Seattle: “A woman who sued a neighbor after his dog mauled her cat to death has been awarded more than $45,000. Retired teacher Paula Roemer’s 12-year-old cat, Yofi, was attacked in her back yard in February 2004 by a chow belonging to her neighbor, Wallace Gray. The dog had repeatedly escaped in the past, according to the lawsuit.” (“Woman Gets $45K for Cat Killed by Dog”, AP/Las Vegas Sun, May 9). The award included $30,000 for the personal value of the cat — tying a record for a pet, according to her lawyer — plus $15,000 for emotional distress; Ms. Roemer “was so traumatized that she began having sleep disturbances and panic attacks, sank into depression and began smoking heavily, she wrote in a sworn declaration.” (Jessica Blanchard, “Woman awarded $45,000 in cat death”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 9). More coverage: Seattle Times, KOMO-TV. Meanwhile, a timely op-ed spells out why damage awards reflecting pets’ sentimental value, by scaring away veterinarians and other caretakers, could lead to needless animal deaths. (Emily Laird, “See Spot Sue”, New York Times, May 8). A similar case has been made many times in this space: see Mar. 15 (letter to the editor) and links from there.
Posts Tagged ‘emotional distress’
The sailor’s doxy
Suits against cruise lines by passengers who get sick on board are bringing the courts quite a bit of business at the moment, but the lawsuit against Holland America Line by 81-year-old Bernice Oltman and her son, Jack Oltman, goes further. “The Oltmans said they suffered from a gastrointestinal illness, and also saw crew members eating directly from buffet platters. ‘During the scheduled stop in Ecuador, Jack Oltman noticed some crew members openly associating with prostitutes,’ the lawsuit said.” (There was an overflowed toilet, too.) “The Oltmans said they expected to be compensated by Holland America for pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of earnings, legal fees and medical expenses, including a colonoscopy and hemorrhoid surgery, the lawsuit said.” (“Cruise Line Sued for ‘Unsanitary’ Cruise”, Reuters, Apr. 1). “Scandalous” pleadings, as described in legal authorities such as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, include those which serve to heap disrepute on the opponent without advancing any colorable claim; presumably the Oltmans’ attorney is prepared to demonstrate a convincing link between the alleged tarts and the alleged torts.
Judge tosses “Fear Factor” suit
“A judge threw out a lawsuit in which a viewer sued NBC for $2.5 million, contending that he threw up because of a ‘Fear Factor’ episode in which contestants ate rats mixed in a blender. U.S. District Judge Lesley Wells called Austin Aitken’s lawsuit frivolous and warned him against appealing.” The handwritten suit (see Jan. 7) was pro se. (“Judge Nixes Viewer’s ‘Fear Factor’ Lawsuit”, AP/Fox News, Mar. 10).
Rats vs. ratings
A man upset by what he saw on NBC’s “Fear Factor” is suing the program. He says he threw up after he saw contestants eat (drink?) rats chopped up in a blender. Austin Aitken is a regular viewer of the program and was fine with shows in which contestants ate worms and bugs. He says he’s not concerned with actually winning, just sending a message to NBC. His suit asks for $2.5-million. Associated Press, “Rats don’t rate with viewer,” Jan. 7. From the story:
Aitken, a 49-year-old part-time paralegal, said he wants to send a message to NBC and other networks with the lawsuit. He said he isn’t concerned with winning a cash judgment in court.
On that note, Eugene Volokh points out the following from an earlier Reuters report: “In a brief telephone interview with Reuters, Aitken said, ‘I am not at liberty to discuss the complaint unless it is a paid-interview situation.'” Reuters, “NBC’s ‘Fear Factor’ Sued for Rat-Eating Episode,” Jan. 5. Update Mar. 15: judge tosses suit.
Update: emotional-distress claim against divorce lawyer
Bad news for the disgruntled divorce client in the case reported on here Nov. 17: a state appellate court has ordered San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay to reconsider his ruling allowing the client to claim emotional distress damages over the attorney’s alleged mishandling of his divorce (which the attorney denies). Ryan Kent of San Rafael, Calif., representing defendant attorney Joseph Pisano, said a claim for emotional distress damages “just opens up a whole bag of worms”. And: “It’s too open-ended. It’s not predictable.” We know plenty of defendants in other professions that must wish they had the benefit of that logic. (Pam Smith, “Calif. Appeal Court Unmoved by Emotional Distress Claim in Malpractice Case”, The Recorder, Dec. 22). More: George Wallace and David Giacalone comment.
Emotional distress from lawyer’s handling of divorce
Take a number dept.: on Sept. 23 we reported on an unusual case in which a court had ordered the Internal Revenue Service to pay a taxpayer $10,000 for the emotional distress occasioned by its overzealous collection techniques. Now San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay has allowed a suit to go forward in which client Vincenzo Rinaldi wants money to compensate him for the emotional distress he says he suffered as a consequence of lawyer Joseph Pisano’s alleged less-than-ideal handling of his divorce. An attorney for Pisano maintains his client “did nothing wrong in handling the divorce” and that, contrary to the suit’s allegations, there was never any doubt as to the validity of Rinaldi’s remarriage. Most courts have disallowed emotional-distress damages in cases alleging legal malpractice, perhaps in part from fear (as with the parallel case of IRS-inflicted emotional distress) of opening floodgates too vast to contemplate. (Pam Smith, “Malpractice Suit Says Divorce Doubt Led to Distress”, The Recorder, Oct. 22). Update Dec. 26: appellate court unwelcoming to emotional-distress claim.
Bank error not in your favor, collect $250,000
Illinois: “A Madison County woman hopes that at least $250,000 will sufficiently relieve emotional distress she suffered when Bank One allegedly failed to remove unauthorized charges from her account.” Marsha Eubanks is “[r]epresented by Lakin Law Firm attorney Thomas Maag, son of Illinois Supreme Court Justice candidate Gordon E. Maag”. (Steve Gonzalez, “Woman hopes $250k will bring peace of mind”, Madison County Record, Oct. 19).
Dazed and Confused
If you see Bobby Wooderson, Andy Slater or Richard Floyd of Huntsville, Texas, don’t ask them if they wanna smoke a joint. The three former classmates of “Before Sunset” director Richard Linklater have decided, eleven years after the fact, that the Linklater movie “Dazed and Confused” defames them by using similarly named characters. As evidence of his emotional distress, Wooderson cites the fact that his son was asked for autographs by his Harvard classmates. (But how did they find out if his son wasn’t bragging about the coincidence?) Another plaintiff told a desk clerk that he was “the guy from ‘Dazed and Confused'” and was supposedly mobbed by a lobby full of fans–no doubt because New Yorkers are so enthralled by the sight of such a celebrity. The three are so upset that people associate them with a movie that did $8 million in box office in 1993 that before they served Linklater with the suit, they had their attorneys issue a nationally-publicized press release. They’ve sued in New Mexico, because Texas law doesn’t allow one to wait eleven years before suing for defamation. Actor Wiley Wiggins complains about “the sad sacks back in Huntsville who are trying to cash in 11 years later over vaguely having something to do with a movie.” (Andrew Tran, “Modified names spur ‘Dazed’ lawsuit”, Daily Texan, Oct. 12; Tom Waddill, “Three Huntsville residents file suit over negative resemblances in popular cult film”, Huntsville Item, Oct. 11; Chris Rush Cohen blog, Oct. 8).
Full disclosure: I once represented co-defendant Universal years ago. But that was about the Grinch.
IRS ordered to pay damages for taxpayer’s emotional distress
Now here’s a case you might think would really open the floodgates: Prof. Paul Caron of the University of Cincinnati reports at TaxProf (Sept. 17) that a court has ordered the Internal Revenue Service to pay a taxpayer $10,000 for the emotional distress occasioned by its overzealous collection techniques. The case arose in bankruptcy proceedings, however, and its relevance as precedent for solvent taxpayers is not clear. The $10,000 will be paid at the expense of other taxpayers who presumably will surrender their money in a way that involves no emotional distress for them.
A tomb with a ($150M) view (of the Major Deegan)
Real estate tycoon Leona Helmsley is suing Woodlawn Cemetery in the Bronx for $150 million in compensation, including $100 million for “severe anguish and emotional distress”, because she says her late husband Harry’s family mausoleum has lost the views, serenity and solitude it once had. “Mrs. Helmsley’s complaint, first reported Monday in The New York Post, is that the ‘perpetual beauty’ and ‘peaceful solitude’ of the spot have been destroyed by the latest of many community mausoleums to be built at Woodlawn. But the view Mrs. Helmsley describes as forever lost is bleak: the access ramps to the Major Deegan Expressway, a traffic light at Jerome Avenue and 233rd Street, and locked gates where the cemetery’s grand entrance once was.” Woodlawn’s president says he has been unable to find any precedent for a lawsuit complaining of loss of views from a mausoleum. (Jane Gross, “Tomb Trouble: Nimby Strikes at Woodlawn”, New York Times, Jul. 29; “NY property tycoon sues cemetery”, BBC News, Jul. 27).