The California Supreme Court has issued a ruling reinstating it, at least in the short term. (David Kravets, “Calif. Supreme Court Reinstates Exit Exam”, AP/Los Angeles Times, May 24). Our earlier coverage: Feb. 22, May 15.
Archive for May, 2006
Greatest hits rotation
As we periodically do, we’ve rotated the listing of “Greatest Hits” past posts in the right-hand column. New this time: Slower Disney teacups, Honey, you’ve got mail, Class action collusion, Bad luck with yachts, U.S. News regrets, Pie menace averted, Forgot to mention it, and Drunk: cops shoulda stopped me. A listing of all favorite posts nominated so far is here. Feel free to nominate favorites of your own, too, in comments.
$1.6 million for loss of dog? Not so fast
Just as a media boomlet was getting started, a Clackamas County judge has ruled that Oregon law does not permit Mark Greenup and his family to seek loss-of-companionship damages over their neighbor’s having run over their mixed cocker spaniel-Labrador retriever, Grizz, an injury for which they were asking a cool $1.625 million. The case had been touted as a potential breakthrough in the campaign to authorize essentially unlimited monetary damages over the human unhappiness caused when a pet is killed or injured (see May 10, 2005, etc.) and advocates thought they had an unusually sympathetic fact pattern to work with: the Greenups’ neighbor, Raymond Weaver, had been convicted of first-degree animal abuse. Once the principle of damages for loss of companionship had been established, of course, it would be likely to spread to contexts where simple negligence was alleged on the part of veterinarians, drivers or animal handlers. Circuit Judge Eve Miller permitted the Greenups to seek punitive damages and intentional infliction of emotional stress against Weaver (who continues to deny that he harmed the dog intentionally) but said loss-of-companionship damages are barred by Oregon law. (“Judge rejects part of dog lawsuit claim”, AP/Roseburg (Ore.) News-Review, May 23; Steve Mayes, “Case Could Redefine Value of a Pet”, Newhouse/The Oregonian, May 23; “US neighbours in dead dog lawsuit “, BBC, May 23; letters to the editor, The Oregonian, May 24).
P.S. While we’re at it, what a very bad idea: federal mandates for pet evacuation plans.
Deep pocket files: Racibozynski v. Knox College
Clyde Best was sentenced to sixty years for murdering his Knox College classmate, Andrea Racibozynski, in 1998 after a fraternity-party fight; he was identified and caught within three hours of the crime. The murder is, Racibozynski’s attorney Ed Manzke argued, the fault of the college for the way lighting in the stairwell was designed; a jury agreed, and awarded $1.05 million. (Bill Bird, “Family wins $1 mil. suit against Knox College”, Naperville Sun/Chicago Sun-Times, May 24).
Farewell, MedPundit
The pseudonymous “Sydney Smith”, who practices medicine in the Midwest, is discontinuing her medical weblog, which was among the earliest and best of its kind. “Sydney” joined us on this site as a guestblogger in late July and early August, 2004. Update: happily, she’s back.
“£2.8m award for prisoner who tried to kill himself”
More woes in British crime and punishment: “Compensation payments to prisoners have doubled in the last year to more than £4 million, while the total legal bill to the Prison Service has reached £20 million a year, The Times has learnt.” (Richard Ford, The Times (London), May 19). A couple of recent prisoner-suicide suits in the U.S.: Apr. 17, Apr. 28.
“Golfer not liable for errant golf ball”
Assumption of risk wins one in Hawaii: “A golfer may not be held liable for mistakenly hitting another golfer with an errant golf ball, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled.” Ryan Yoneda sued after being hit in the left eye by Andrew Tom’s wayward ball at Mililani Golf Course, but “Chief Justice Ronald Moon wrote Yoneda assumed the risk of the injury when he played golf.” However, the court did allow a lawsuit to proceed against the course owner on grounds of negligent design. (AP/San Francisco Chronicle, May 16; Ken Kobayashi, “Golf at your own risk, court rules”, Honolulu Advertiser, May 15).
The danger of talking to plaintiffs’ attorneys? The Nano class action
An education in how class actions start: Jason Tomczak says that he posted on his blog about the iPod Nano, and was contacted by plaintiffs’ lawyers seeking to bring a lawsuit against Apple. Tomczak says that he told the lawyers he wasn’t interested in suing, but, nevertheless, the law firms of Hagens Berman and David P. Meyer and Associates filed suit naming Tomczak as the lead plaintiff. Two days later, they realized their mistake, and sent Tomczak a proposed attorney-client retainer, which Tomczak refused to sign.
Meanwhile, worldwide publicity named Tomczak as lead plaintiff, subjecting him to ridicule. (Our Oct. 27 post mentioned only Hagens Berman.)
At some point, Tomczak hired lawyers and filed a lawsuit against the law firms; his lawyers don’t seem to have explained to him the repercussions of challenging the plaintiffs’ bar, however, and, after what he calls a harassing deposition, the law firms have filed counterclaims against Tomczak, seeking their fees for defending themselves. Jason Tomczak now asks to clear his name: are there reporters out there who want to cover this David v. Goliath story? (See also Milt Policzer, “Who Needs Plaintiffs”, Courthouse News undated).
$14 million for wrongful birth
A New Brunswick jury awarded $14 million to the Sharad family against their obstetrician, who failed to test for a rare genetic blood disorder, thalassemia major (Cooley’s anemia), that their son was born with. Newspaper coverage mentions neither the doctor’s defense nor even the words “wrongful birth.” $8 million of the award is for emotional distress, meaning the family will be millionaires even after attorneys’ fees and medical expenses. (Sue Epstein, “Couple gets millions for son’s blood disorder”, Star-Ledger, May 23). More on wrongful birth suits: Apr. 9, etc.
NYT snoozes through Milberg scandal
I’ve got details at Point of Law, where there is also much additional Milberg coverage.
On the other hand, the Times today continues to show admirable persistence in tracking the Anthony Pellicano scandal, even though that one (unlike Milberg’s) doesn’t have its roots in New York. (David M. Halbfinger and Allison Hope Weiner, “Pellicano Case Casts Harsh Light on Hollywood Entertainment Lawyers”, May 23).
Also at Point of Law this week, in the “Featured Discussion” section, Jonathan B. Wilson and Larry Ribstein debate whether licensing lawyers makes sense.