Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review Online (“The Corner”, May 18) has written in defense of the new Virginia statute, much criticized in this space, which declares null and void within the state not only civil unions but also any “partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage” (Mar. 19, Apr. 18, Apr. 23, May 12). As I noted two weeks ago, given the unclarity of the law’s drafting, a prolonged guessing game about its meaning may be inevitable; but some guesses are more plausible than others.
Archive for May, 2004
Australia: “Personal injury claims plummet”
Yes, it can happen: following the enactment of sweeping state-level liability reforms, the rate of personal-injury filings in Australia is way down and legal practices are closing or shrinking as business declines. In the state of Victoria, claims over public liability, assault, dog bites, slip-falls and school accidents have dropped sharply and a total of 19 medical negligence claims were filed in the six months to April 29, down from “hundreds of claims two years before”. (Fergus Shiel, Melbourne Age, May 11). In the state of New South Wales, which includes Sydney, “The court’s Chief Judge, Reg Blanch, said statements of claim had fallen from a record 20,784 in 2001 to just under 8000 last year. …There are now only minor delays in bringing on a civil case, with the exception of motor vehicle claims, which require more documentation.” (Michael Pelly, “Lawyers in job void as claims drop”, Sydney Morning Herald, May 8). For more on the excesses which led to a public re-examination of “compensation culture” Down Under, see our Australia page.
Triple whammy for tobacco
Bad legal news comes in threes for cigarette makers: federal judge Gladys Kessler has ruled that the U.S. Department of Justice will be allowed to ask for disgorgement of $280 billion in past tobacco industry profits in the federal racketeering case against the industry (Nancy Zuckerbrod, “Judge: Government Can Seek Tobacco Profits”, AP/Washington Post, May 24)(more on suit). Health-program recoupment suits similar to those successfully pressed by state governments in the U.S. have been almost uniformly rejected in foreign courts, but an exception may be shaping up in Canada, where an appeals court in the province of British Columbia has just given its go-ahead to such a suit (Rod Mickleburgh, “Court upholds B.C.’s right to launch ‘big tobacco’ suit”, The Globe and Mail, May 21). And: “In the first verdict of its kind in the nation, a New Orleans jury decided Friday that four big tobacco companies should pay $591 million for a comprehensive, 10-year smoking-cessation program for a half-million or so of their Louisiana customers.” (Susan Finch, “Jury tells tobacco firms to pay up”, New Orleans Times-Picayune, May 22). More: On a somewhat brighter note, the California Assembly has narrowly defeated the scary bill sponsored by Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh and backed by the American Lung Association that would have prohibited parents from smoking in cars in which their children were riding (see Apr. 30) (Steve Lawrence, “Assembly rejects bill to bar smoking in cars carrying young kids”, AP/SignOnSanDiego, May 28); for more news on secondhand smoke controversies, see updates appended to post of Oct. 16, 2003 (scroll to end).
Suing Atkins for publicity
An animal-rights group that calls itself the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is assisting a disappointed dieter in suing the Atkins people over allegedly failing to warn that levels of bad cholesterol can rise on a meat-rich diet. A torts professor quoted by the Times says the complaint “reads as if it were done by someone who is doing it for reasons of publicity rather than private gain”, and even the named plaintiff pretty much admits that it’s more about headline-seeking than anything else. (Marian Burros, “Dieter Sues Atkins Estate and Company”, New York Times, May 27). Does the self-proclaimed Physicians Committee want publicity, then? Here’s some: National Council Against Health Fraud, Brian Carnell, Center for Consumer Freedom commentary and press release, ActivistCash.com . Together these links tell you all you probably need to know about the PCRM, which has also been extensively quoted in the press as a cheerleader for lawsuits against McDonald’s and other burger chains. Plus: yet more from CCF.
“Art vs. property rights”
One reason not to commission a mural for your building: the federal Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, which with some exceptions “prohibits the intentional alteration, mutilation or destruction of artworks without the consent of the artists” and gives the offended artist a right to sue. Lawsuits under VARA have not been numerous, but have raised questions of fairness to art owners as well as of unintended consequences. (Daniel Grant, Wall Street Journal Leisure & Arts/OpinionJournal.com, May 27; Cynthia Esworthy, “A Guide to the Visual Artists Rights Act”, NYArtsAlive.com, undated; IvanHoffman.com.
“Attorney loses lawsuit over Super Bowl show”
“Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction during the Super Bowl halftime show may be a lot of things, but it’s apparently not worth $5,000. A judge rejected a Utah lawyer’s claim that CBS owner Viacom should pay him $5,000 for having to see Jackson’s bared breast during the Feb. 1 show. Eric Stephenson, contending false advertising, sued Viacom in small-claims court.” (AP/San Francisco Chronicle, May 27). On the earlier Boobgate lawsuit by Terri Carlin of Knoxville, Tenn., see Feb. 5, Feb. 8 and Feb. 14.
Houston accident operators indicted
A federal grand jury has indicted Houston attorney Gene Burd and chiropractic clinic owner Paul Samson Christie on tax charges. Among the allegations against Burd are that he employed runners to bring in car-crash victims which he signed up as clients and referred as patients to the chiropractic clinics; that the clinics kicked back about half the fees they charged to him; that he conspired to defraud insurance companies in the resulting lawsuits; that he settled some clients’ cases without their knowledge or consent, and misrepresented to them the share of the settlement money that he was keeping; and (perhaps his most fateful lapse, if the allegations prove true) that he failed fully to report the income from all this for federal tax purposes. Lawyers for Burd and Christie assert that their clients are not guilty and Burd’s lawyer attributes the indictment to “a misunderstanding by the government”. (U.S. Department of Justice press release, Apr. 12; Mary Alice Robbins, “Houston Attorney, Clinic Owner Face Federal Tax Charges”, Texas Lawyer, Apr. 23).
Latest newsletter
What, you still haven’t subscribed to our free periodic newsletter? The latest one went out this afternoon to its c. 2300 subscribers, covering the last three weeks’ worth of postings to the site. It’s a great way to keep up with items you may have missed. Don’t delay any longer: sign up here.
Watch it, Teach, I know my rights
In a new poll of educators conducted by Public Agenda and commissioned by Common Good, “Nearly 8 in 10 teachers (78%) said students are quick to remind them that they have rights or that their parents can sue.” (Fredreka Schouten, “Study: Pupils pay academic price for unruly classrooms”, Gannett/USA Today, May 11)(more at Common Good: poll, May 11 forum co-sponsored with AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, “EdWatch”). More: Tresa Baldas, “The Anaconda in the Chandelier”, National Law Journal, May 19.
Next time maybe he should just litter?
Andy Chasin tossed a FedEx airbill — just the one piece of paper — in a trash receptacle near his District of Columbia home. Thirteen days later, he was served with a $35 ticket from the city’s Department of Public Works charging him with Improper Use of Public Litter Receptacles: statute 24 DCMR 1009.1 provides that “Public wastepaper boxes shall not be used for the disposal of refuse incidental to the conduct of a household, store, or other place of business. …” Official inspectors, it turns out, rummage through the litter in search of items that should have been disposed of in home or office trash. “I tell people all the time: Don’t put anything with your name on it in a public trash can,” says Mary Myers, spokeswoman for the city’s Department of Public Works. (Marc Fisher, “When It Comes To Waste, D.C. Is Priceless”, Washington Post, Mar. 24).