Giving property rights a bad name? “A Broadmoor man who said he rescued more than 200 residents after commandeering a boat during the flood after Hurricane Katrina is being sued by the boat’s owner for taking it ‘without receiving permission.'” Mark Morice cut the unattended boat loose and managed to hot-wire it, then used it to rescue an elderly dialysis patient and many others; he then left the vessel for other rescuers’ use. “The lawsuit contends that boat owner John M. Lyons Jr. suffered his own distress, in the form of ‘grief, mental anguish, embarrassment and suffering … due to the removal of the boat,’ as well as its replacement costs.” One of those who benefited from Morice’s rescue efforts, Molly Gordon, says she has trouble understanding the mental-anguish angle: “This man should be so grateful he had a boat that saved lives,” she said. (Steve Ritea, New Orleans Times-Picayune, Aug. 26)(& No Quarter/Michael Silence, KnoxNews).
Author Archive
Talk show subpoenaed in Boston mosque suit
The Islamic Society of Boston, which is engaged in numerous lawsuits against media organizations and critics of its activities (see Jan. 5, May 19), has now subpoenaed local radio talk station WTTK-FM “after one of its prominent hosts, Michael Graham, discussed the [ISB’s mosque-building] project on the air…. after reviewing the subpoena, attorney Harvey Silverglate, a Cambridge civil liberties specialist, described it as ‘extraordinary.'”, noting that it requests, among other things, “materials used by Graham to support his remarks about the ISB… and communications between Graham and other defendants or attorneys involved in the ISB defamation suit.” (Laura Crimaldi, “Islamic Society subpoenas WTTK in defamation suit”, Boston Herald, Aug. 27).
Veterinary malpractice, cont’d
Mike Cernovich makes the case against “loss of companionship” damages (Aug. 23). Earlier coverage: Dec. 29, 2005, etc.; see also May 25, 2006.
Update: Vt.-Va. lesbian custody battle
The Vermont Supreme Court has rejected (opinion, Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, Aug. 4) a Virginia court’s attempt to invalidate a pre-existing Vermont order giving Janet Miller-Jenkins rights to visit the child that she and former partner Lisa Miller-Jenkins raised before their breakup. Eugene Volokh (Aug. 4, see also second post of that date) explains why the Virginia court is on shaky ground:
First, despite how Lisa’s lawyers (Liberty Counsel) are characterizing the case, this is not primarily a case about civil unions. Child custody cases often arise in divorces (or, where civil unions are available, in civil union dissolutions), but they can arise even if the parties aren’t married. The relevant federal statute, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738A (which the Vermont court calls, in a possibly amusing mistake, the Parental Kidnapping Protection Act), requires courts to adhere to preexisting custody awards generally, not just ones that follow the dissolution of a marriage. The Act requires each state to “enforce according to its terms” out-of-state custody orders if, among other things:
(1) [the original] court has jurisdiction under the law of [the court’s] State; and
(2) … (A) such State
(i) is the home State of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or
(ii) had been the child’s home State within six months before the date of the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from such State because of his removal or retention by a contestant or for other reasons, and a contestant continues to live in such State;And if this provision protects the original Vermont judgment (which I think it does), then the later Virginia judgment is invalid (see subdivision (g), “A court of a State [here, Virginia] shall not exercise jurisdiction in any proceeding for a custody or visitation determination commenced during the pendency of a proceeding in a court of another State [here, Vermont] where such court of that other State is exercising jurisdiction consistently with the provisions of this section to make a custody or visitation determination”).
Volokh rejects the position — advanced by some readers in the comments thread — that the federal Defense of Marriage Act should be construed as overriding the PKPA in this case. It is rather remarkable how many social-conservative commentators fail even to mention the PKPA in discussing the dispute. Earlier coverage of the case: Aug. 15 and Dec. 16, 2004.
UK: saving bagpipers from themselves, cont’d
To a chorus of dismay from many of those affected, health and safety inspectors have issued strict new guidelines intended to protect soldiers who play the Scottish bagpipes from suffering hearing loss. “As well as wearing ear protectors, the guidelines insist that pipers should only play for a maximum of 24 minutes a day outside, and only 15 in practice rooms….The tests were run because the military feared the possibility of having to pay compensation to soldiers who might argue that their hearing had been damaged by too much pipe-playing. The Ministry of Defence already makes special payments to personnel whose hearing has been affected by working on rifle ranges or in other loud environments.” Aficionados of the beloved Scottish instrument called the rules “silly” and “just ridiculous”; an aspiring piper who wants to excel should be spending more than 15 minutes a day on practice, said one. “The pipes should be played loudly, that’s how they inspire soldiers and scare the enemy,” said Bill Lark, 85, “a veteran Black Watch piper who led his comrades into action against the Japanese in 1944”. (Murdo MacLeod, “Army pipers can’t believe their ears”, Scotland on Sunday/The Scotsman, Jul. 23)(via Dave Zincavage). Earlier coverage: Dec. 22-25, 2000; Mar. 8-10, 2002; Jan. 12, 2004; Nov. 19, 2005.
Milk of RIAA’s kindness; “spamigation”
Iola Scruse, 66, of Louisville, who is on Social Security and paying bills for dialysis, “must pay $6,000 for the 872 songs her grandchildren downloaded, in addition to court fees.” Scruse “said she has no idea how she will pay the fine or what her next action will be.” Self-employed engraver Michael Brown paid $5,000 “because his teenage daughter had shared nearly 900 music files with others”. And: “No lawsuits anywhere have gone to trial, said Jenni Engebretsen, a spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, a trade group that files the suits on behalf of the companies. … ‘We hope that what is coming out of these lawsuits is that parents are having conversations with their kids,’ she said.” (Amy H. Trang, “Illegal downloads create unlikely defendants”, Louisville Courier-Journal, Jul. 31). The recording industry had sued a Ypsilanti, Mich. man for unlawful downloads; after he died, “the RIAA made a motion to stay the case for 60 days in order to allow the family time to ‘grieve’, after which time they want to start taking depositions of the late Mr. Scantlebury’s children”. (new blog Recording Industry vs. the People, Aug. 13; see David Berlind, ZDNet, Aug. 14).
Relatedly, Brad Templeton (Interesting People message list, Aug. 19; via Boing Boing) has coined the term “Spamigation” for litigation or threats of litigation mass-generated by automated processes:
The RIAA strategy is an example of a new legal phenomenon that I have dubbed “spamigation” — bulk litigation that’s only become practical due to the economies of scale of the computer era. We see spamigation when a firm uses automation to send out thousands of cease and desist letters threatening legal action. We saw it when DirecTV took the customer database for a vendor of smartcard programmers and bulk-litigated almost everybody in it…
The RIAA uses systems to gather lists of alleged infringers, and bulk-sues them. It has set a price that seems to be profitable for it, while being low enough that it is not profitable for the accused to mount a defence, as they do not get the economies of scale involved.
Virtual property, real lawsuits?
Hanno Kaiser at Law and Society Blog (Jul. 18): “Suppose you spent the last eight weeks leveling up in a massive multiplayer online game to obtain a particular armor, only to find out that two days later the online game company took away some of the protective effects of that armor. Do you have a legal remedy for the devaluation of your virtual property?” See also Dec. 30, 2003.
World Cup nastygrams, cont’d
You’ll never give testimony in this town again
“Save a Cocktail Napkin, Win a Lawsuit”
In a 2004 case entitled Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., the Ninth Circuit ruled that federal copyright laws do not pre-empt state-law contract claims over allegedly swiped ideas for entertainment ventures, shows and products. Other federal judges have rejected that position, but a West Coast boom has ensued in idea-submission lawsuits against Hollywood and TV producers, and large plaintiff’s firms like L.A.’s Engstrom, Lipscomb and Lack are getting into the field. (Amanda Bronstad, National Law Journal, Jul. 31).