Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Notable quote

The whole point of the rule of law is the certainty it gives the citizen. There is no greater injustice than for a citizen to be unable to determine what legal consequences would flow from an action contemplated.

— Matthew Parris, writing on the vaguely worded speech-prohibitions in the British Government’s proposed Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. (“This is no sort of way to make a law -– and no sort of law to make”, The Times (U.K.), Jun. 25). For more on the legislation, see Jul. 16, 2004 and Jun. 11, 2005.

“Paw laws”

A British view of the campaign in American courts (see May 10, etc.) to allow recovery of sentimental value, emotional anguish and so forth when domestic animals are killed or injured (Philip Sherwell, “Now pets really are part of the family thanks to US ‘paw laws'”, Daily Telegraph, Jun. 26).

Update: Suing a “recovered memory” critic

The L.A. Times has a lengthy account of the continuing litigation against famed psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, who after publishing an article in Skeptical Inquirer casting doubt on the “recovered memory” claims of a claimed abuse victim described as Jane Doe, was sued for defamation and invasion of privacy by the real-life woman behind the pseudonym. We originally posted on the case Aug. 26, 2004. (Maura Dolan, “Memory, Pain and the Truth”, Los Angeles Times, Jun. 21)(via Nordberg). More: LawLimits (Jun. 23) has more, including the latest procedural status of the case (Calif. Supreme Court agrees to review Loftus’s attempt to get the case thrown out under the state’s “anti-SLAPP” law, which a lower court declined to do).

Odium toward sodium

Jacob Sullum has more on the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s lawsuit (see Feb. 25) demanding that ordinary salt be regulated as a food additive (“Suing sodium”, Reason, Jun.).

Update: Joshua Flax v. Chrysler seat back case

We covered this case in detail Nov. 24 and Dec. 21. The court reduced punitive damages from $98 million to $20 million, which means that the total injustice is $23.75 million instead of $101.75 million. The AP version of the story doesn’t even acknowledge the auto company’s defense. (Randy McClain, “Judge slashes damages against carmaker”, The Tennessean, Jun. 21; AP, Jun. 21).

Lawyers Weekly USA has more details about the trial, including the fact that the jury wasn’t allowed to hear that, with 7.1 million vehicles on the road, there were only three deaths from collapsing seatbacks. Moreover, the judge permitted plaintiffs to argue liability based on a post-sale duty to warn of (allegedly) improved technology, unprecedented in Tennessee and most other states: thus, according to plaintiffs, when Chrysler merged with Mercedes, Chrysler had a legal duty to inform every single one of its car owners of any safety features on Mercedes vehicles that weren’t on Chrysler vehicles (and, one would imagine, vice versa). How this would have prevented a pick-up truck from slamming into the rear of a minivan at twice the speed limit, one wonders, but too many judges have stopped requiring causation to be an element of a tort. (Reni Gertner, “Parents Of Baby Killed In Seatback Collapse Win $105.5M”, Lawyers Weekly USA, Jan. 2005).

In Alabama, the tusks are looser

Auburn, Washington dentist Robert Woo mysteriously thought it would be funny to photograph a staff assistant who was under anesthesia with a pair of fake boar tusks in her mouth. When confronted with the photos, she quit and sued for “post-traumatic stress disorder” allegedly triggered by the battery, eventually settling for a quarter-million dollars. Any argument Woo has to victimhood for the ridiculous damages claimed is obliterated, however, because he himself turned around and sued his insurance company for emotional distress for failing “in bad faith” to cover the incident as “dental services.” A judge let the matter get to trial, and a jury hit Fireman’s Fund Insurance for three times the amount of the original law suit, $750,000, plus another $600,000 in attorneys’ fees, before the Washington Court of Appeals threw the case out last week. (Maureen O’Hagan, “Appeals court rules against dentist”, Seattle Times, Jun. 16; Woo v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. (Wash. App. Jun. 13, 2005); Romensko blog, Jun. 20). Other stories of bad-faith-insurance litigation: Sep. 7 and May 5, 2004.

How not to treat your secretary

A senior associate at megafirm Baker & McKenzie’s London office fails to understand that he’s outranked by his secretary, tries to bill her four pounds for stain dry-cleaning costs, and finds himself the laughingstock of Britain. (Jon Ashworth and Martin Waller, “How a few ketchup splashes, a £4 bill and an e-mail have become the talk of the City”, London Times, Jun. 17; Jonathan Brown, “Lawyer in argument over £4 ketchup stain quits firm”, The Independent, Jun. 22) (via Leiter).

It’s a common carrier, after all

Amusement park managements in California are unhappy about a new 4-3 decision by the state’s supreme court holding that operators of park rides constitute “common carriers” akin to bus and trolley lines for safety purposes, thus exposing them to a higher standard of care in injury lawsuits. Of particular concern: given that passengers on ordinary conveyances are supposed to be protected from dangers that would occasion acute personal fear and emotional distress, what are the implications for roller coasters and other thrill rides in which conveying sensations of that sort is the whole idea? Maybe the brass at Disney (which was the defendant in the suit at hand) weren’t being entirely overcautious when they slowed down the Mad Hatter’s spinning teacups (see Mar. 4 and Mar. 9, 2004). (Maura Dolan and Kimi Yoshino, “High Court Raises Bar for Safety of Thrill Rides”, Los Angeles Times, Jun. 17)(via Ken Masugi, Claremont).