Yes, it’s regular Overlawyered mentionee Jack Thompson (Aug. 17, Jul. 24, Jun. 25, etc.) at it again — how did you guess? This time he wants $600 million from Take-Two Interactive, Sony and other defendants over the rampage by 14-year-old Cody Posey on newsman Sam Donaldson’s New Mexico ranch, which left three members of the youth’s family dead in July 2004. It seems Posey had “obsessively” played the game Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. (AP/Washington Post, Sept. 25)(via KipEsquire). More: Lattman, Sept. 27.
Author Archive
Bacardi responds to flaming-drinks suit
The rum maker contends that the three women’s injuries “were caused after a bartender poured rubbing alcohol on the bar of the ‘Secrets’ adult club and ignited it as part of a promotion for flaming drinks in 2002.” The complainants, it suggests, have already recovered damages from other and more culpable entities in the accident. The plaintiff’s lawyer says the 151-proof liquor has been the cause of other accidents when it caught fire, but Bacardi counters that the label warns against use in flaming drinks and that the bottle includes a “flame arrester”. (“Bacardi Denies Its 151 Rum Caused Bar Burn Injuries”, AP/FoxNews.com, Sept. 25). For our earlier coverage, see Jul. 27.
Paul Harris show, KMOX
I was a guest this afternoon on Paul Harris’s radio show on KMOX, St. Louis. We discussed Judge Weinstein’s ruling certifying a national class action over “light” tobacco claims (see PoL Sept. 25), the court decision last week keeping alive the Pelman obesity case against McDonald’s (Sept. 22), and a deaf group’s lawsuit demanding captioning at Washington Redskins football games (Sept. 21). You can listen here — it’s practically a podcast.
U.K. schools fear liability surge
Britain: “Headteachers yesterday warned that litigious parents could soon sue schools for failing to prevent their children from drinking, smoking or taking drugs. … Families are already taking legal action over schools’ alleged failure to tackle bullying and heads say they could soon be held responsible for obesity, pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, drug taking and drinking.” (James Meikle, “Heads predict lawsuits over obesity targets”, The Guardian, Sept. 12).
Oprah for President? Cease and desist
Attorneys for the talk show host have fired off a cease and desist letter to retired Kansas City teacher Patrick Crowe, 69, over his efforts to draft her as a presidential candidate. In addition to demanding that he surrender his website oprah08.net (which lands visitors on this site) and give up his toll-free number 1-866-OPRAH08, the letter (courtesy Smoking Gun) insists (p. 2) that Crowe “refrain from using any and all references in any vehicle (including, without restriction, websites), for any reason, to Ms. Winfrey” or her properties. (Matt Campbell, “Quest to elect Oprah becomes publicity opera”, McClatchy/ Seattle Times, Sept. 23; Andrew Buncombe, “Oprah blocks bid to make her President”, The Independent (U.K.)/Belfast Telegraph, Sept. 22). Ann Althouse comments: “would Oprah be a good President? I think she’s too litigious.” (Sept. 24).
Government paternalism
It can wind up breaking the hearts of actual parents, as in this gambling-SWAT-raid tale recounted by Radley Balko (Sept. 18).
Minn. court: traffic-cam ticketing unlawful
The Minnesota appeals court took exception to a provision of the law providing that a car owner would be responsible for traffic infractions caught on camera unless he or should could prove someone else was driving. (Joy Powell, “Court upholds ruling against traffic cameras”, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sept. 23). For more on the evils of traffic-cams and contingency-fee law enforcement, see Sept. 6, 2001, Apr. 8-9 and Apr. 19-21, 2002, Mar. 10, 2004, and Mar. 31, 2005.
Calif. AG sues automakers for global warming
In a first-of-its-kind suit, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer is demanding damages from automakers for the impact of global warming. “Because, after all, the California attorney general is the one who should be deciding national policy on the global warming controversy,” notes Ted at Point of Law. Even accepting Lockyer’s contentions at face value, autos sold in California contribute less than 1 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions (David Shepherdson, “Calif. sues over auto emissions”, Detroit News, Sept. 21).
Is Lockyer making it up as he goes along with the new suit, legal-theory-wise? It would seem so. His theory that autos constitute a nuisance have never been enacted as law even by the California legislature, yet he’s asserting it retroactively to punish past behavior by Detroit and Japan worldwide. His views clash strongly with those held by elected officials in many other states, which is one reason our system gives the U.S. Congress, rather than the California attorney general, the right to set national environmental policy. His notion that internal combustion engines might not be unlawful in themselves, but constitute nuisance in this case because manufacturers could be doing more to minimize their impact, makes as much sense (which is to say, no sense whatever) as if he sued California’s own drivers on the grounds that they contribute to the problem by taking unnecessary trips.
Prof. Bainbridge has quite a bit more to say about the abuse of power involved in using this type of litigation as an end run around the political branches of government which are the proper locus of authority on policy matters of this sort (Sept. 21).
Reader Earl Wertheimer writes: “I would rather see the automakers simply agree to stop selling cars in California. Let them walk & bicycle for a while. This would promote better fitness and also reduce future obesity lawsuits.”
Reader Loren Siebert writes: “I wonder if the discovery process will include how many motor vehicles the state of CA has purchased and operates.” And Nick Fenton at DTT Buzz has suggestions for more litigation (Sept. 20).
More: Lockyer “is unlikely to win” the suit, according to legal experts interviewed, especially since “a similar case brought by California and other states against utilities companies in 2004 failed in the courts”. “Even with a small chance of success, environmental advocates say the new legal action is useful and necessary”, one reason being “to pressure carmakers”. “I hope that automakers realise this will be the first of a series of lawsuits,” says Jim Marston of Environmental Defense. (Roxanne Khamsi, “California faces uphill battle on car emissions”, New Scientist, Sept. 22). EconBrowser (Sept. 24):
…the key question in my mind is not the extent to which reducing greenhouse emissions from vehicles may be a good idea, but rather whether, under previously existing U.S. law, it has been lawful to manufacture cars that emit carbon dioxide. I submit that it has, and if a judge somewhere now creatively determines that a company can be punished for such perfectly lawful behavior, then I fear that America is no longer a nation ruled by law, but rather ruled at the whim of whatever those currently wielding power happen to think might be a good idea.
Yet more: Brian Doherty, Reason “Hit and Run”, Sept. 21.
Pro se suits: don’t blame lawyers, right?
Every so often someone suggests that poorly conceived pro se (self-represented without a lawyer) lawsuits can’t count as a symptom of an overlawyered society, since lawyers aren’t involved in them, right? I left a comment at Evan Schaeffer’s site the other day about this question and reproduce it here:
I agree that it’s fair to point out that many dubious legal claims are advanced by unrepresented pro se litigants, and also fair to point out that most lawyers would have advised against pressing many of these claims, and thus would have played a socially beneficial role had they been called into the case by the claimant.
I don’t agree that the moral is that such cases have no logical link to public discontent with the legal profession. Our system is set up so as to encourage marginal pro se claims (like marginal claims generally) through liberal rules of civil procedure that make it easier to get into court, rules on causation and damages that make longshot theories seem worth a try, lack of loser-pays, and so forth. These ground rules were largely developed by, and are certainly jealously guarded by, the profession that administers and makes its living from them, and that profession is assuredly not the hatters, the cobblers, or the cigar makers.
More on “unfair failure to publicize” suit
The New York Times has more on that dispute in which an L.A. boutique is claiming that Us Weekly is wrongfully failing to give it publicity (see Sept. 12). (Mireya Navarro, “The End of a Beautiful Friendship?”, Sept. 21). More: Ellis Henican, “Only in America: Suing to Be a Celeb”, Newsday, Sept. 20.