Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Breaking: $105 million Aramark verdict reversed

The New Jersey court’s opinion yesterday in Verni v. Harry M. Stevens ordered a new trial because of the unfairly prejudicial evidence introduced at trial. (Laura Mansnerus, “Court Overturns Jury Award Against Stadium Concessionaire”, NY Times, Aug. 4; Kibret Markos, “Paralyzed Cliffside girl may have to go through new trial”, NorthJersey.com, Aug. 4).

Plaintiffs sought to blame a drunk-driving accident several hours after a Giants game on stadium beer vendors, a feat eased when the drunk driver, Daniel Lanzano, settled with plaintiffs and changed his testimony to be consistent with their theory of the case. Lanzano drank at two go-go bars after the game. The court also noted the failure of the jury to be instructed to consider the relative liability of other settling parties that the plaintiffs had sued in a shotgun complaint, including the NFL, the Giants, Toyota, and Michael Holder, who committed the sin of drinking with Lanzano that day. We had provided extensive coverage from the beginnings of the suit: Oct. 10, 2003; Jan. 21, 2005; a must-read Feb. 2, 2005 post; Jun. 6.

Update: another aspect of the appellate court opinion is that it recognized corporate boundaries. The trial court sought to hold Aramark liable for alleged negligence of its subsidiaries.

Gone for a while (but stay tuned)

I expect to be away for the next ten days or so. Aside from Ted’s contributions, one of our most popular past guestbloggers will be dropping by starting Monday to keep things interesting. Later in August, look for a second guestblogger, well known in the blogosphere but new to this site, to join us as well.

Summer reading: “Lawsuits and Liberty”

Recommended reading: a year ago Common Good, National Constitution Center and the AEI-Brookings Joint Center on Regulatory Studies co-sponsored a conference in Philadelphia on “Lawsuits and Liberty” which I was fortunate to attend. Many of the papers were eventually published at the Common Good site and I can vouch for their being an interesting bunch. Read them by following the links here.

Lawsuit board game

It seems someone has patented one. Per its description:

This game unabashedly introduces kids to the realities of being a legal eagle, including:

* crippling law school debt;
* outrageous hourly fees;
* filling your office with expensive and intimidating leather bound books;
* product-liability cash cows;
* and the hazy definition of “emotional distress.”

(Patently Silly, Oct. 19, 2004) More: LawsuitGame.com.

Update: Diet-book author drops suit against Coke

The Coca-Cola Co. can rest easy: diet-book author Julia Havey has withdrawn her lawsuit (see Jul. 17) charging that one of the company’s product loyalty campaigns encourages kids to consume so many soft drinks that they could die. Havey declared herself satisfied that a Coke spokesman told the press that purchasers seeking to accumulate product credits could share the soft drinks with friends instead of being obliged to consume them all personally. Coke has said Havey’s lawsuit is a publicity ploy intended to call attention to her release of a new diet book. And this:

Havey said she wouldn’t be surprised if Coca-Cola sued her.

“The world of litigation is a crazy place,” she said.

(“Lawsuit Over ‘Lethal Doses’ Of Coca-Cola Dropped”, KPRC Houston, Aug. 2).

Duly noted

Threats against federal judges are on a record-setting pace this year, nearly 18 months after the family of a federal judge was killed in Chicago….

The rise in civil lawsuits, especially those filed by people who do not have lawyers, and a change in criminal cases in federal courts help explain the increase, the marshals say.

Donald Donovan, chief deputy marshal in Baltimore, said people who file and lose multiple lawsuits account for the largest percentage of threats.

Federal courts now handle many more violent crime prosecutions, cases that were once the province of state and local courts….

(Mark Sherman, “An angry trend: Threats against federal judges set record pace”, AP/Boston Globe, Jul. 28).

“N.M. Legislators: Bar Owners Need ESP”

Under the terms of a bill proposed in the New Mexico legislature, if a “drinker is caught with a blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeding 0.14, the bar owner will be deemed legally responsible and may lose his license” if the bar had served the drinker within the previous two hours. According to Nobody’s Business, this implies that bar owners in New Mexico who don’t want to break the law may be well advised to develop “paranormal gifts. …they must know if a customer who leaves their establishment intends to drink more over the next two hours — perhaps at a friend’s home.” (Jul. 10; “Proposed liquor law changes draw comments”, AP/Los Alamos Monitor, Jul. 6).

London’s (and Belfast’s) libel-shoppers

Britney Spears has resorted to the courts of justice in Belfast, Northern Ireland, to slap down the National Enquirer, while singers Paula Abdul and Whitney Houston are reported to be contemplating similar trips in search of the plaintiff-friendly libel laws of the United Kingdom. Aren’t they just a little bit ashamed of themselves? The “speedy results and whopping damages” of defamation suits in the U.K. “might be nice for the celebrity claimants. But it’s bad for those of us who live in Britain permanently. These libel tourists are helping to prop up our illiberal, antidemocratic, and ‘repugnant’ libel laws, which are an offense to free speech and open debate.” (Brendan O’Neill, “Throwing our judicial junk in Britain’s backyard (or courts)”, Christian Science Monitor, Jul. 24). But actually, reports Mark Stephens in The Times (London) Online, it is global business magnates rather than entertainment figures who are nowadays the busiest libel tourists in the British courts. They come from America, Russia and the Middle East to squelch the naughty insinuations of the financial press that not everything about their business dealings is on the up and up (“New celebrities of the libel courts”, Jul. 18).

“While I know some lawyers who are happy, most aren’t.”

Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit), Jul. 30:

It’s possible, of course, that they’re the kind of people who weren’t really happy before they became lawyers — not surprisingly, the field has an attraction to people who like to complain. But it’s also true that older lawyers seem to enjoy it more — and to have enjoyed it more when they were new at it — than today’s lawyers. I think the practice of law is substantially less enjoyable than it used to be, even if it’s sometimes more lucrative.

Small claims collections

Boston Globe has a big investigative package on questionable methods used by debt collectors pursuing consumers in small claims court. Among recurring problems: default judgments against debtors who never were alerted to proceedings because notice was mailed to the wrong address, or who were told by creditors that they “might not” have to attend the court date because they had volunteered a payment schedule. Also in the spotlight: a now-disbarred lawyer named Daniel Goldstone who buys up low-quality debt to collect by way of hardball methods, and who appears to be no gem; his conduct provoked liberal U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner into applying Rule 11 sanctions, something she told the Globe she had never felt compelled to do in any other case in her twelve years on the bench (“Debtors’ Hell”, series home; Francie Latour, “For bare-knuckled collector, some harsh judicial reviews”, Jul. 29).