Lawprofs Anthony Sebok (Brooklyn) and Timothy Lytton (Albany) tend to view firearms liability litigation in a much more favorable light than I do. They agree, however, that New York City’s Gun Industry Responsibility Act, signed into law by Mayor Bloomberg earlier this year (Feb. 6; more), “may do more harm than good” and is likely to assist efforts in Congress to protect the gun industry from being taken to court over criminal misuse of weapons. They also say GIRA raises a second problem, little discussed so far: “whether local municipalities can create their own tort law, independent of their state legislatures or courts”. (“New York City’s Gun Industry Responsibility Act: Why It May Do More Harm than Good”, FindLaw, Mar. 7).
Author Archive
At the accident scene
Let’s be dignified and not actually troll for business at the scene of the crash, OK, guys? That’s the State Bar of California’s view (Nancy McCarthy, “Public protection takes center stage in disaster”, California Bar Journal, Mar.) (via Legal Ethics Forum)(more: Jan. 28, Feb. 1).
Blockbuster late fees
The Washington Monthly’s Amy Sullivan really admires the lawsuit filed against the movie rental chain over its new “no more late fees” pricing structure, but blogger Mad Anthony doesn’t. See Jessica Seid, “Blockbuster sued over late fees”, CNN/Money, Feb. 18. Update Apr. 23: Blockbuster settles with AGs of 47 states.
Priceless pets, cont’d
Boston: “The family of Cassius, the dog killed by leaking electricity from an old NStar Electric lamppost site, said last night it had turned down $200,000 in ‘comfort money’ from NStar and is demanding $740,000 from the utility or it will sue. The family said it picked the dollar figure because it equals NStar chief executive Thomas J. May’s annual salary.” It’s so hard to be an ordinary family grieving for a lost pet — much fairer if we were an affluent family grieving for a lost pet (Peter J. Howe, “Dog’s family demands $740,000”, Boston Globe, Mar. 8). For earlier stories on pets’ sentimental value and the dollar figures attached thereto, see Jul. 30, Nov. 21 and Dec. 10, 2003, etc.
More: Robert Ambrogi (LawSites) thinks I should have included more details from the Globe story that tend to cast the DeVito family’s suit in a more sympathetic light, such as that (his words): “The family would donate most of the $750,000 to the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Animal Rescue League.” My response:
I wonder how you reach the conclusion that the family “would donate most of the $750,000” ($740,000 per the Globe) to animal charities. At the press conference, according to the Globe, attorney John G. Swomley — who was at pains to portray the suit as not a money grab — said the family plans on “keeping $200,000, plus enough to pay for four years of college for Kyle and his brother Alec, 10”. At, say, Boston College (currently $37,413 room and board, and who knows how high the figure’ll be by the time the boys are grown?) that amounts to roughly another $300,000 ($37K x four years x 2 boys), leaving $240,000 of the settlement. And assuming Swomley takes, say, 30% of the $740,000 = $220,000 for his fee, that would leave a grand total of $20,000 to go to the animal charities — assuming there aren’t expenses and that sort of thing to be charged against the remainder.
You’re probably right that I should have expanded my three-sentence summary of the case at Overlawyered to delve further into these matters, since they afford valuable insight into how lawyers can manage the p.r. aspects of their cases.
Further: his response. (& letter to the editor, Mar. 15).
Tsunami lawsuit
Pro sports & intellectual property
It’s become a thriving area for lawyers, with a growing volume of litigation much of it aimed at fan activity, such as fantasy sports leagues and web-based retransmission of game broadcasts (Tresa Baldas, “Pro Sports: Technology Changes Rules of the Game”, National Law Journal, Mar. 4).
Iowa Poetry Awards
“An online group of self-described ‘literary watchdogs’ is threatening a class-action lawsuit against the UI Press, alleging that recent awards for poetry were unfairly given to writers with ‘illicit’ ties to the program. Postings at foetry.com demand a return of $20 reading fees after the 2004 Iowa Poetry Awards — open to anyone inside or outside the university — were given to people with ties to the UI. University officials note that the contest employs blind judging, in which the authors’ names are removed from the manuscripts.” (Drew Kerr, “Two allege bias in UI Press poetry awards”, Daily Iowan, Feb. 28)(via Schaeffer who got it from Maud Newton).
E-shaming errant lawyers
David Giacalone (following up on earlier comments by Denise Howell and others) expects careless and ethically lax attorneys to face a Google nemesis (Mar. 7).
Ford’s $31 million sweetheart verdict
The famously pro-plaintiff jurisdiction of Zavala County, Texas once again lived up to its reputation the other day when one of its juries returned a $31 million verdict against the Ford Motor Co. in the case of the rollover of a 2000 Explorer which killed two occupants and injured two others. Legal commentators around the web are abuzz about the most remarkable angle of the story, namely that until deep into the trial Ford did not learn that one of the jurors, Crystal City city manager Diana Palacios, was the girlfriend of Jesse Gamez, one of the lawyers on the team of plaintiff’s attorneys headed by Houston’s Mikal Watts. Ford also presented evidence that Palacios, incredibly, had actually solicited two of the crash victims for her boyfriend to represent. Nonetheless, Judge Amado Abascal refused to declare a mistrial, instead dismissing Palacios from the jury and issuing a supposedly curative instruction to the remaining jurors. David Bernstein, Tom Kirkendall and John Steele comment. (John MacCormack, “Juror’s relationship with lawyer stalls Ford trial”, San Antonio Express-News, Feb. 23). (Addendum: one of John Steele’s readers has drawn his attention to this 1997 Texas Supreme Court opinion which co-stars the very same Mr. Gamez and Ms. Palacios in a Norplant case — very curious stuff.)
The other issues raised by the verdict, however, deserve attention as well. The accident was caused by the speeding of the vehicle’s driver, and none of the four occupants was wearing a seat belt; all were ejected. Attorney Watts (Apr. 12-14, 2002) advanced the theory that the injuries were Ford’s fault because it should have used laminated instead of conventional glass in the side windows as a sort of substitute restraint system. (John MacCormack, “Zavala jurors hit Ford for $28 million”, San Antonio Express-News, Mar. 2). Notes the Detroit News:
Ford said laminated glass wouldn’t have kept the women from being ejected and was hardly ever used in side windows when the vehicle was made.
“At that time, 99.9 percent of all vehicles made by all manufacturers, through the 2000 model year, had the kind of tempered glass used in this vehicle,” Vokes said. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration doesn’t require laminated glass in side windows, she said.
(“Explorer suit costs Ford $31 million”, Detroit News, Mar. 3) AutoBlog has a short write-up with a good comments section; note in particular comment #22, on one possible safety advantage of not using laminated glass on cars’ sides. More: Mar. 22, May 13, May 16, May 29.
Office “love contracts”
Continue on the upswing, reports the NLJ. The use of such contracts is “not a majority rule yet, but it’s increasing,” according to April Boyer of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham’s Miami office, while Stephen Tedesco, a partner in the San Francisco office of Littler Mendelson, says he’s “completed hundreds of the contracts for his clients over the past few years”. (Lindsay Fortado, “Workplace ‘Love Contracts’ on the Rise”, National Law Journal, Mar. 3). See Dec. 3-5 and Dec. 31, 1999, May 3, 2000, and Dec. 10, 2001, among other entries on our harassment-law page.