sue fast food enterprises has reached Russia. Thirty-seven-year-old Muscovite Olga Kuznetsova claimed a 100,000 ruble ($3,500) compensation from McDonald’s for the burn that a spilled cup of coffee had left on her body.” (Pravda, Nov. 15; Novosti, Nov. 12). For Ted’s take on the much-discussed Stella Liebeck case, see Dec. 10, 2003, Aug. 3, 2004, and Aug. 4, 2004.
That “million dollar Vioxx” page
Monday’s post on the “Get your million dollars” webpage drew a big response from readers, many of whom commented on the question of the page’s sponsorship (the elusive “Leon”, interviewed by New York Sun reporter William Hammond). A typical response was that of reader T.J. McIntyre, who wrote:
You might already know that this appears to be an attempt to make money via the Google AdSense program. You’ve already commented on this in the related context of paid keywords and asbestos.
As such, I suspect that this site isn’t affiliated (at least directly) with any law firms. The webmaster is probably making the bulk of his money from pay per click advertising. Still sleazy, but if he was linked to specific law firms, he wouldn’t be using AdSense, which gives him no control over which firm’s ads will appear. For more on AdSense see this link.
And, of course, “Leon” is also trying to make money by selling for $100 the document containing supposed secrets of Vioxx litigation that Lawyers Don’t Want You To Know. Reader Matt Baucom suspects the page is “filled with outlandish info just to get people to come and click on the links or purchase the document”. That sounds right, too.
Gun pre-emption looking good
Last time up, Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s poison-pill amendment passed 52-47, dooming the urgently needed bill although it enjoyed the support on paper of a wide majority of Senators. Now five Democrats among those 52 votes are going to be gone. “Conservative Republicans, all of whom were endorsed by the NRA, will replace all five Democrats.” (Jim Snyder, “Gun lobby, GOP have lawsuits in their crosshairs”, The Hill, Nov. 17). For more on this bill, see my dialogue with Michael Krauss, linked Jul. 21; Mar. 12, Feb. 25; Oct. 9, 2003 and many others.
Blonds not protected class
Not sure exactly how this one escaped our notice last year: a Pennsylvania federal judge has ruled (or, really, observed) that whatever other advantages blonds may enjoy, they are not a protected class under Title VII federal employment discrimination law. Brigitte Shramban had sued Aetna claiming that her boss had made various tasteless and disparaging remarks which belittled her on account of her sex, race, national origin, religion and blondness. Aside from noting that the last-named flower could not properly be included in the Title VII bouquet, the judge dismissed the case as a whole because the improper remarks were not sufficiently severe, pervasive, or bothersome to a reasonable listener. (Shannon P. Duffy, “Offensive Behavior Not Necessarily Harassment”, The Legal Intelligencer, May 23, 2003). It seems doubtful that a case could be made out that discrimination against those with fair tresses operates as a “proxy” for bias against those of certain ethnic origins; thanks to modern technology, blonds (as the Census says of Hispanics) “may be of any race”.
Update: Abercrombie & Fitch settles
“Abercrombie & Fitch has agreed to settle a trio of employment discrimination suits for nearly $50 million,” according to an SEC filing. (Justin Scheck, “Abercrombie Agrees to Settle Discrimination Suits for Nearly $50 Million”, The Recorder, Nov. 10; Jenny Strasburg, “Abercrombie to pay $50 million in bias suits”, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 10). Early allegations against the teen fashion retailer drew attention in part because complainants claimed to have lost job opportunities because they weren’t “pretty enough” or “All-American enough” (see Dec. 17, 2003). George, of the eponymous Employment Blawg, has his doubts (Nov. 10) about some of the claims’ merits. Plus: more posts at the same site, Nov. 10, Nov. 16, Nov. 17. Update Apr. 24: judge approves settlement.
“Friends” harassment suit, cont’d
Emotional distress from lawyer’s handling of divorce
Take a number dept.: on Sept. 23 we reported on an unusual case in which a court had ordered the Internal Revenue Service to pay a taxpayer $10,000 for the emotional distress occasioned by its overzealous collection techniques. Now San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay has allowed a suit to go forward in which client Vincenzo Rinaldi wants money to compensate him for the emotional distress he says he suffered as a consequence of lawyer Joseph Pisano’s alleged less-than-ideal handling of his divorce. An attorney for Pisano maintains his client “did nothing wrong in handling the divorce” and that, contrary to the suit’s allegations, there was never any doubt as to the validity of Rinaldi’s remarriage. Most courts have disallowed emotional-distress damages in cases alleging legal malpractice, perhaps in part from fear (as with the parallel case of IRS-inflicted emotional distress) of opening floodgates too vast to contemplate. (Pam Smith, “Malpractice Suit Says Divorce Doubt Led to Distress”, The Recorder, Oct. 22). Update Dec. 26: appellate court unwelcoming to emotional-distress claim.
Illinois alienation of affection
While just about everything else has become more actionable in today’s compensation culture, there has been a countertrend in family law. Most states have barred suits for the ancient tort of “alienation of affection” by jilted spouses. Utah (May 18, 2000) and North Carolina are exceptions, as is Illinois; there, Steven Cyl is suing a neighbor he says stole his wife. “Is this thing for real?” asks the defendant. Previous Illinois alienation-of-affection plaintiffs include the always-entertaining ex-Rep. Mel “Did I win the Lotto?” Reynolds, whose case was thrown out for unspecified reasons. (Steve Patterson, “‘This guy, he ruined my life’ — so man sues”, Chicago Sun-Times, Nov. 15 (via Bashman); “Former Congressman Mel Reynolds takes estranged wife’s lover to court”, Jet, Aug. 12, 2002; “Davidson Wrestling Coach Awarded $1.4 Million For ‘Theft of Wife?s Heart'”, North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, May 23, 2001). The ever-obnoxious Pat Buchanan approves. (“What is a Family Worth?”, Aug. 11, 1997; Hutelmyer v. Cox (N.C. App. 1999)).