Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

California Good Samaritan out of luck

Alexandra Van Horn was a passenger in a car that ran into a light pole at 45 mph. Lisa Torti, a passenger in a car following behind, stopped at the crash scene and tried to render assistance by lifting Van Horn out of the car. Van Horn emerged from the accident a paraplegic, although court testimony differed on whether the accident itself or Torti’s attempt to pull her out of the vehicle was responsible for this. Now a California appeals court has ruled that the state’s Good Samaritan liability shield does not protect Ms. Torti from Ms. Van Horn’s negligence suit because it “only protects people from liability if they are administering emergency medical care. The perceived danger of remaining in the wrecked car was not ‘medical,’ the court ruled.” (“Court: Law may not protect Good Samaritan from suit”, AP/CourtTV, Mar. 23).

Update Dec. 19, 2008: Calif. high court rules for plaintiff.

Filed under: ,

Six months ago on Overlawyered…

…we debunked a debunking of Bodine v. Enterprise High School, the most famous burglar that fell through the skylight lawsuit. (The promulgator of the original fake debunking promised a comprehensive response “in the next week”, though, 26 weeks later, we haven’t seen it.)

Now, Hawaii is considering legislation similar to California’s that would give immunity to property-owners sued by people injured in the course of committing particular felonies, though it’s not clear to me that it would apply to unarmed burglary, which seems to only be a “Class C” felony in Hawaii.

Filed under: , , , ,

Keep the public informed, get sued

Back in November and December of 2006, there was an E. Coli outbreak involving Taco Bell restaurants; dozens of customers were sickened. (It goes without saying that this led to lawsuits against the restaurant chain by those who got sick.) By early December, health officials had linked the outbreak to the chain; Taco Bell immediately went into action to locate the source of the problem.

Initial testing indicated that green onions used by Taco Bell were contaminated; moreover, in previous outbreaks, green onions had been the problem. So Taco Bell, in an effort to reassure the public, announced its findings and assured the public, via a series of press releases over the next few days, that “in an abundance of caution” it was removing green onions from its restaurants and would no longer sell them.

A few days later, Taco Bell announced that in fact green onions were not the culprit, but that to be extra-cautious, it would switch produce suppliers. (As we know, it turned out that lettuce was probably the source of the problem, and this was announced.) Everything that Taco Bell said was accurate; moreover, it correctly informed the public that green onions were not to blame once the CDC had confirmed this. Additionally, Taco Bell never mentioned the identity of its green onion supplier. Nonetheless, that supplier, Boskovich Farms, filed a lawsuit against the chain this past Friday, accusing Taco Bell of defamation and a series of related claims.

In short, Taco Bell is being blamed for being too open with the public in revealing information as the investigation developed. Of course, to the extent that Taco Bell failed to provide this information, the lawyers for the people who were sickened would be screaming “cover up.”

By the way, you may wonder why Boskovich Farms is claiming it was defamed even though Taco Bell never mentioned its name. Well, the company claims that those in the produce industry knew its identity as Taco Bell’s green onion supplier, so even though Taco Bell never mentioned it by name, its reputation was harmed. A reasonable claim, in the abstract. Presumably, though, those knowledgeable and sophisticated enough to possess this information are probably sophisticated enough not to be swayed by a Jay Leno monologue (!) almost three months after the incident — one of the two pieces of evidence cited by Boskovich in its complaint.

Filed under: , ,

“Lawyer in $315 million lottery lawsuits ordered to pay fine”

A price tag on not screening for merit: “A lawyer representing three people who sued their co-workers seeking a share of their $315 million lottery win was ordered Tuesday to pay a nearly $382,000 fine. Orange County [California] Judge Michael Brenner ordered attorney Mark H. Williams to pay the seven lottery winners after determining he pursued the lawsuits knowing the allegations lacked merit. The amount was the equivalent to legal fees incurred by the ‘Lucky Seven,’ who pooled money to buy the winning Mega Millions multistate lottery ticket, said defense attorney Larry S. Zeman.” Williams, of Long Beach, Calif., represented “three co-workers who claimed they deserved a share of the jackpot because of an oral agreement that everyone would be included whenever they pooled their money to buy tickets”. (AP/Contra Costa Times, Mar. 20).

Filed under: ,

Navy sued again over whale-riling sonar

“The [California] Coastal Commission and a national environmental group sued the Navy on Thursday over its refusal to take certain precautions to protect marine mammals during military training exercises off the coast of San Diego. While the commission’s legal action is a rarity, the Natural Resources Defense Council already had sued the Navy four times over its use of high-intensity sonar.” We last covered the controversy, and discussed the implications for national defense, Jul. 6, 2006. (Terry Rodgers, “Coastal Commission sues Navy over use of sonar”, San Diego Union-Tribune, Mar. 22; Alicia Chang, “Calif. Coast Panel Files Navy Sonar Suit”, AP/Washington Post, Mar. 23).

Filed under:

Coke Zero “lawsuit”

For a viral marketing campaign, Coca-Cola pranked its own in-house counsel by sending improvisational actors portraying brand-manager employees to attorneys asking if they could sue Coke Zero for tasting so much like Coca-Cola; the results are on a series of videos on YouTube. So far none of the victim lawyers have sued. (Janet Conley, “Frivolous litigation: How Coke ‘punk’d’ its lawyers”, Daily Report, Mar. 23 (via BLT)).

Perhaps related: Mar. 6.

Filed under: ,

Like rain on your wedding day

Recently, I left a comment on the Bizarro-Overlawyered website commenting on the Milberg Weiss Fellow’s appallingly dishonest misrepresentation of a Walter Olson column, reprinted on two or three other left-wing websites and still not retracted, though Milberg Weiss Fellow Cyrus Dugger has had time to write over a dozen other posts since then. The comment has not been posted.

Fair enough: it’s their website, and they’re entitled to slant their comments section so that critical comments are not posted, and I could use all the disincentives I can get not to waste time in comments sections of other blogs. But I find it quite amusing that this policy is engaged in by a website that (1) threw a veritable tantrum because we stopped posting obsolete trackbacks and accused us of censorship because we wouldn’t let Justinian Lane monopolize the comments section with off-topic comments and (2) cares more about hypocrisy than actual wrongdoing.

Filed under:

There’s no such thing as cheap litigation

In response to my post below about inadequate sanctions in the Econo Lodge case, Stephanie Mencimer asks how the costs of frivolous litigation can be so oppressive, how it can cost millions of dollars to defend against them, given that — in her view — the defendants can just hire paralegals to prepare boilerplate responses.

Well — as Ted points out in the comments to her post — I had said “thousands,” not “millions.” But the bigger problem with what she wrote is that she dramatically underestimates the burden and cost of litigation. We’ll put aside the fact that her proposal — to have paralegals file boilerplate responses — would constitute legal malpractice on the part of the defense attorney. Of course it’s cheaper when cases can be decided (as Mencimer suggests) “with no discovery, no depositions and apparently not even a court appearance” — although it’s not clear from the Econo Lodge case that in fact there were no court appearances. But other cases, even ones that are completely meritless, require a lot more before the defendant can be vindicated.

Case in point: Kinderstart v. Google. The complaint was yet another attempt to sue Google over its rankings of web pages for search results. (Another suit along those same lines: Mar 1) Only part of the case was frivolous (the federal judge awarded sanctions against the plaintiff on two points (PDF of sanctions decision), but the entire case was meritless, as the court ruled (PDF). Google is a private business, and the courts keep rejecting the notion that lawyers should decide how Google can rank websites. Every claim made by Kinderstart was resoundingly rejected; Eric Goldman has the gory details.

But even though the case was dismissed before discovery even began, that didn’t make it — contrary to the beliefs of so many anti-tort reformers such as Mencimer — quick. In fact, it took a full year to dismiss the case (and there’s always the possibility of appeal). So why, if it was such a loser, did it take so long? Because after the court dismissed it the first time, the judge allowed the plaintiffs to amend the complaint; in all there three versions of the complaint filed. Google had to respond to each one, and there were in-court hearings each time Google moved to dismiss the case. Google also had to file an anti-SLAPP motion, a motion to strike the complaint, and a motion for sanctions.

Google “won” this case, and even won a yet-to-be-calculated sanctions award. But in the end, it took a year and Google spent, conservatively, tens of thousands of dollars to do it, even without discovery. Now, I don’t expect every non-lawyer to realize how long and expensive the legal process is — but Mencimer holds herself out as a pundit on tort reform; you’d think she’d have a little more of a sense of how the system works.

(Previous mention of this case, Oct. 2006.)

Filed under: , ,