General Motors has settled on undisclosed terms the suit in which a Los Angeles jury awarded $4.9 billion, later knocked down to a mere $1.2 billion, to six people injured when their Chevy Malibu was rear-ended by a drunk driver; the plaintiff’s lawyers had charged the Malibu with defective design, although federal statistics show it to have a safety record well above average (see Dec. 16, 1999 and links from there). And contrary to reports (including ours) that trial lawyers were managing to kill off car-lease reform in Rhode Island, major automakers said they would remain in the Ocean State leasing market after Gov. Don Carcieri on Jul. 7 signed legislation which for one year caps at $300,000 the liability of car lessors for accidents that their lessees get into (see Jul. 14). The change leaves New York as the only state with unlimited vicarious liability for lessors. (“Business: National Briefs”, Detroit News, Jul. 25).
Archive for August, 2003
“Area employers urged to forbid foul language”
Employers who allow swearing and sexual references in the workplace could find themselves in, well, ‘blankety-blank’ trouble with the federal government. Policies prohibiting foul language and swearing were recommended by leaders of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission?s district office in Cleveland who spoke to 150 human resources managers, union representatives, and legal aid workers at a seminar in downtown Toledo yesterday.” (Toledo Blade, Jul. 31)(via Freedom News)(& welcome Volokh/David Bernstein and Dean Esmay readers)
Perhaps we can help choose
“The federal courts are running out of money to pay jurors…. With a growing caseload and longer trials draining the judiciary’s budget, the agency that runs the courts urged judges early this week to defer ‘noncritical civil trials’ until October, when its new fiscal year begins.” The suggestion was not welcomed in some quarters. “I don’t think there is such a thing as a noncritical jury trial,” said Judge John L. Kane of the Federal District Court in Denver. “If someone has a right to a civil trial, the Seventh Amendment guarantees them a right to a jury.” The Judicial Conference of the United States “later backtracked,” cancelling its request to defer trials in hopes that Congress would allocate additional money or OK the payment of jury fees from a $10 million emergency fund. (Adam Liptak, “Federal Judges Find Courts Short of Money to Pay Jurors,” N.Y. Times, Aug. 1).
Query on site redesign: how to replace relative with absolute links?
In converting the site to Movable Type format, we’ve run into a problem we’d like to share with readers with HTML design experience, since we’re sure there’s a solution out there.
Gambler sues casinos for failing to exclude her
Canada: 37-year-old Lisa Dickert “and her husband Steven have filed a $1-million lawsuit against the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp.” for failing to exclude Ms. Dickert, a compulsive gambler, from the casinos where she gambled away her savings. She had entered a voluntary casino self-exclusion program, but her suit argues that the casinos did little or nothing to enforce the exclusion. (Victor Malarek, “A gambler’s rehab gone wrong”, The Globe and Mail, Jul. 30)(more on gambling suits: May 20-21, 2002).
Time is money
Already squeezed by litigation-driven hikes in medical liability insurance premiums, Nevada doctors may be facing a new type of lawsuit. Fed up with having to wait three hours to see his doctor, patient Aristotelis Belavilas filed suit for $5,000, explaining “My time is worth something just like his is.” A Las Vegas small claims court awarded Belavilas $365 in damages and court fees. Dr. Ty Weller, understandably “appalled” by the case, said he plans to appeal. “Even more important than the money is that now I have to worry about other patients doing this to me,” he said. (“Impatient patient sues doctor for waiting time,” Assoc. Press, July 30).
Addendum: RangelMD has more (Jul. 30, Jul. 31) as does MedRants and Cut to Cure. Update: case settled in Sept. 2003 for doctor’s apology and payment to charity, see Sept. 16, 2005.
Debunker debunked on contingency fees
David Giacalone at ethicalEsq? has posted a critique of a law review article entitled “Seven Dogged Myths About Contingency Fees“, published 2002 in the Washington University Law Quarterly and written by Prof. Herbert Kritzer of the University of Wisconsin, known as one of the more ardent academic defenders of the contingency fee. “Far from debunking the most important ‘myths’ about contingency fees,” Giacalone writes, “the Kritzer Article sets up an army of strawmen, shoots statistical and rhetorical blanks at them, and assures a hollow victory in the battle by using volunteer soldiers from the ranks of p/i lawyers.” (Jul. 30).