Archive for February, 2005

Edward Fagan’s tsunami lawsuit

Nineteen German and Austrian tourists are filing a lawsuit against the government of Thailand and the French hotel chain Accor over the Indian Ocean tsunami. Naturally, the lawsuit has been filed in New York. Another defendant is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; plaintiffs complain that NOAA’s Pacific Tsunami Warning System failed to issue a warning for a tsunami in a completely different ocean. (Aside from the fact that NOAA owes no duty to vacationing Germans in Thailand, NOAA did try to notify other countries of the tsunami potential of the earthquake.) The suits against NOAA and Thailand in a US court are frivolous in the narrowest sense of the word, and will likely be quickly dismissed; Accor will probably have to spend some time and money if it can’t get out on jurisdictional grounds. Edward Fagan (Feb. 5, Aug. 13, Apr. 2, Aug. 8, 2003 and links therein) is the attorney; press coverage uncritically repeats the claim that he is “best known for filing lawsuits seeking reparations for Holocaust victims,” a self-promotion others disagree with. (Jean-Michel Stoullig, AFP/Wash. Times, Feb. 15; cf. also AP, Feb. 13; hat tip to reader D.C.). I’m curious: does Fagan sue his local news weather department if he gets wet because of an unanticipated rainstorm?

At least Fagan isn’t claiming that his lawsuit will stop tsunamis. This site does make that claim for its “lawsuit”; it’s possible that it’s a tongue-in-cheek art project, but the smart money is betting that it’s the work of a full-fledged self-parodying moonbat. It’s not clear if there’s an actual lawsuit; lawsuits by the deranged tend to be more entertaining than socially problematic, except for district court judges unfortunate enough to be in the Ninth Circuit.

Latest newsletter

The latest installment of our free periodic newsletter went out this afternoon to its c. 2300 subscribers, covering the last two or three weeks’ worth of postings in cryptic, occasionally droll style. It’s a great way to keep up with items you may have missed; when you’re finished, pass on the email to let a friend know about the site. Sign up today, right here.

McDonald’s settles trans fat claim

The fast-food chain has agreed to settle charges arising from its having missed a self-announced deadline for reducing the use of trans fats in its cooking oil. It will pay $7 million to the American Heart Association for an educational campaign, $1.5 million to publicize its future progress in the quest for better fats, and unspecified attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs. The “chain said it had issued a news release in February 2003 saying its plans had been delayed,” but Stephen Joseph, a San Francisco attorney who runs a pressure group called BanTransFats.com, sued contending that the restaurant chain did not adequately publicize the setback. (Joe Garofali, “$7 million for suit on trans fats”, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 12). For attorney Joseph’s earlier suit demanding unsuccessfully that the sale of Oreo cookies to kids be banned, see May 13, 2003.

Foodmakers say the use of trans fats is the only practicable way left to avoid the prospect of limp and off-flavored French fries and donuts, in part because earlier campaigns succeeded in demonizing butter, animal and tropical fats, though some of those fats are now considered less harmful than their replacements. Many nutritionists

had made their careers telling people to eat margarine instead of butter,” said Walter Willett, chairman of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health and one of a handful of medical researchers who have led the fight against trans fat. “When I was a physician in the 1980’s, that’s what I was telling people to do and unfortunately we were often sending them to their graves prematurely.”

That certainly inspires confidence in the idea of giving nutritionists access to the coercive machinery of government to enforce their recommendations, doesn’t it? (Kim Severson and Melanie Warner, “Fat Substitute Is Pushed Out of the Kitchen”, New York Times, Feb. 13).

Town won’t accept racy calendar proceeds

Since the 1999 sensation over England’s “Ladies of Rylstone”, the fad has spread around the world of charity fundraising calendars displaying the unclothed (but strategically obscured) bodies of middle-aged and elderly townspeople. In Carmel, Calif., however, the city is refusing to accept $40,000 in proceeds from the Carmel Fire Belles calendar, which features local women aged 51 to 84 posing behind firefighting equipment. City attorney Donald Freeman “said that under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, accepting the money could make the city liable for a sexual-harassment lawsuit. He says the city has already received numerous complaints from city workers.” An outside law firm offered the same opinion, Freeman said. (Nicholas Shields, “Fearing Lawsuits Because of Birthday Suits, City Shuns a Gift”, Feb. 7).

Update: NY Fen-Phen Fee Fracas

Parker & Waichman referred fen-phen cases to Napoli Bern; Napoli Bern negotiated a fen-phen settlement with the manufacturer. Now, Parker & Waichman is charging that Napoli Bern’s lump-sum settlement was distributed in such a way to favor Napoli Bern’s direct clients, thus increasing the total attorney fee take for Napoli Bern and decreasing the amount it would have to share with referring law firms. Napoli Bern denies the allegations. (Jonathan Glater, “When Law Firms Collide, Things Sometimes Get Ugly”, NY Times, Feb. 12) (via Bashman). Previous coverage: Dec. 28, 2001.

“I did considerable research before I sued a seven-year-old.”

That’s a quote from attorney Judson Hawkins, who’s representing Mary Ellen Michaels in her lawsuit against a seven-year-old boy whose bike she collided with while rollerblading, the boy’s grandmother and parents (“who were a thousand miles away at the time”). The Ohio courts have dismissed her complaint, but Michaels vows to appeal to the state supreme court if necessary. (“Suing a 7-Year-Old”, Cleveland Scene, Feb. 9).