Archive for September, 2010

Pizza Hut told to pay $11 million for epileptic driver’s crash

Lawyers “argued that Pizza Hut was responsible for the collision because they hired [deliverer Nicole] Fisk, who had a driver’s license for only three months and had a history of suffering blackout spells and staring episodes.” Pizza Hut countered (unsuccessfully) that Fisk’s epilepsy was diagnosed only after the crash, which seriously injured a mother and daughter in another vehicle. [San Diego Union-Tribune via Lipman, Legal Blog Watch] And yes, it does call to mind the case I wrote about more than a decade ago:

You may think I’m making this up unless I offer a verbatim quote, so here’s exactly what the Washington Post reported in a front-page story on April 8 [1997]: “In January, a former truck driver for Ryder Systems, Inc., won a $ 5.5-million jury verdict after claiming, under the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act], that Ryder unfairly removed him from his position after he suffered an epileptic seizure, saying his health condition could be a safety hazard. During the time he was blocked from his job at Ryder, the driver was hired by another firm, had a seizure behind the wheel and crashed into a tree. Ryder is appealing the verdict.”

“Melvyn Weiss’ Quest For Redemption”

Now released from prison, the former class-action baron “declined to say whether he regretted his actions.” Weiss — once acclaimed as the plaintiff’s bar’s top spotter of financial fraud — also turns out to have lost a ton of money to Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. The report is balanced, and cites Michael Perino’s work finding evidence that Weiss’s lies to judges worked to his own benefit as opposed to that of class members. It also recalls the heated claims by Democratic U.S. Reps. Charles Rangel, Gary Ackerman, Carolyn Maloney and Robert Wexler that Weiss was being railroaded on political charges — before he admitted the scheme and pleaded guilty, that is. [Jewish Week]

September 30 roundup

  • “Sexting” Wisconsin prosecutor to resign [AP, AtL] Was bar discipline too lax? A contrarian view [Esenberg]
  • Update: jury finds “caffeine killer” guilty in wife’s death [CBS, earlier]
  • Not an Onion story: “New Orwellian Tax Scheme in England Would Require All Paychecks Go Directly to the Tax Authority” [Dan Mitchell, Cato]
  • “The Fight Over Fire Sprinklers in New Homes” [Popular Mechanics via Fountain, earlier]
  • Pre-Miranda interrogation of (no relation) Jimmy Olsen [another legally-themed comic book cover from the series at Abnormal Use]
  • Slow customer service at pizza restaurant deemed “sabotage” in employment suit [Fox, Jottings]
  • Website offers defendants’ perspective on some of the Enron prosecutions [Ungagged.net via Kirkendall]
  • Pedestrian killed by out-of-control driver, and jury awards $37 million against California municipality for not having built sidewalks [six years ago on Overlawyered]

UK: Not with my daughter you don’t!

British attorney Nick Freeman “is notorious for using legal loopholes to successfully defend celebrity clients accused of motoring offenses. But Mr. Loophole, as he is nicknamed, last week refused to use his expertise to get his daughter off a speeding charge…. ‘Sophie had to understand the consequences of breaking the law,’ [he said].” [Patrick Kingsley, Guardian]

Developer vs. critic of eminent domain, cont’d

As readers will recall, Texas developer H. Walker Royall sued journalist Carla Main and her publisher, Encounter Books, over Bulldozed, a critique of eminent domain which includes commentary critical of Royall’s dealings. (Note: Encounter Books is also the publisher of my forthcoming book, Schools for Misrule.) The case is now before a Dallas judge, and getting more publicity. (Dallas Observer, including brief and response by the parties, and more; David Rittgers at Cato). The WSJ’s William McGurn interviewed Royall and quotes him as saying that he objects (inter alia) to being portrayed as someone who “wants to silence anyone who wants to talk about [the controversy].” Why might anyone have gotten that impression of him? Well, one reason might be that, in addition to filing a suit demanding that Carla Main’s book be pulled off the market, and another suit against a local paper and its book reviewer over a review of the book — that one was settled — Royall also sued famed law professor Richard Epstein, who’d given a blurb to the book. (A judge dismissed Epstein from the case.)

From the Dallas Observer’s reporting:

John Kramer, with the Institute for Justice, says defamation suits against people speaking out against eminent domain are increasingly common. “We’ve actually seen an unfortunate trend across the country, in Tennessee, Missouri, and Washington State,” he says, over speech, a newspaper ad and a “multi-story permanent sign that said, ‘End eminent domain abuse.'”

More from IJ here. And Morgan Smith at Texas Tribune discusses efforts in the Texas legislature to secure more protection for free speech against aggressive lawsuits.