September 20-22 — How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is/To have a precociously musical child. “James Brown’s daughters have filed a federal lawsuit against the Godfather of Soul, seeking more than $1 million in back royalties and damages for 25 songs they say they co-wrote…. Even though they were children when the songs were written – 3 and 6 when ‘Get Up Offa That Thing’ was a hit in 1976 – Brown’s daughters helped write them, said their attorney, Gregory Reed.” (“Singer James Brown Sued by Daughters”, AP/Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Sept. 18). (DURABLE LINK)
September 20-22 — “Patient pays price of suing over cold”. Salutary effects of loser-pays, cont’d: “A patient who claimed £227 damages from his doctor, insisting that she had given him her cold during an examination, was ordered to pay almost £1,000 in costs yesterday after his case was thrown out by a court. Trevor Perry, 47, sued Dr Helen Young for personal injury, stating that he went down with a sore throat, runny nose and a headache after a consultation with her when she had a cold.” (Stewart Payne, “Patient pays price of suing over cold”, Daily Telegraph (U.K.), Sept. 19). And don’t miss the very curious addendum to the case on the question of why Mr. Perry was observed running from the court with a jacket over his head (“The Broadsheets: Cold comfort”, Anorak, Sept. 19). (DURABLE LINK)
September 20-22 —Times on 9/11 fund. The New York Times editorially defends the federal 9/11 compensation fund from charges that its awards are inadequate in a way “especially prejudicial to high-income families”, who may be offered only a few million dollars of taxpayers’ money each. It is entirely legitimate, the paper believes, to seek to avoid “extravagant awards at the top”. We might add that if top-earning families want to feel secure in their living standards in case of disaster, the logical (and socially desirable) course is for them to make provision in advance through privately purchased insurance — which we suspect most of the higher-ups at places like Cantor Fitzgerald did in fact have in place. (“The Perils of Valuing Lives” (editorial), New York Times, Sept. 19). (DURABLE LINK)
September 18-19 — Claim: docs should have done more to help woman quit smoking and lose weight. “A Wilkes-Barre woman is suing several doctors at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, saying the physicians did not do enough to assist her in making life changes — including quitting smoking and losing weight — that might have prevented a debilitating heart attack she suffered.” Kathleen Ann McCormick’s suit “says the physicians knew she had multiple risk factors to develop heart disease” but dismissed her symptoms as “basically normal and non-life threatening” and failed to put her on aggressive anti-cholesterol medication, as well as failing to help her with the smoking and weight issues. (Terrie Morgan-Besecker, “Woman suing VA doctors”, Wilkes-Barre (Pa.) Times-Leader, Sept. 11). (DURABLE LINK)
September 18-19 — Voltaire spinning in grave. If you disagree with what someone says, but would defend to the death his right to say it, chances are you aren’t running things in today’s France. Prominent French author Michel Houllebecq (pronounced “Wellbeck”) went on trial this week for “inciting racial hatred” on the grounds that he had aimed contemptuous comments at Islam. The case, which evokes parallels with that of author Salman Rushdie, is “being brought by the largest mosques in Paris and Lyon, the National Federation of French Muslims (FNMN) and the World Islamic League. France’s Human Rights League has also joined them, saying that Mr Houellebecq’s comments amount to ‘Islamophobia'” (see Aug. 23-25) (Charles Bremner, “I attack … I insult”, The Times (London), Sept. 18; “French author denies racial hatred”, BBC, Sept. 17). More: Christopher Hitchens on the case (“The stupidest religion”, Free Inquiry, v. 21, #4). Update Oct. 25-27: Houellebecq acquitted. (DURABLE LINK)
September 18-19 — Canada: “Woman freezes, sues city, cabbie”. “A Winnipeg woman who nearly froze to death after a night of drinking is suing the city, emergency personnel and the taxi driver who dropped her at home.” Emergency workers left Kim Simon at her residence but “she was later found outside with her pants pulled down, her winter jacket open and a cut on her lip. The woman claims that emergency personnel and the taxi driver should have made sure Simon was safely inside her house before leaving.” (Canadian Press/Canada.com, Sept. 16). (DURABLE LINK)
September 18-19 — Mississippi: eyeing the exits. Washington Mutual, the giant lender and the nation’s largest thrift institution, “is in the process of suspending all its lending channels in the state of Mississippi due to litigation risk and other factors. ‘We are evaluating the litigation environment and business climate in the state,’ WaMu senior vice president and associate general counsel Jim Garner told MortgageWire. ‘That is why we are suspending loan originations.'” Last year a Mississippi jury hit one of the company’s subsidiaries with a $71 million verdict. (Origination News — will scroll off site’s front page soon). (DURABLE LINK)
September 18-19 — AVweb case and chatroom liability. Eugene Volokh (his site) comments regarding the litigation referenced below: “Incidentally, not supervising one’s chat room is *not* actionable, even if the chatters make libelous statements and you could have stepped in to stop them; that’s what 47 U.S.C. sec. 230 says, see also Zeran v. America Online (4th Cir.) (both available on Findlaw).” See also ChillingEffects.org, Mar. 8; summary of Zeran case, TechLawJournal. (DURABLE LINK)
September 16-17 — Free speech & web litigation: the theory…. Los Angeles Times columnist Norah Vincent, the target of a remarkably silly recent smear (summarized and refuted by, among others, Stuart Buck, Juan Non-Volokh and Megan McArdle) got so angry at her online attackers that she wondered aloud whether she should think of suing them for defamation. Our editor wrote in at her suggestion (Sept. 13) to offer some reasons why, no, she shouldn’t. (DURABLE LINK)
September 16-17 — Right to break workplace rules and then return. This summer the Ninth Circuit ruled that it was an unlawful violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act for a company to follow an otherwise neutral policy barring the rehire of employees who had been terminated (or resigned in lieu of termination) over violations of company rules. In the case at hand, an employee had resigned after testing positive for cocaine, had completed a rehabilitation program, and now wanted to return to the company. Although Hughes Missiles Systems’ rule did not bar the hiring of rehabilitated drug users as such, the court nonetheless ruled that “Hughes’ unwritten policy against rehiring former employees who were terminated for any violation of its misconduct rules, although not unlawful on its face, violates the ADA as applied to former drug addicts whose only work-related offense was testing positive because of their addiction. If Hernandez is in fact no longer using drugs and has been successfully rehabilitated, he may not be denied re-employment simply because of his past record of drug addiction.” (Hernandez v. Hughes Missiles Systems, No. 01-15512, June 11, 2002, write-up at Jackson Lewis site). Update Dec. 13, 2003: Supreme Court rules in favor of employer. (DURABLE LINK)
September 16-17 — Dave Barry on tobacco settlement, round III. Okay, maybe it’s easy to satirize (rounds I and II), but he still does it so well. “The underlying moral principle of these lawsuits was: ‘You are knowingly selling a product that kills tens of thousands of our citizens each year. We want a piece of that action!'” (“In War On Tobacco, money goes up in smoke”, Miami Herald, Sept. 15) (DURABLE LINK)
September 13-15 — Patriotic, or promotional? Mickey Kaus nominates this “Patriot Troll” and this “Twin Towers handbag” (appears as popup ad when link is clicked) as among the tackiest commercial tie-ins to arise from 9/11. We might also call to his attention this billboard from a personal injury law firm in Schenectady, New York (photographed by reader Steve Furlong) which isn’t going to win prizes for either taste or subtlety. (DURABLE LINK)
September 13-15 — “Epileptic ordered to pay £3,500 for contorted face”. “A man who suffers from epilepsy has been ordered to pay compensation to a student who was upset by his contorted face during a seizure. In a case described by an epilepsy charity as ‘like something you would see on the Ally McBeal show’, Edwin Young has been told to pay £3,500 to Yvonne Rennie for the mild post-traumatic stress that she suffered. Mrs Rennie sued after Mr Young suffered an epileptic fit while driving four years ago and crashed into her car at traffic lights in Perth.” In addition to awarding Mrs. Rennie £1,500 for slight personal injuries and £1,000 for a fear of driving that she had developed, the magistrate accepted that she had suffered emotional injuries from observing the contorted look on Mr. Young’s face during his fit, which made her think he was going to die. “Epilepsy Action Scotland described the case as ‘bizarre’.” (Auslan Cramb, Daily Telegraph (U.K.), Sept. 9).
Addendum: one of our less sympathetic readers calls to our attention this Sept. 13-dated press release and article from Epilepsy Action Scotland (EAS), describes it as proving that the above report is “not true”, and chides us for not referencing it in our original post. To begin with a minor housekeeping point, this reader is apparently unaware that items on this site dated “Sept. 13-15” will in most instances have been posted in the final hours of Sept. 12, so that a fair bit of clairvoyance would be required to anticipate the contents of a press release issued the next day (even in Scotland, which is a few time zones ahead).
More substantively, although it may well be that other press reports did misstate the Rennie/Young case, it is by no means clear that EAS is questioning the accuracy of the Daily Telegraph report linked above. Both EAS and the Telegraph (and our excerpt) make clear that the overall award arose in the context of a car crash and drew on a number of factors. EAS is at pains to emphasize that the court did not rule that “watching a seizure in itself [emphasis added] provides grounds to sue for compensation” absent some other entitlement to compensation such as a physical injury — and of course it’s a familiar practice in compensation systems to let mental injury piggyback on physical injury but not stand alone as a claim. The one interviewee quoted in the Telegraph piece as wondering aloud whether a bystander’s distress at watching a person collapse might stand alone as a damage claim was the spokesman for EAS itself (“Does this mean…?”). This makes it less surprising that the organization would four days later make a point of reassuring the public that, no, it probably doesn’t mean that.
Does Epilepsy Action Scotland, as our reader seems to think, now therefore regard the Rennie/Young case as some kind of overblown urban legend that should never have gotten play in the papers, and regret that its spokesman had been so critical of the ruling before? Quite the contrary: it makes clear the extent to which it continues to be alarmed and upset at the case (“we have forcefully put across the points that this is a shocking case”), it has called for investigations and organized protests, and it “has offered its full support if [Mr. Young] decides to pursue the matter” on appeal. Nothing inaccurate in our post that we can see. (DURABLE LINK)
September 13-15 — We have competition! Or at least sorta-kinda competition, from Colorado humorist Randy Cassingham. But the more the merrier, say we. (DURABLE LINK)
September 12 — Personal responsibility roundup. New York attorney Samuel Hirsch, who made big headlines a few weeks ago by filing a lawsuit on behalf of an overweight man against fast-food chains, has now added another car to the train in the form of a suit on behalf of several obese teens who “say the restaurant chain used marketing practices such as toy and value meal promotions to entice its patrons to eat the food.” (No! Not value meals!) “Mr. Hirsch said his clients ate at McDonald’s almost every day for at least five years. One teenager, who is 5-foot-9-inches tall, now weighs 270 pounds; another, who is 5-foot-3-inches tall, now weighs 200. The parents of the teenagers, either unemployed or on disability, filed the lawsuit on behalf of their children.” Note to parents: those benefit checks will stretch further if you teach kids how to make sandwiches at home (Ellen Sorokin, “McDonald’s marketing cited for teens’ obesity”, Washington Times, Sept. 10). Director Tom Grey of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, who has been beating the drums for years in hopes of making the wagering business the next tobacco, hopes governors and attorneys general will pile on in support of the latest lawsuit by a compulsive bettor claiming his losses were the casino’s fault for luring him in (Rod Smith, “Gambling foes hope federal lawsuit will lead casinos into tobacco industry’s fate”, Gaming Wire/Las Vegas Review-Journal, Sept. 10). The Wyoming Supreme Court has ruled that an employee who tried to commit suicide after being depressed over a work-related injury can collect workers’ compensation from his employer for the injuries inflicted by his attempt (Brierley v. Wyoming, Aug. 14). And the editorialists of Canada‘s National Post applaud Ontario judges’ refusal to follow the lead of many American courts in making party hosts legally responsible if their guests drive away drunk (“Blame drunks, not hosts” (editorial), Sept. 5). (DURABLE LINK)
September 12 — “9/11 aid bill contains giant bonus for trial lawyers”. “Sacramento — Saying that it was primarily a bill to help families of Sept. 11 victims, Gov. Gray Davis on Tuesday signed a sweeping change in California tort law backed by trial lawyers, some of his biggest contributors. In a bill signing ceremony, the Democratic governor focused on only four paragraphs of the seven-page bill that allows relatives of the terrorist attacks more time to file civil lawsuits. Davis did not mention that the bulk of the bill — which extends from one year to two the filing period for all personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits in California — is opposed by more than 80 companies and business groups. They say the measure will sharply increase their insurance and litigation costs.” (Greg Lucas and Lynda Gledhill, San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 11). (DURABLE LINK)
September 12 — No joy in Mudville. “Saying America’s favorite pastime had become a ‘nuisance’ to a northwest Houston man, a Harris County jury awarded him more than $75,000 Tuesday. ‘I’m happy that 12 people were in full agreement,’ said plaintiff E.S. Armstrong after the verdict was read. Armstrong filed a lawsuit in December 2000 in state district court against Baseball U.S.A., claiming games played on the group’s fields adjacent to his home in the Spring Shadows subdivision are too noisy and the field lights too bright. The lawsuit also claimed that baseballs from the fields, near Sam Houston Tollway and Gessner, twice crashed through Armstrong’s bedroom window.” Baseball U.S.A., a nonprofit group, may appeal. (Dale Lezon, Houston Chronicle, Sept. 11). (DURABLE LINK)
September 11 — Never forgotten. For this site’s commentaries from a year ago, begin here with Sept. 12 items and then scroll upwards. (DURABLE LINK)