Ted mentioned this one in his roundup yesterday, but it merits a post of its own, duly assigned to our “personal responsibility” archive: Jeffrey Klein and Brett Birdwell were 17 “when they trespassed onto railroad property and climbed atop a rail car” because they wanted to see the view from there. They were shocked by a 12,500-volt wire and severely injured. The incident took place in Lancaster, Pa. but through the miracle of forum selection the lawsuit against Amtrak and Norfolk Southern landed before a jury in Philadelphia, a locality notably more favorable for plaintiffs than Lancaster. An attorney said the railroads should have posted signs for the benefit of trespassers warning of the overhead hazard and also should have had the electricity turned off at the time. As Ted pointed out, Birdwell, who was awarded $6.8 million, had injuries transient enough that he’s now serving with the Army in Afghanistan. (“$24.2 million for men burned atop rail car”, AP/MSNBC, Oct. 27; Brett Lovelace, “Verdict: $24.2M”, Lancaster Intelligencer Journal, Oct. 27; Janet Kelley, “A $24.2M question”, Lancaster New Era, Oct. 27)(& Coyote Blog). Update: railroads appeal (AP, Nov. 15).
Author Archive
Tomorrow at Point of Law: election roundtable
Just announced at my other website, Point of Law:
Tomorrow we kick off our next featured discussion, a four-day round-robin on the election and its implications for legal reform. It won’t be a debate format, more like a free-for-all of commentary and reporting that will tackle such topics as:
1) Races around the country where law and litigation have been an issue, or a motivating force;
2) Activist state attorney generals on the ballot, or running for higher office;
3) Ballot propositions to watch on election night;
4) Implications for lawsuit reform and other legal issues if one or both Houses of Congress turn Democratic.
Ted Frank, Jim Copland and I will all be participating, and we also expect surprise guests to stop by for one or more days. In fact, if you’ve got something interesting to say about the legal politics of Election ’06, we invite you to send any of us an email (my address is editor – [at] – this-domain-name – .com) to ask about contributing.
Jack Thompson: don’t you dare let gamers base characters on me
Jack Thompson, the Florida lawyer with a seldom-rivaled knack for keeping this site supplied with material (Oct. 20, etc., etc.), has fired off a cease-and-desist letter to the publisher of Mortal Kombat: Armageddon demanding that it stop publication of the game because participants can use it to create characters based on him. A Slashdot posting explains that Thompson’s “image is not actually a selectable character in the game,” but John Scalzo at the Gaming Target website (scroll down) has published instructions on how to use the game’s build-a-fighter mode to create a character based on Thompson, widely loathed among hobbyists because of his courtroom assaults on popular games (among the character’s features: “puffed out self-important look… Banshee Scream. …no victory pose because, let’s face it, he’s never won”). More: XBoxic, GameShout, CNet/GameSpot (& welcome Ron Coleman readers).
Washington Redskins nickname deemed offensive
So Native American activists are trying — again — to get it invalidated as a trademark. (Jeremy T. Elman, “Can Trademark Law Help Minority Groups Eliminate Negative Stereotypes?”, Law.com, Oct. 12).
“Danish court rejects cartoons lawsuit”
“A Danish court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Muslim groups against the newspaper that first published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that triggered protests across the world this year.” (AlJazeera.net, Oct. 27; Volokh, Oct. 26). Syrian legislator Mohammed Habash, who heads the Islamic Studies Center in Damascus and is apparently deaf to ironic overtones, charged the Danish court with “[wanting] to impose their way of thinking on all other nations.” (“Arab dismay at cartoons verdict”, Irish Examiner, Oct. 26). Earlier: Mar. 19, Mar. 31, etc. 
“This article is copyright protected. Fair Use is not applicable.”
Eugene Volokh has a good laugh at the expense of an upstate New York publication called the North Country Gazette (Oct. 23 and 25). More: I should have made clear that it was David Giacalone who noticed the Gazette’s unusual policy and called it to the attention of the blogosphere; he has subsequently found himself drawn into a dispute with Gazette proprietor June Maxam. More: Carolyn Elefant, Typical Joe, and PhDiva (here, here and here).
Cigarette prohibition
Forty-five percent of Americans would support it, according to a new Zogby poll. Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance warns against repeating our great-grandparents’ mistakes: “a new Prohibition is not the answer — not if we want to stay safe, sane and free.” (Huffington Post, Oct. 26; more).
Web accessibility suits: AP weighs in
For aficionados of one-sided litigation coverage, here’s a lulu from the Associated Press. It’s an article on the lawsuit (National Federation of the Blind v. Target) seeking to establish that companies violate the Americans with Disabilities Act when they do not design their websites so as to make them “accessible” to users who are blind, deaf, lacking in motor skills needed for mouse use, etc. The article fails to mention the courts’ rejection of the disabled rights groups’ position in the Southwest Airlines case, though it’s the major existing precedent on the point. And aside from a ritual and uninformative denial by the retailer defendant Target that it is liable, the article presents as uncontroversial the demand that non-accessible websites be declared unlawful, with not a hint of why anyone might consider it a thoroughly disastrous idea. Oh, wait: the article does incorporate a bit of controversy, by recording worries that a victory for the plaintiffs in the Target case might not go far enough and come out being “read too narrowly. Not every business or Web site is subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act, said [Washington, D.C. lawyer] John D. Kemp”. (Seth Sutel, “Blind Web surfers sue for accessibility”, AP/San Jose Mercury-News, Oct. 24).
Honorable mention: attorney Curtis Kennedy
Who says we shrink from giving lawyers favorable publicity? From a report earlier this month in the Rocky Mountain News:
The California law firm Lerach Coughlin sought $96 million in legal fees when it engineered a $400 million shareholder class-action settlement with Qwest Communications over alleged securities fraud.
So how much did Denver attorney Curtis Kennedy seek when he prevailed in getting those legal fees slashed to $60 million – thus providing $36 million more for the shareholders?
Only $40,500. That’s the 90 hours Kennedy spent on the case times his hourly rate of $300 times 1.5, according to a federal court filing this week. …
Other attorneys might have tried to get a percentage of the $36 million.
“I just think that would be hypocritical after asking the judge to apply moderation” to the $96 million request by Lerach Coughlin, Kennedy said.
Kennedy was representing the Association of U S West Retirees in the case. (Jeff Smith, “Lawyer asks for $40,500 in legal fees”, Rocky Mountain News, Oct. 12)(via Securities Litigation Watch).
Hip-hop mag told to pay fired editor $15 million
Kimberly Ososio, canned from her job as an editor at The Source magazine, portrayed the magazine’s offices as a “raunched-out workplace where executives watched porn, smoked pot and called female employees “b——.” An attorney for the magazine admitted that coarse and profane language was common there but said it was aimed at all parties, “not a gender-specific conduct”. A jury agreed with Osorio’s claim that she was sacked for complaining about sexualized goings-on; she also complained of defamation, but lost on sexual discrimination and harassment counts. (Jose Martinez, “Hip-hop mag bagged”, New York Daily News, Oct. 24; The magazine already faces bankruptcy proceedings due to other business problems. (Leonard Greene, “Editor’s New ‘Source’ of Woe”, New York Post, Oct. 25; Peter Carlson, “Hip-Hop Editor Wins Suit Over Her Firing”, Washington Post, Oct. 25; Joshua Rhett Miller, “Ex-Source editor hopes ruling redefines rap”, Metro New York, Oct. 25).