It seems that getting involved in debates over Mideast politics counts as a high-risk activity, legally speaking. Aside from the defamation suits and threats of suits advanced by the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) (see Sept. 17, Nov. 24), the pro-Israel Middle East Media Research Institute has now threatened legal action against one of its ideological opposite numbers, University of Michigan professor and blogger Juan Cole. (Reason “Hit and Run”, Nov. 24; Cole blog, Nov. 24; Crooked Timber, Nov. 24). And Cole himself, it develops, has been known to menace his critics with threats of legal action (Martin Kramer, Nov. 25; Reason “Hit and Run”, Nov. 26). For more, see Mickey Kaus, Nov. 25 (scroll), and David Frum, Nov. 27.
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
CAIR using litigation to silence critics?
The Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) (Sep. 17) has continued their campaign of suing or threatening to sue for libel in an effort to silence critics who have alleged it to be soft on terrorism because of what Senator Schumer calls the organization’s “intimate links to Hamas.” David Frum comments on the notice he received. (“The Question of CAIR”, National Post, Nov. 23).
California, believe it or not, is in the forefront of tort reform by permitting defendants to recover attorneys’ fees when defamation suits are intended to chill protected free speech. Another twenty-two states have adopted similar laws, with bills pending in eight legislatures. See The California Anti-SLAPP Project, Nov. 11, and Mar. 12.
Jim Butler wins $105M verdict in Chrysler seat litigation
Another example of how personal injury attorneys and the “Center for Auto Safety” actually care very little about auto safety: In 2001, Louis Stockell, driving his pickup at 70 mph, twice the speed limit, rear-ended a Chrysler minivan. Physics being what they are, the front passenger seat in the van collapsed backwards and the passenger’s head struck and fatally injured 8-month old Joshua Flax. The rest of the family walked away from the horrific accident. Plaintiffs’ attorney Jim Butler argued that Chrysler, which already designed its seats above federal standards, should be punished for not making the seats stronger — never mind that a stronger and stiffer seat would result in more injuries from other kinds of crashes because it wouldn’t absorb any energy from the crash. (Rear-end collisions are responsible for only 3% of auto fatalities.) Apparently car companies are expected to anticipate which type of crash a particular vehicle will encounter, and design accordingly. The $105M verdict includes $98M in punitives, a number that will almost certainly be reduced, but the entire verdict is inappropriate. “It is unfairly punishing DaimlerChrysler for a reasonable engineering decision that resulted in a product that met all federal standards,” DaimlerChrysler spokesman Jason Vines said. (Rob Johnson, “Jury awards $105.5 M in baby’s death”, The Tennesseean, Nov. 24; Matt Gouras, AP, Nov. 24; “DaimlerChrysler Is Told to Pay $98 Mln in Van Crash”, Bloomberg, Nov. 23; Sheila Burke, “Chrysler being sued over baby’s van death”, The Tennesseean, Nov. 4). More coverage: Dec. 21.
Imperfect Lawsuits: Perfect 10 v. Google (and Visa and …)
“Perfect 10” is an unsuccessful California pornography business that has branched out into the litigation business with the same results. The company is justifiably upset that disreputable pornographers are stealing their copyrighted photos for their web sites. (We know you’re shocked to hear that some pornographers are disreputable, but we call ’em like we see ’em here at Overlawyered.) But unsatisfied with the results of suing fly-by-night operators, they tried to sue the billing services these sites used. These suits were mostly shut down; a federal court held that billing services that aren’t responsible for web site content are not, well, responsible for web site content. (A billing service that did regulate content did not fare so well. Perfect 10 Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures Inc., 213 F. Supp. 2d 1146.)
Then Perfect 10 took on credit card companies Visa and MasterCard. The credit card companies noted that they processed millions of transactions a day, and could not do so economically if they had to be responsible for enforcing property rights of third parties, and compared it to a company “send[ing] a notice to the electric company supplying power to people infringing its rights and say ‘shut them off.'” The Northern District of California threw those cases out.
With this track record, you’d think the media would be more skeptical now that the company has sued Google for providing a search engine with which someone can find web sites that infringe Perfect 10’s copyright, instead of giving company president Norman Zada an unrebutted platform, but the idea of a lawsuit over pictures of naked women is apparently too titillating to resist. Because, of course, a search engine shouldn’t just index the web, but should have intelligent spiders that test the propriety of the web sites indexed. Perfect 10 seems to be trying to get around this problem with their lawsuit by alleging that Google prioritizes search engine results for participants in its Ad Sense program and is lying to the public when it says its search engine results are objective. One wonders why Google doesn’t more prominently feature this benefit of sending them money, as well as about the Rule 11 basis for this allegation. Meanwhile, I guess we should be happy that Bo Derek never sued Perfect 10. (Wendy Davis, “Adult Publisher Sues Google For Copyright Infringement”, MediaDailyNews, Nov. 23; AP, Nov. 23; Lisa Baertlein, Reuters, Nov. 22; Chris Gaither, “Porn Firm Sues Google Over Photos”, LA Times, Nov. 20; Brenda Sandburg, “Strange Bedfellows”, The Recorder, June 7; Gretchen Gallen, “Perfect 10 Sues Visa/MasterCard”, XBiz, Jan. 29). Other Google lawsuits: Nov. 9, Aug. 9, Mar. 28.
The flying shrimp of death
For decades, Benihana has advertised itself as the place where hibachi chefs put on a show while preparing Japanese food. In December 2000, furrier Jerry Colaitis went for a birthday celebration at a Munsey Park, NY, Benihana. Colaitis reflexively ducked when the chef tossed a piece of shrimp at him — and, the family says, injured his neck. (Benihana says that Colaitis may have been trying to catch the shrimp in his mouth.) Colaitis had an operation six months later on the neck; but complications from that operation required a second operation two weeks later; according to the family, Colaitis, in his mid-40s, had a blood-borne infection and died from complications from that second surgery.
This is, of course, Benihana’s fault, says plaintiffs’ lawyer Andre Ferenzo, who has sued them for $10 million. A Nassau County judge, Roy Mahon, has held that the question of causation is for a jury to decide, which means the case will go to trial. (Andrew Harris, “Benihana Chef’s Playful Food Toss Blamed for Diner’s Death”, New York Law Journal, Nov. 23).
Update: Fark comments: “You have to admit, of all the ways a Benihana chef could have killed the man–his expert wizardry with knives, his ability to dice raw meat midair, his precise spatularic stylings–he cleverly used a common shrimp. Those ninjas that disguise themselves as Benihana chefs are as cunning as they are evil…”
Another update: By coincidence, the day after this post, the New York Daily News did a story with the same headline. (Helen Peterson, “The flying shrimp of death suit”, Nov. 24; Charles Delafuente, “A Shrimp, A Duck, A Death”, ABA Journal EReport, Dec. 10).
Update: Dow Jones settles online defamation suit
Dow Jones & Co. “has settled a defamation lawsuit launched against it by an Australian mining magnate”, agreeing to pay $137,500 plus $306,000 in legal fees to Joe Gutnick and issuing a statement in court that it never intended to suggest that he was a client of a Melbourne man jailed for financial misdeeds. The case drew wide attention (see Jan. 18-20, 2002) primarily because it occasioned a “landmark ruling in December 2002 [in which] the High Court of Australia unanimously ruled that the case could be heard in Gutnick’s home state of Victoria because people there could have read the article online. … The settlement is not likely to affect the precedent already set, said University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist, who noted courts in the United Kingdom and Canada have already cited the Australian decision in asserting jurisdiction over other Internet defamation cases.” (“Dow Jones Settles Precedent-Setting Internet Defamation Suit”, AP/Editor & Publisher, Nov. 16).
Negligent entrustment
The “dangerous instrumentality” to which a menace of liability attaches doesn’t have to be something as big and lethal as a car. According to a Florida appellate panel (Weissburg v. Albertson’s, filed Nov. 10, PDF) it can be a power-assisted grocery cart (courtesy Abstract Appeal).
The horn is now silent
Cultural vandalism dept.: the Blair government has pushed through the House of Commons its ban on fox hunting. (“Hunt ban forced through Commons”, BBC, Nov. 19) (via Englishman’s Castle)(more on the hounds of John Peel).
Muscovite files McDonald’s coffee-spill case
“The fashion to sue fast food enterprises has reached Russia. Thirty-seven-year-old Muscovite Olga Kuznetsova claimed a 100,000 ruble ($3,500) compensation from McDonald’s for the burn that a spilled cup of coffee had left on her body.” (Pravda, Nov. 15; Novosti, Nov. 12). For Ted’s take on the much-discussed Stella Liebeck case, see Dec. 10, 2003, Aug. 3, 2004, and Aug. 4, 2004.
Illinois alienation of affection
While just about everything else has become more actionable in today’s compensation culture, there has been a countertrend in family law. Most states have barred suits for the ancient tort of “alienation of affection” by jilted spouses. Utah (May 18, 2000) and North Carolina are exceptions, as is Illinois; there, Steven Cyl is suing a neighbor he says stole his wife. “Is this thing for real?” asks the defendant. Previous Illinois alienation-of-affection plaintiffs include the always-entertaining ex-Rep. Mel “Did I win the Lotto?” Reynolds, whose case was thrown out for unspecified reasons. (Steve Patterson, “‘This guy, he ruined my life’ — so man sues”, Chicago Sun-Times, Nov. 15 (via Bashman); “Former Congressman Mel Reynolds takes estranged wife’s lover to court”, Jet, Aug. 12, 2002; “Davidson Wrestling Coach Awarded $1.4 Million For ‘Theft of Wife?s Heart'”, North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, May 23, 2001). The ever-obnoxious Pat Buchanan approves. (“What is a Family Worth?”, Aug. 11, 1997; Hutelmyer v. Cox (N.C. App. 1999)).