…could soon be banned in Norway under pending animal welfare regulations. (“May ban caged birds”, Aftenposten, Jun. 13).
Posts Tagged ‘animals’
Dog bites taxpayers
In 2002, a couple of Rottweilers attacked and seriously injured Marguene St. Juste, a woman in Delray Beach, Florida. Last week, the jury awarded this woman $3.76 million for her injuries. Routine — if expensive — dog bite case, right? The patented Overlawyered twist? The jury decided that the owner of the Rottweilers, who had allegedly repeatedly allowed the dogs to run free, was only 40% responsible for this tragedy. The other 60% of the blame — no, not the dogs, or the victim, or the doctors who treated her, or anybody obvious like that. Rather, the majority of the responsibility was assigned to the city of Delray Beach, Florida.
(The allocation of fault might call into question the value of defense attorneys; the dogs’ owner didn’t even bother to defend herself, and defaulted in the case, while the city defended itself vigorously. And yet the city bore the brunt of the verdict. Of course, a plausible alternate explanation is that the plaintiff simply picked on the deepest pocket, and the jury went along out of sympathy.)
The city was blamed based on the theory that the city knew that the dogs were running loose — the city disputed this, arguing that they never actually witnessed the dogs unsecured — and failed to impound them, as its city ordinance required. But even if the allegations against the city are true, how can it make the city more liable than the owner?
More importantly, why should it make the city liable at all? It doesn’t in other contexts; you can’t sue the police for failing to arrest a dangerous criminal, for instance. (It’s well-established that the police do not have a legal duty to protect you, absent special circumstances.) Once again, we see trial lawyers perversely arguing that an inconsistently-followed safety rule should make a defendant more liable than not having a safety rule at all. If Delray Beach had no animal control ordinance, it could not have been sued under these circumstances. But because it had one, taxpayers rare on the hook for up to $2.2 million. Now, we don’t expect trial lawyers to care about the incentives that their lawsuits create; after all, they’re just in this game for the money. But shouldn’t our legal system factor in these public policy considerations?
(I should note that there is one circumstance in which it is logical to punish a defendant for not following its safety rules: when an injured party took an extra risk in reliance upon the safety policy, and then the defendant failed to follow that policy. But that’s not the situation presented here. The victim wasn’t attacked by the dogs because of the policy.)
Things we didn’t want to know about dept.
Fort Lauderdale attorney William R. Cohen is asking $1 million in a suit against the Bushouse family of nearby Boca Raton, whose 2-year-old terrier Taz, he says, bit his left nipple. Readers keep directing our attention to the final clause in the list of recited damages, which list consists of “medical treatment, loss of income and for general damages for pain, suffering, physical disfigurement and ‘loss of sexual comfort and desire’.” (Chrystian Tejedor, “Nipped on nipple, man sues”, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, May 26).
When Whale It End?
Environmental groups keep suing the United States Navy (See: Oct. 2004, Jul. 2006, and Mar. 2006) over its use of sonar, on the speculative theory that sonar hurts whales. Now they’re at it again, filing a lawsuit yesterday in federal court in Hawaii. This time it’s Earthjustice, suing on behalf of the Ocean Mammal Institute, the Animal Welfare Institute, KAHEA, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Surfrider Foundation, trying to stop naval exercises off the coast of Hawaii. (PDF copy of complaint.)
Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of using sonar or privileging whales over national security, it’s absurd that federal judges — experts, we think, neither in marine biology nor submarine warfare — should be the ones deciding these policy questions. But it’s more absurd that these issues get to be relitigated over and over and over again. Of course environmental groups are the ones filing these repeated lawsuits, but in the big picture, the blame for this situation should be laid at the feet of Congress, which passes vague environmental laws which create broad standing allowing infinite numbers of random bystanders to sue without having to suffer tangible personal harm. (“I like looking at whales.”) And, perhaps worse than the vagueness of the laws is the fact that so many of these laws simply exist to create a zillion procedural hoops to jump through. (To provide an idea of these hoops, this complaint alone alleges the following causes of action:
- Failure to provide public notice and an opportunity to comment in violation of Administrative Procedure Act and National Environmental Policy Act
- Failure to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in violation of Administrative Procedure Act and National Environmental Policy Act
- Issuance of an inadequate Environmental Assessment in violation of Administrative Procedure Act and National Environmental Policy Act
- Issuance of an inadequate Biological Opinion in violation of Administrative Procedure Act and Endangered Species Act
- Failure to consult with the Hawaii State Coastal Zone Management Program For Undersea Warfare Exercises in violation of Administrative Procedure Act and Coastal Zone Management Act
Have your eyes glazed over yet?)
Whatever the appropriate policy balance to be struck here, it should probably be determined by Congress, and it should definitely be decided once and for all, rather than each and every time a submariner sneezes. If the Navy is to be required to use specific types of sonar or other equipment, or is to be denied permission to operate in certain locales, or whatever, then there ought to be a statute or regulation which spells these rules out explicitly, rather than allowing activist groups to rush to court on a weekly basis to get a judge to decide.
Basset hound ban?
“Dog breeders have warned that some of Britain’s best-loved breeds including dachshunds, bulldogs and basset hounds could disappear because of new and potentially far-reaching government animal-welfare measures.” Animal welfare groups have campaigned against the breeding of pedigreed animals, saying the pursuit of distinctive characteristics such as head size in bulldogs often comes at the expense of the animal’s health. A controversial Europe-wide treaty on animal breeding would translate the idea into law. “Dog breeders fear that the treaty’s terms are so broad that it would effectively forbid the breeding of distinctive types of dog because their defining characteristics could be seen as risking their welfare. According to the Scottish Kennel Club, ratifying the treaty would mean that anywhere between 30 and 40 breeds would effectively be outlawed.” The director of Edinburgh-based Advocates for Animals calls the argument “scaremongering nonsense”. (James Kirkup, “Euro rules ‘could outlaw 40 dog breeds'”, The Scotsman, Apr. 30).
“Why is it okay if a dog does it?”
Comedian Will Ferrell, on Saturday Night Live, impersonates dog-suing lawyer Wade Blasingame (some tasteless content):
Wild parrots of Telegraph Hill
A beloved San Francisco tourist attraction, the birds roost in two ancient 
cypress trees whose owner says he can no longer afford the liability risk should they topple or shed branches on spectators. The city is stepping in to spare the axe by taking responsibility for the chance of injury. (Charlie Goodyear, “Preserving perches for wild parrots”, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 14; “Buzz saws threaten home of Telegraph Hill parrots”, CBC, Nov. 3, 2005). A 2004 film about the parrots is available here on DVD.
Activists sue demanding N.Y. foie gras ban
Correspondent R.C. directs our attention to the curious claim of “harm” by the last-named plaintiff:
Animal rights activists have asked a state judge to stop foie gras production in New York, saying the ducks used are overfed to such an extent that they are diseased and unfit for sale under state law.
The lawsuit, if it succeeds, could spell the end of foie gras production in America, a goal animal rights groups have long sought. The two Sullivan county farms that are defendants in the suit are the only foie gras producers in the country, other than a Northern Californian foie gras farm that may shut down under a California state law banning the industry….
The first challenge the suit faces is to convince a judge that the animal-rights activists who filed the suit have suffered enough harm to allow them standing to sue. The plaintiffs in yesterday’s suit offered several ways that they had been harmed by the foie gras industry.
One plaintiff, Caroline Lee, claims that the state’s regulatory departments are misspending her tax dollars by inspecting birds raised for foie gras production without concluding they are diseased. Another plaintiff, an animal rescue organization, Farm Sanctuary, claims its employees have been “aesthetically and emotionally injured” by being exposed to the “suffering” of abandoned ducks that they rescue from foie gras production. Another plaintiff, a New York restaurateur, Joy Pierson, claims that her decision not to serve foie gras has caused her to lose customers at her two Manhattan restaurants, Candle 79 and Candle Café, according to the complaint.
(Joseph Goldstein, “In New Lawsuit, Activists Seek Ban On Production of Foie Gras in N.Y.”, New York Sun, Nov. 16). More: Nov. 10, Nov. 2, Aug. 18, Jun. 8, Apr. 27, etc.
October 10 round-up
- David Lat has much more detail on the $46 meal-skipping criminal case; and the St. Petersburg Times reports Ralph Paul was acquitted because his defense attorney misrepresented to the jury the legal standard, and the prosecutor didn’t correct it. [Above the Law; St. Petersburg Times]
- Amber Taylor isn’t impressed with Dahlia Lithwick’s proposal of new rules for Supreme Court clerkships. [Law. com; Prettier Than Napoleon]
- Legalized extortion of banks over Enron scandal. [Point of Law]
- Round-up of links of Sherwin-Williams’s suit against Ohio municipalities that are using contingent-fee plaintiffs’ lawyers against it. [Point of Law]
- Possible settlement in the Million Little Pieces class action. [TortsProf]
- California kennel works can’t sue dog owners for bites. [Bashman]
- Defense prevails in first federal welding trial. See also POL Nov. 21 and Dec. 9. [Products Liability Prof]
- David Bernstein on phony associations in epidemiological research. [Volokh]
- Aleksey Vayner doesn’t just have an impressive video resume, he can send a bogus cease-and-desist letter with the best of them. [IvyGateBlog]
Stage-mom animal owners sue trainer
Hollywood Paws offers basic behavior training, and advanced training to respond to cameras. The trainers warn that training is not a sure route to television stardom, but they’re still facing a Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit from a dozen pet-owners complaining of broken dreams. What sort of stardom plaintiffs think they were legally entitled to is uncertain; for example, one of the plaintiffs’ dogs, Goliath the Rottweiler, had a scene on the Tyra Banks Show that was cut, and is now making $100/day on a low-budget movie. (Jessica Garrison, “No Bows, No Wows for Pooches Pursuing Fame”, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 3 (h/t F.R.).)