Return of in loco parentis, cont’d: if you’re a student who gets reported for having potentially suicidal thoughts, the college administration these days may require you to take a medical leave of absence off campus until you can show you’re better. That’s not necessarily the best outcome for you, but it’s the outcome that best protects the college from future liability suits, which have been multiplying in recent years following attempted and successful student suicides. (Karen W. Arenson, “Worried Colleges Step Up Efforts Over Suicide”, New York Times, Dec. 3).
Author Archive
Madison County Record
We’ve had occasion to praise the story-digging prowess of this recently launched southern Illinois publication. Now the Washington Post is reporting (Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, “Advocacy Groups Blur Media Lines”, Dec. 6) that it’s being backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is eager to shed light on the county’s peculiar legal culture. Hmmm. Maybe they’re following the advice Irving Kristol used to dispense: “Got a problem? Start a magazine.” More: Paul Hampel, “New newspaper is partly owned by U.S. Chamber of Commerce”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Dec. 8; “Journalism: Do you believe it?” (editorial), Dec. 10.
“Public protection attorneys”?
Mickey Kaus doesn’t think it’ll fly (Dec. 6) as a euphemism (Edward Epstein, “UC scholar to help Democrats refine message”, San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 5).
Backs SUV over toddler, blames Nissan
In Garland, Texas, in October, a man backing up his Infiniti SUV accidentally ran over and killed his two-and-a-half-year-old daughter. Now, represented by attorney Windle Turley, his family is suing Nissan, parent company of Infiniti. “They claim new back-up video cameras or sensors which detect objects behind a vehicle were available, and should have been installed in their SUV.” (Don Wall, “Garland family sues carmaker over toddler’s death”, WFAA-TV (Dallas-Fort Worth), Nov. 17). GruntDoc had a strong reaction to the story (Nov. 20).
Anniston’s acrid aftermath
Forbes covers the aftermath of the much-ballyhooed Aug. 2003 settlement in which Monsanto/Solutia (which, because of a complicated history, is different from the company currently calling itself Monsanto) agreed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to resolve the claims of thousands of residents of Anniston, Ala. about the company’s former release of PCBs. Despite earlier commentary (including ours of Apr. 15) pegging the settlement at $300 million with $120 million going to plaintiff’s lawyers, Forbes says the actual figures (counting all the cases settled) amount to a total $600 million with 39%, or $234 million, going to the lawyers, who include former senator Donald Stewart and Johnnie Cochran of O.J. fame. “What has unfolded in Anniston instead [of the expected big payouts for poor plaintiffs] is a financial free-for-all, an unseemly grab for money by the lawyers, residents and assorted hangers-on.” One trouble sign: many of the people putting in claims for damages have zero PCBs in their blood, and some never lived a day in Anniston in their lives. (Susan Kitchens, “Money Grab”, Forbes, Nov. 15 ($) or at KeepMedia).
Greeks shelve plan to sue Oliver Stone
Update: first-WTC-bombing case drags on
Eleven years after the first terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center, a suit against New York’s Port Authority still hasn’t reached trial, though it’s inching closer (Tom Perrotta, “Liability for 1993 WTC Bombing Argued in Appeals Court”, New York Law Journal, Nov. 10)(see Oct. 12-14, 2001).
Update: first jail time in fen-phen fraud
Mississippi: “A Fayette minister and a teacher are going to prison for their role in submitting phony Fen-Phen drug settlement claims in Jefferson County.” John Frye, a minister, and Lizzie Hammett, a teacher, are to report to prison Feb. 1 to begin serving sentences of one year and one day. There have thus far been six guilty pleas among twelve Fayette residents charged in a joint FBI and IRS criminal investigation of fraudulent claims of injury from the diet drug, many of which resulted in $250,000 payments from the drug’s manufacturers. (Jimmie E. Gates, “Two will serve jail time for role in Fen-Phen settlement fraud”, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Dec. 3). See Nov. 14, Oct. 20 and links from there.
Cosmetics class action update
Bringing a blush to the wrong cheeks: “A plan to settle a class-action lawsuit over cosmetics pricing by giving away millions of dollars worth of lipstick, blush, and perfume is a step closer to approval after a retired judge appointed to review the deal recommended that all remaining objections to the pact be dismissed.” The class counsel will get up to $24 million for bringing the case, which the retired judge, Charles Renfrew, called “exceedingly weak”. (Josh Gerstein, “Settlement Nears In Cosmetics Price-Fixing Suit”, New York Sun, Dec. 1). For earlier posts on the case, see Jul. 21, 2003; Apr. 14 and May 19, 2004. Update Mar. 14, 2005: judge approves settlement.
Religious vilification laws
In 2001, despite alarms from free-speech advocates, the Australian state of Victoria enacted a “‘Racial and Religious Toleration Act” which provides in part:
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.
Now various religious enthusiasts are in court accusing each other of false teachings, and inevitably so, since some faiths 1) hold proselytizing to be an obligation of believers and 2) hold it to be an essential part of this task to argue to potential converts that there is something seriously wrong with or deficient about other faiths. “Amir Butler, executive director of the Australian Muslim Public Affairs Committee, wrote: ‘All these anti-vilification laws have achieved is to provide a legalistic weapon by which religious groups can silence their ideological opponents, rather than engaging in debate and discussion. …Who, after all, would give credence to a religion that appears so fragile it can only exist if protected by a bodyguard of lawyers?'” (Neil Addison, “Divided before the law”, Nov. 17). U.K. home secretary David Blunkett has proposed similar legislation; see Jul. 16. (Reworded Jan. 17 to reflect a reader’s objection; see letter to the editor of that date).