Overlawyered letters

I came across your item (Dec. 26, 2000) on the case of Gant v. City of Chicago. I was the trial lawyer in the case. You are missing some essential facts. While Doug Gant is gasping for breath, literally across the street from a firehouse, the 911 call rang for over 26 rings, about 3 minutes, before it was picked up by a caller. This was because the supervisor decided that he and 3 other call takers should go to breakfast at the same time, leaving just one calltaker for the entire south side of chicago to take calls. As to the paramedics, it did take them 8 1/2 minutes to respond, which would not be that bad if they were actually trying to respond the entire time. A firetruck with 8 firefighters from the same firehouse followed them, arriving in less than two minutes, some 30 seconds after the paramedics. The paramedics were caught lying on the stand in regard to their report that morning claiming they were delayed by heavy traffic and construction. The person who confirmed they were lying was their very own fire chief at the station, who arrived in the fire truck and insisted there was neither construction nor any traffic whatsoever on an early Sunday morning. When confronted on the stand, the paramedic broke down, and said "the 911 tape doesn't lie; can I go home now?" After about 4 minutes of no oxygen, the brain is severly injured; after another couple, most die. The paramedics admitted that they were fully aware of this, and gave no explanation for what they were doing in the 8 1/2 minutes from when they left the firehouse, to their arrival across the street. Ultimately the trial judge, a former City attorney politically allied with Mayor Daley, agreed with the jury that the City was responsible, but ordered a new trial on the amount of damages. The case settled a month later for $2.7 million dollars. Prior to the verdict, the City's top settlement offer was $50,000.

Your site would be more persuasive if it was less one-sided. You personally might be less biased if it was you making that 911 call for someone in your family. Nobody likes lawsuits, but many things you take for granted, like shatter-proof glass in automobiles, only came about because of lawsuits. The Gant family would give back the money in a heartbeat to get their son back. I have heard from paramedics in the City that this case caused rules to be put into place creating greater accountability of what 911 calltakers and paramedics are doing while on the job. --- Paul McMahon, Chicago, Ill.

Posted by Walter Olson at 12:56 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

I heartily agree with your concern that trial lawyers are suffocating a large part of American life. I worked for 35 years in the Social Security disability program. In the 60s, the program was a simple, effective one. We were true civil servants doing a good job. Without going into the complicated history here, the program degenerated into a bureaucracy, and we became bureaucrats. In stepped the lawyers. They litigated for procedures that add nothing to the quality of decisions. They succeeded in inflicting a mountain of paperwork on state agencies and administrative law judges that has slowed processing time dramatically. I do not claim that lawyers created the problem. The program began its downhill slide long before they came on the scene in droves, but they magnified the problem greatly when they arrived. They have been instrumental in pressing the judges to make hundreds of thousands of unjustifiable grants of disability, especially since 1993. The end result is: Not only is processing time at a snail's pace, but the taxpayer is paying roughly $15 billion a year in unwarranted benefits to over a million people on the rolls who should not be there. And that is just from my little corner of the world. -- Bob Burgess, Cedar Creek, Tex.

Posted by Walter Olson at 12:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Here in Missouri we recently had a widely publicized $20 million verdict against flavoring manufacturers to the first of thirty injured workers at a popcorn plant who breathed in butter flavor vapor, causing a nasty and seemingly permanent lung illness (see AP/Albuquerque Tribune, Mar. 16). Another settlement has followed in what will presumably be a continuing series (AP/CNN, May 1). I know very little about these cases, just what the press has reported, but one interesting fact is that the employer was not a defendant, though it had been notified of possible risk and had even provided respirators to the workers (but not enforced their use). Of course, the employer was not subjected to suit because the employees were covered by workers comp laws. Lawyers have developed a whole specialty in workplace injury cases of targeting outside defendants other than the employer in order to find a way around the workers' comp exclusive remedy. One wonders whether juries know that. -- George L. Lenard, Chesterfield, Mo. (George's Employment Blawg)

Posted by Walter Olson at 12:37 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)

Regarding "Auto-Seller Sued For Elderly Test-Driver's Accident" (Apr. 11): Don't you think the auto-seller could raise the defense that it was not negligent in defending the claim for damages? Do you think the plaintiff(s) would be filing suit if they were able to negotiate a reasonable settlement? Do you think a jury is capable of deciding a common-law negligence case? I know, I know, there's a litigation crisis. They need laws to stop people from being able to file suit. God forbid a jury of someone's peers hears their case, they might actually determine that a defendant is responsible for his/her or its wrongdoing.

Really, I am just writing to thank you for all of the hard work you're doing for our profession. Keep up the good work. I hear Ambien helps. -- Matthew D. Harbin, Law Offices of James Scott Farrin, P.C., Durham, N.C.

Posted by Walter Olson at 12:04 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)