Overlawyered letters

I am the teacher in your post of Mar. 26, 2001. The injury occurred November 20, 2000. Five years later, I have had 7 (yes, seven) surgeries. Each surgery resulted in a loss of 3 weeks of teaching. Over the years, I have suffered from the irresponsible choice an angry parent made over her son's grades. My students were affected as a result of multiple and lengthy absences. I continue to take medication for inflammation and pain. I have ugly scars on my forearm, wrist, and palm. Did I receive the $250,000 originally asked for in the claim? Not even 10%. How's that for justice? My lawsuit was never superfluous, nor was it irresponsible. I resent my name and litigation information being present on your site. Please remove it. It does not belong there. You have not done your homework. -- Traci England

Our original one-paragraph item, based closely on (and mostly quoting) the Salt Lake Tribune's coverage, was in no way inaccurate and in fact prominently mentioned the aspects of the story that put Ms. England's claim in the most sympathetic light. We appreciate the update informing us that the claim won only a small fraction of what Ms. England's lawyer originally demanded for it, although it is far from clear why that should make our posting of the paragraph look like a mistake in retrospect. To clear up two other possible misconceptions: 1) even a short browse through this site should be enough to see that the description of a case here does not invariably mean that we regard it as "superfluous" or "irresponsible", and 2) because our legal system does not provide for secret lawsuits, when one files a public legal action one is apt to find one's name and "litigation information" reported on by both newspapers and websites. That's just the way things work. -- W.O.

Posted by Walter Olson at 2:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (1)

An additional note on the $22.6 million settlement (Nov. 8) of a claim by a family in Manhattan Beach, Calif. (which is local to me) that moldy lumber caused their son's autism:

The suit blames Crenshaw Lumber for not tarping their inventory. Well, guess what? Nobody in the area does that, for the simple fact(s) that:

A. It doesn't rain very often.

B. Lumber inventory turns over very fast due to the high volume of building and remodeling that takes place in the South Bay.

C. Even if it does rain, the best solution is to just let the lumber sit and dry out in the sun that will be coming out the next day (and the next, and the next, and ....)

However, once the lumber is delivered to the site, Crenshaw Lumber has no control over its further disposition.

Buildtimes in the South Bay seem to average about 6-8 months, and in many cases more, four years in one instance I know of. During that time a construction site can be blasted by rain -- and I do mean blasted -- two, three, or four times, or even more, by the Pacific storms that routinely sweep through the beach cities during the winter and spring. (In addition, the constant moist salt air does its bit too. Steel is rusted out in two years, and that's even if it's galvanized.) Yet -- and this is generally speaking -- I've yet to see a builder tarp a site to keep it dry during these seasons.

So, claims about mold causing autism aside (total B.S.!), is the lumber being "wet" and "causing mold" really Crenshaw's fault, or is it the result of a combination of factors - lengthy buildtime, seasonal storms, moist salt air, builder practices, and perhaps also the modern trend toward well sealed houses that can't and/or are not allowed by their owners to air out?

As an aside, I was struck by Gorman's comment that now he could "build a really nice house." The houses in that area already ARE really nice. What he's implying, I believe, is that the house he bought -- he didn't commission it initially -- was not as nice (or as big) as he wanted (or could afford). But now he can afford it.... -- Vic Benstead, Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.

Posted by Walter Olson at 1:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

I'm one of the students that lived in Madison, Wis. during the period the taverns conspired to fix prices (May 2, 2005, Mar. 29, 2004).

What I thought might interest you is that we've had riots 3 years running during the famous Halloween party on State St. This year, the city government and university have asked the bars in the area to close early to help prevent riots for a fourth year. Shockingly, the taverns have grown a backbone and said no.

What lessons can we draw from this? When acquiescing means they stand to make money, the ruthless city government is just *too mean* to withstand, but when listening to the same officials means the taverns will lose money, well, that's an entirely different matter. Shocking how they've grown a backbone when they can't use the city's request to steal money from folks, eh? I'd say that pretty well undermines their claim they were coerced to raise prices.

Now, having this firm sue them isn't ideal, but since no one else is stepping up to the plate to make these people pay for what they did, I'll take what I can get. -- Earl Hathaway, Madison, Wis.

Posted by Walter Olson at 1:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (1)

I taught a class in Civil Liability for Law Enforcement this first summer session and I used your site often to highlight some of the general principles (as well as more specifically regarding the police-chase liability phenomenon). Not only is your site interesting, but it's useful and -- dare I say -- good for you! -- Troy Hinrichs, Riverside, CA

Posted by Walter Olson at 1:39 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)