We’re pleased to announce that guestblogger Jeff Lewis will be staying on for a second week. Be sure to visit his sites: Southern California Law Blog and LawLimits.
Author Archive
Unsuccessfully sues fellow skier
“A federal jury found yesterday that Sarah Walker, an aspiring model and ski instructor, was mostly to blame for a skiing accident at Loon Mountain in Lincoln, N.H., and refused to award her any money for injuries she said had derailed her modeling career.” Walker had sued 16-year-old Megan Lowry of Boxford, Mass. for alleged negligence in a collision of the two on the slopes; she also named Lowry’s parents as defendants, but a judge threw out that part of the claim before trial. (Shelley Murphy, “Ski crash model’s own fault, jury finds”, Boston Globe, Jun. 30). Wave Maker comments.
“Malpractice Fears Color Mammogram Readings”
Radiologists order more repeat mammographies and more biopsies because of fears of malpractice claims, according to a study in the July issue of Radiology. “The recall rate in the U.S. is much higher than in other countries,” said study co-author Dr. Joann G. Elmore, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Washington. (Kathleen Doheny, HealthDay/Forbes, Jun. 28). See Jun. 14, 2004.
“Who Else Should Pay Reparations?”
Bill Tucker has a naughty suggestion (The American Enterprise, Jun. 29).
London attacked
Pejman Yousefzadeh (Jul. 7) rounds up editorial cartoons that comment on the atrocity, as well as a number of relevant poems.
Food, served tendentiously
From time to time it’s suggested (see Apr. 20) that folks like us are overreacting when we keep commenting on lawsuits that seek to blame food purveyors for obesity: obviously (it’s claimed) these legal actions are going nowhere, and to report on them as if they were going ventures merely casts the whole legal system into disrepute. The thing is, a presumably serious paper like the New York Times regularly publishes articles favorably showcasing obesity litigation and presenting long, uncontradicted quotes from its advocates — as it did once again in a business-section article yesterday (Melanie Warner, “Obesity Inc.: The Food Industry Empire Strikes Back”, Jul. 7). A sample quote, from Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest: “If someone is saying that a 64-ounce soda at 7-Eleven contributed to obesity, that person should have his day in court”. Just three days before that, Times columnist Paul Krugman, with his customary lightness of touch and respect for the good faith of his opponents, delivered a similar screed against business’s alleged responsibility for obesity; he promises it will be the first in a series on the subject. (“Girth of a Nation”, Jul. 4). By the way, if you want to know why the food-industry-defense Center for Consumer Freedom manages to send Krugman and his co-thinkers into such fits of anger, go check out its website, whose assemblage of material on the “Food Police“, to take one example, is nothing if not informative (and refutes Krugman’s naive assertion that “nobody is proposing that adult Americans be prevented from eating whatever they want”).
On a brighter note, Cato’s indispensable Radley Balko (The Agitator) has started a special blog (description of its mission, Jul. 5) devoted to fact-checking the assertions of filmmaker Morgan Spurlock, of Super-Size Me fame. And from Britain comes a welcome new blog entitled Nanny Knows Best, a “site dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state”.
More: Krugman is back today (Jul. 8) with his second installment, and as AtlanticBlog notes, he’s already changed his tune on the issue of whether adults’ food consumption should be left to the realm of free choice. And Radley Balko (Jul. 8) pokes a hole in Krugman’s risible assertion that coercive government policies rationalized on public health grounds have had a record of “consistent, life-enhancing success” — you know, the way alcohol prohibition did.
“The Next Sandra Day”
I’ve got an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal (also, conveniently, featured on the Journal’s mostly-free companion site OpinionJournal.com), pointing out that retiring Justice O’Connor was remarkably outspoken in criticizing the evils of excessive litigation, and suggesting that President Bush may wish to pick a successor who shares these concerns. I also discuss some very revealing comments made by the Senate minority leader last week: as OpinionJournal.com sums up the implications, “Harry Reid may be willing to give up Roe v. Wade to get a trial lawyer on the Supreme Court”. (Walter Olson, “The Next Sandra Day”, OpinionJournal.com, Jul. 7; same article at subscriber-only WSJ site).
Utah tax refund class action
Echoes of California’s celebrated smog-fee affair:
A class-action lawsuit seeking refunds for 120,000 Utahns wrongly charged millions of dollars in sales taxes for floor coverings and installation has been criticized as a full-retirement plan for lawyers rather than a boon to consumers.
That is because the erroneously taxed consumers could have gotten a full refund — simply by calling the Utah State Tax Commission and making a claim.
“There was no need for a class-action lawsuit,” said Assistant Attorney General Clark Snelson, who represented the Utah State Tax Commission in litigation against challenging the tax collections. “Individuals had the ability to come to the Tax Commission to get their refund, which made the lawsuit unnecessary.”
Under the terms of the settlement, “half of the $5.7 million settlement goes to plaintiffs’ attorneys and investigators”. (Dawn House, “Was tax refund lawsuit needed?”, Salt Lake Tribune, Jun. 30).
Radio today
I’m scheduled to be a guest on San Antonio’s KAHL 1310 AM today at 1:30 p.m. Central, discussing Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat on the Supreme Court.
Jim Bohannon Show tonight
I’m scheduled to appear as a guest on the very popular Westwood One radio show tonight at 11 p.m. Eastern (refeeds for West Coast), discussing the coming Supreme Court battle.