Posts Tagged ‘Canada’

Vermont and Alberta radio

On Monday I was again a guest on Laurie Morrow’s True North Radio show reaching listeners around Vermont and nearby states. And yesterday I was a guest on QR77 in Calgary, Alberta, on the afternoons with Dave Taylor, with guest host Rob Breakenridge substituting for Taylor. To book a broadcast interview on my book The Rule of Lawyers, email me directly or contact Jamie Stockton at the St. Martin’s/Griffin publicity department: 212-674-5151, ext. 502.

Canada: no psychic-trauma damages for rescuer

“A former Canadian sailor will not be allowed to sue Swissair for the trauma he suffered following the crash of Flight 111 in 1998, a Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge ruled today. Lorne Joudrey, 40, had argued that the airline should compensate him for the psychological damage that resulted from his role in the recovery operation in the days after the jet plunged into the ocean near Peggy’s Cove, N.S., killing all 229 people aboard.” (“Ex-sailor can’t sue Swissair over trauma”, Canadian Press/Toronto Star, Jul. 7). For a similar ruling from a federal judge in New Mexico, see Apr. 1.

Change of a penny proves bid’s legal undoing

Minimum deposit required $4,420 and 19.8 cents, actual proffered deposit $4,420 and 19 cents even, result: misery. After the tax auction of a piece of Ontario vacation land, a rival successfully challenged the high bid on the grounds that it should have included a deposit that was eight-tenths of a cent higher. We’re all in favor of formalism in the law, but… (Paul Waldie, “A penny saved . . . is a cottage lost”, Globe and Mail, Jun. 5).

Triple whammy for tobacco

Bad legal news comes in threes for cigarette makers: federal judge Gladys Kessler has ruled that the U.S. Department of Justice will be allowed to ask for disgorgement of $280 billion in past tobacco industry profits in the federal racketeering case against the industry (Nancy Zuckerbrod, “Judge: Government Can Seek Tobacco Profits”, AP/Washington Post, May 24)(more on suit). Health-program recoupment suits similar to those successfully pressed by state governments in the U.S. have been almost uniformly rejected in foreign courts, but an exception may be shaping up in Canada, where an appeals court in the province of British Columbia has just given its go-ahead to such a suit (Rod Mickleburgh, “Court upholds B.C.’s right to launch ‘big tobacco’ suit”, The Globe and Mail, May 21). And: “In the first verdict of its kind in the nation, a New Orleans jury decided Friday that four big tobacco companies should pay $591 million for a comprehensive, 10-year smoking-cessation program for a half-million or so of their Louisiana customers.” (Susan Finch, “Jury tells tobacco firms to pay up”, New Orleans Times-Picayune, May 22). More: On a somewhat brighter note, the California Assembly has narrowly defeated the scary bill sponsored by Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh and backed by the American Lung Association that would have prohibited parents from smoking in cars in which their children were riding (see Apr. 30) (Steve Lawrence, “Assembly rejects bill to bar smoking in cars carrying young kids”, AP/SignOnSanDiego, May 28); for more news on secondhand smoke controversies, see updates appended to post of Oct. 16, 2003 (scroll to end).

For your own good

From the Canadian Arctic: “On May 1, the workers’ compensation board for Nunavut and neighboring Northwest Territories prohibited smoking in any enclosed business or work site, including office buildings and bars. Ever since, smokers have been required to step outside to smoke in a region where temperatures can drop farther than 40 below zero in winter.” (Clifford Krauss, “Snuffing Out a Smoky Way of Life in the Canadian Arctic”, New York Times, May 21).

Insensitivity sought; win cash prizes

The province of Nova Scotia “is offering cash prizes to people who spot ‘offensive’ language in newspaper and magazine articles related to mental health and suicide. Readers who pick out inappropriate language will be entered into a draw for prizes worth up to $2,000. Included on the list of are such words and phrases as ‘basket-case, cracked-up, crazed, demented, fruitcake, kooky, loony, lost their marbles, lunatic, madman, maniac, nutcase, and schizo.'” (“Nova Scotia urges media to watch its language”, CTV, Mar. 7; “Are these guys nuts?” (editorial), National Post, Mar. 4; “Here’s an idea that really is nuts” (editorial), Montreal Gazette, Mar. 5; Mark Steyn, “Beware of the fruitcakes in government”, Daily Telegraph, Mar. 9)(via Tongue Tied).

QFC mad cow class action

In other grocery lawsuit news: you may remember back in December that a single Canadian cow was found to have mad cow disease, and as a safety precaution, tens of thousands of pounds of beef were voluntarily recalled in addition to the 10,510 pounds the USDA ordered recalled. Well, it seems that a Seattle-area woman, Jill Crowson, is bringing a class action against supermarket chain QFC. Says the suit, it wasn’t enough for QFC to merely pull the meat from its shelves, post signs, and make public announcements; even though coverage of the lone mad cow dominated headlines for a week, QFC should also have taken the individual step of contacting customers who purchased beef to warn them–and presumably have managed to accomplish this instantaneously on Christmas Eve, since QFC learned about the beef on December 24 and Ms. Crowson ate it on December 25.

Now, it’s exceedingly unlikely that Ms. Crowson or her family has suffered any injury from her Christmas-day tacos. First, it’s unlikely that Ms. Crowson had any meat from the infected cow; second, it’s extremely unlikely (and there is no evidence) that one will contract variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease from the muscle meat of a cow (the real danger is the relatively unpopular brain and spinal cord); third, even those who do eat infected brain and spinal tissue are unlikely to contract vCJD, which has stricken 150 people out of the millions exposed worldwide. Ms. Crowson probably suffered more risk driving to and from the grocery store or her lawyer’s office. Nevertheless, she wishes damages for the ”stress and fear” of vCJD–though if such longshot risks cause her such anxiety, one would think she would do more due diligence in life. (Lewis Kamb, “QFC says it acted appropriately in beef recall”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Mar. 6; “Seattle family sues grocery chain over mad cow claim”, AP, Mar. 6; Kyung M. Song, “Clyde Hill woman sues QFC over suspect meat”, Seattle Times, Mar. 6; complaint; QFC statement).

Read On…

IBM cleared in clean room trial

Two plaintiffs, Alida Hernandez and James Moore, had claimed that the chemicals used in the “clean rooms” by IBM had led to “systemic chemical poisoning” of themselves and other IBM workers, and that company executives knew about the hazard and concealed it. (The latter allegation was necessary to get around California worker compensation law, which doesn’t permit recovery merely for a hazardous workplace.) IBM protested that rubbing alcohol and acetone, the main chemicals the workers handled, weren’t dangerous unless ingested; that there was no such thing as “systemic chemical poisoning” that led to disparate diseases of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and breast cancer; further, the plaintiffs “had a host of health problems, including diabetes, smoking and obesity, that defense experts said may have contributed to the development of cancers.” (Moore smoked two packs a day.) The Santa Clara jury agreed, unanimously finding that the plaintiffs did not suffer from “systemic chemical poisoning.” Plaintiffs’ lawyers now go to New York, where they hope to blame birth defects of a woman who was six months’ pregnant when she started at IBM on the company (see Sep. 25). “Because of the heart-wrenching anecdotes from cancer victims and relatives, many companies settle such cases out of court – sometimes for hundreds of millions of dollars. Several IBM chemical suppliers initially named in Moore and Hernandez’s case reached settlements last year.” (Shannon Lafferty, “IBM Cleared in Toxic-Exposure Trial”, The Recorder, Feb. 27; Elise Ackerman and Therese Poletti, “Jurors rule for IBM in toxics suit”, San Jose Mercury News, Feb. 27; Chris Gaither and Terril Yue Jones, “IBM Found Not Liable for Ex-Workers’ Cancers”, LA Times, Feb. 27; Matt Richtel, “I.B.M. Wins Ex-Workers’ Cancer Suit”, NY Times, Feb. 27; Benjamin Pimentel, “IBM case goes to jury”, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 25; Rachel Konrad, “Jurors debate whether IBM lied about cancer-causing chemicals”, Canadian Press, Feb. 24; Peter Aronson, “Wave of IBM Suits Reaches Trial”, National Law Journal, Feb. 13; Therese Poletti, “Final witness testifies for IBM”, San Jose Mercury News, Feb. 12; Michael Santarini, “Allergist refutes chemical poisoning claims against IBM”, EE Times, Feb. 10; Rick Merritt, “Chemical exposure did not cause IBM-ers’ cancer, says expert”, EE Times, Jan. 30; full EE Times IBM trial coverage).

Read On…

“Firebug demands insurance proceeds”

Manitoba, Canada: “A man convicted of torching his farm near Ste. Anne two years ago is taking his insurance company to court for its ‘high-handed’ treatment of him. Former municipal counsellor Raymond Michaud was convicted of arson last March …. When asked how a man convicted of burning down his own farm can expect his insurance company to honour his policy, [attorney Anthony] Dalmyn said: ‘That depends on whether the conviction stands on appeal.'” (David Schmeichel, “Flaming chutzpah”, Winnipeg Sun, Feb. 17).

Better for her to die?

Lori Wells, a 20-year-old Edmonton woman on dialysis, appealed on the internet for a kidney donor and 36 complete strangers from as far away as Florida volunteered their organs. “When donors contacted the local health authority, their offers were turned down.” Canadian transplant programs “insist living donors be family or close friends” to avoid the possibility that persons will donate organs for reasons deemed unworthy. One result: while 3,000 Canadians languish on waiting lists in need of transplants, only about 1,100 of them get transplants in a given year. (Adam Young, “Organ Donations: Socialism or Laissez-Faire?”, Mises.org, Jan. 19; “Ethicists dash hopes for internet kidney donors”, CBC, Dec. 22). (via Alex Tabarrok)