- One for your “firefighter’s rule” file: firefighter perishes in blaze, his widow sues security alarm company [SF Chron, San Pablo, Calif.]
- And another: Nassau County, N.Y. cop injured by drunk driver while on duty is suing the county over Long Island Expressway design and signage [Newsday; Kenneth Baribault]
- Stop fighting over the $60 million in fees, judge tells feuding lawyers, your lawsuit has been over for four years now [Legal Intelligencer, corrugated paper antitrust class action]
- Public-health prof: red-light cameras “don’t work” and instead “increase crashes and injuries as drivers attempt to abruptly stop” [Bruce Schneier via Instapundit]
- Criminal prosecution of political attack ads? Time to rethink campaign finance law [Bainbridge]
- Teenagers send each other racy cellphone videos, and then their legal nightmare begins [Des Moines Register]
- Sounds interesting but haven’t seen a copy: “How To Get Sued: An Instructional Guide” by well-known blawger J. Craig Williams [Giacalone, Ambrogi]
- Mississippi AG Hood goes after MillerCoors over caffeinated alcohol drinks, but Anheuser-Busch hired Mike Moore and sprang big for DAGA, hmmm [Alan Lange, YallPolitics]
Posts Tagged ‘alcohol’
Trainspotting? Man Jumps from Train, then Sues
A U.S. District Court judge threw out the lawsuit of an Amtrak railroad passenger who claimed he injured himself when he jumped from a train that he had boarded in error. If you guessed that alcohol would somehow be involved, you are correct. You can download the whole decision here.
The facts are even more interesting with confusion from the plaintiff as to who sold him his ticket and how he boarded the wrong train, proving once again that you can’t make this stuff up. The Court’s decision has the details:
On the evening of May 19, 2005, the plaintiff consumed approximately five large tequila-based margarita cocktails [note to court: don’t all margaritas have tequilla?] at a New Haven restaurant before walking to the New Haven Railroad Station. …
The plaintiff testified that the ticket agent told him that the train was on track number eight, that it was already there, and that it was the last train so he “better hurry.” Without looking at the announcement board in the train station, the plaintiff walked to platform eight and boarded out-of-service Metro-North train number 1570. The train’s doors then closed and the train traveled for between seven and fifteen minutes before stopping at the New Haven Train Yard.
When the train doors opened, the plaintiff noticed that the train was not stopped at a platform, and he walked throughout the train and yelled for assistance but was unable to find anyone. Unable to see the ground below the train, the plaintiff jumped from the train car and injured his ankle. He then called 911 with his cell phone. Metro-North police responded, and the plaintiff was transported to Yale New Haven Hospital.
And then, of course, he sued….
David Harsanyi on MADD
The group radiates an intransigent, “there is no permissible debate” attitude on its subject, and “there is no politician who has the audacity” to call its bluff (“Let’s chuck the drinking age”, Denver Post, Aug. 21)(via Protein Wisdom). Earlier on the so-called Amethyst Initiative (to reconsider the 21 year old age limit) here, with many reader comments.
More: Steve Chapman, with whom it is rare for us to disagree, takes the opposite view (syndicated/Washington Times, Aug. 24).
Lowering drinking age to 18
A good idea. And from college presidents! (Baltimore Sun, Seattle P-I blog). MADD, of course, is having a fit. (Philadelphia Inquirer). More (via comments): Adler @ Volokh & further.
Overlawyered – All Horse Edition
The need for tort reform doesn’t necessarily arise from headline-grabbing blockbuster verdicts but rather a “death by a thousand cuts” of many small suits of questionable merit. Example: A woman sues the party host after drinking and then attempting to get on his horse as part of the party festivities. She falls, suffers injuries and files suit against the host making general allegations of negligence, including, “providing … the opportunity to participate in the ‘inherently dangerous activity of horseback’ ”.
Does the host’s behavior rise to the level of negligence? And, if so how is the woman’s negligence less than his? He may have offered the alcohol; she drank it. He may have offered the horseback ride; she accepted. Have we reached the point in America that we need to have party goers sign waivers for private festivities? But since exculpatory agreements are generally frowned upon by the courts I think I’ll just stay home alone. A lot of fun that will be. (“Suit shows you shouldn’t drink and ride horses”, The West Virginia Record, Aug. 8).
Horse example number 2: Certified Massage Therapist Mercedes Clemens is suing two state agencies because her avocation is massaging horses but the state won’t let her (at least not for a fee) because she is only licensed to massage humans. And, for once it’s really not about the money because she’s not asking for it in her lawsuit, just the right to massage animals. It’s not as if Clemens is practicing pediatric anesthesiology for kicks. So who cares, really?
I suspect it’s the veterinary board or the National Board of Certification for Animal Acupressure (at the behest of its members) who fear Clemens and people like her will poach their clients. And, if the state would simply step out of the way in this instance it could avoid this lawsuit. (“Woman sues for right to massage horses”, MSNBC, Aug. 11 and “Rockville therapist sues state for right to massage animals”, Gazette.Net, Jul 2).
July 13 roundup
- Nothing new about lawyers stealing money from estates, but embarrassing when they used to head the bar association [Eagle-Tribune; Lawrence, Mass., Arthur Khoury]
- Unusual “reverse quota” case: black job applicant wins $30K after showing beauty supply company turned her down because it had a quota of whites to hire [SE Texas Record]
- Who knew? Per class action allegations, pet food contains ingredients “unfit for human consumption” [Daily Business Review]
- U.K.: “A divorcee who won a £1.4million payout from her multi-millionaire husband is suing her lawyers because she claims she should have got twice that amount.” [Telegraph]
- UW freshman falls from fourth-floor dorm window after drinking at “Trashed Tuesday”, now wants $ from Delta Upsilon International as well as construction firm that put in windows [Seattle P-I, KOMO]
- After giant $103 million payday, current and former partners at Minneapolis law firm are torn by feuds and dissension — wasn’t there a John Steinbeck novella about that? [ABA Journal and again, Heins Mills]
- Small firm that used to make Wal-Mart in-house videos sets up shop at AAJ/ATLA convention hawking those videos for use in suits against the retailer [Arkansas Democrat Gazette, earlier]
- When the judge’s kid gets busted [Eric Berlin; Alabama]
Update: Virginia beer-sicles
A year ago (Jun. 26, 2007) guestblogger Christian Schneider reported on the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control’s suppression of a “frozen beer pop” specialty offered by the Alexandria restaurant Rustico. Now the state legislature has enacted a bill sponsored by Del. Adam Ebbin and Sen. Patsy Ticer (both D-Alexandria) re-legalizing the cooling treats, which went back on sale July 1 in such flavors as framboise, cherry kriek, cassis, plum, and chocolate stout. (Erin Zimmer, SeriousEats.com, Jun. 25; Gillian Gaynair, “Rustico brings back beer pops for summer”, Washington Business Journal, Jun. 20)(& welcome The Agitator and Reason “Hit and Run”, Belgian ladmag ZV, Christian Schneider/WPRI readers).
Slips while dancing on bar, complaint cites lack of handrail
Complainant Rory Beer — yes, her real name, though she used to be known as Rory Roberts — was dancing on the bar at Bar Chicago, a Division Street nightspot, when she fell off, with what her suit says are permanent injuries to her foot and ankle. “The lawsuit claims that Bar Chicago encourages patrons to dance on the bar, but doesn’t warn people of slippery surfaces or provide handrails, ‘cushioned flooring’ or ‘safety nets.'” (Mark J. Konkol, “Dancer slips, now she wants bar to pay”, Chicago Sun-Times, Jul. 1; Chicagoist). We covered another bar-wasn’t-safe-for-her-to-dance-on suit, also from Illinois, last year.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
Seems it’s not considered tortious when it’s done for a good cause by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the local constabulary to a captive audience of public school students. (Balko, Reason “Hit and Run”; Pat Sherman, “El Camino teens face heavy emotions brought about by drunken-driving dramatization”, San Diego Union-Tribune, May 30). P.S. Scott Greenfield apparently has been thinking along similar lines.
“Hard lemonade, hard price”
47-year-old archaeology professor Chris Ratte is perhaps not the most careful of parents; he says he didn’t realize when he bought a $7 “Mike’s Hard Lemonade” at a Tigers game, it was an alcoholic beverage (all of 10 proof), and let his 7-year-old son Leo drink the 12-ounce bottle. A vendor noticed the boy with the drink; the boy had no symptoms of inebriation but said he was nauseated; and stadium officials, in a prime example of defensive overreaction, summoned an ambulance, which found Leo fine with no trace of alcohol in his system.
Silly enough so far, no harm, no foul, but Michigan Child Protective Services intervened, held Leo in foster care for two days (refusing to release him to the custody of his aunts, who drove from New England on short notice for just such a possibility), and forced Ratte to move out of the house until a second hearing okayed his return. If Ratte and his wife weren’t upper-middle-class academics with access to the University of Michigan Law School clinic professors, it could have been much worse. “Don Duquette, a U-M law professor who directs the university’s Child Advocacy Law Clinic, represented Ratte and his wife. He notes sardonically that the most remarkable thing about the couple’s case may be the relative speed with which they were reunited with Leo.” (Brian Dickerson, Detroit Free Press, Apr. 28 (h/t B.C.)).
Some policy proposals are for taxpayers to fund attorneys to defend parents victimized by Child Protective Services; some go so far as to call it a constitutional right, albeit one having nothing to do with the underlying text of the Constitution. But that would only treat the symptom and ossify the underlying problem of abusive government intervention into the home.