February 18 roundup

  • Golfer’s ball bounces off yardage marker and hits him in eye, and he sues; not the Florida case we blogged last month, this one took place in New Hampshire [Manchester Union-Leader]
  • Who needs democracy, much easier just to let the Litigation Lobby run things: elected Illinois lawmakers keep enacting limits on med-mal awards, but trial-lawyer-friendly Illinois Supreme Court keeps striking them down, third round pending at the moment [Peoria Journal-Star, Alton Telegraph, Illinois Times, Reality Medicine (ISMS)]
  • “A sword-wielding, parent-killing psychopath can be such a help around the house.” [we have funny commenters]
  • Brooklyn lawyer Steven Rondos, charged with particularly horrendous looting of incapacitated clients’ estates [earlier], said to have served the New York State Bar Association “as vice president of its guardianship committee” [NYPost]
  • Updated annals of public employee tenure: Connecticut state lawyer who assumed bogus identity to write letter that got her boss fired drew a $1000 fine as well as a reprimand — and then got a raise [Jon Lender/Hartford Courant and more, earlier here and here]
  • Judge Bobby DeLaughter indicted and arraigned as new chapter of Dickie Scruggs judicial-corruption story gets under way in Mississippi; Tim Balducci and Steve Patterson, central figures in Scruggs I, each draw 2-year sentences [NMC/Folo and more, more, YallPolitics, more, earlier on Balducci, DeLaughter]
  • Disney “Tower of Terror” ride not therapeutic for all patrons: British woman sues saying she suffered heart attack and stroke after riding it several times [AP]
  • Convicted of torching his farm, Manitoba man sues his insurance company for not making good on policy [five years ago on Overlawyered]


  • Why aren’t these golfballs that are being deflected back and hitting the golfers not being tested for lead content? Surely their lawyers are missing a further cause of action there. Someone call the CPSC.

  • This case is even more defensible than the Florida case. As I mentioned in my blog post on that case, there were some facts favorable to the plaintiff there (e.g., expert testimony that a rope divider would have avoided the driving range injury) and sympathy (plaintiff also developed cancer) that led to a settlement. The New Hampshire case, involving an on course injury, will be tossed by the judge. If plaintiff there gets to a jury, they will return a defense verdict. Look at the comments (must be 100 or so) to the Manchester Union-Leader article. Mr. Sanchez had best hope they are not representative of his jury pool.

  • I’m sure most people would agree that the case is defensible. The sad fact is that the golf course has to defend it at all. No matter if the judge throws it out or it goes to a defense verdict, money has to be spent to show that Mr. Sanchez should take some responsibility for his own actions. That is the unconscionable part of this whole scenario.

  • I do have a query about these cases which someone might be able to help me with. I note that the golf case occurred in September 2006. Why has it taken him two and a half years to realise that he was blinded?
    Why does it take so long to file an action in these incidents?