April 5 roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

October 31 roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

The misnamed anti-tort reform Center for Justice & Democracy has noticed the success of the ATRA’s judicial hellhole campaign (Dec. 15; Dec. 3, 2003), and decided to respond with its own report, the “Zany Immunity Law Awards”, intended to single out “special interests” who opportunistically subvert the legislative system to get improper immunity from liability. The cover shows a legislator receiving a statuette, cash in his pocket, and roses with a ribbon labeled “Sleaziest Legislation.”

Exposing sleazy special-interest immunity laws is a noble sentiment–but it’s a sure sign of how few and far between such laws are that CJD singles out the sensible anhydrous ammonia immunity laws for its top ten list. The CJD incorrectly blames the law on a supposed “anhydrous ammonia business lobby”; in fact, it’s groups like the Michigan Farm Bureau that push for laws like Michigan S.B. 786. Indeed, the only group to oppose such laws? Trial lawyers’ lobbying groups. See also Kelly Lenz, “Fertilizer law to help farmers”, Farm and Auction, Jun. 12, 2002.

How ridiculous are the CJD awards? One of the top ten “zany immunity laws” refers to “immunity” granted to placebo manufacturers and distributors. Except the immunity in question isn’t immunity–it’s an exception to a criminal statute prohibiting the sale of fake drugs! E.g., Fla. Stat. 817.564(6)(a). (This is the only appearance of the word “placebo” in the Florida Code. It’s telling that CJD omits the statutory cite in its footnotes.) Perhaps this law is zany, but it’s hardly an example of a special interest group buying sleazy legislation that damages consumers. A subject of a research test who is injured by adulterated placebos (has this ever happened?) will still have a cause of action.

Other “awards,” such as a complaint that owners of baseball facilities in three states are immune from liability for spectator injuries caused by baseballs used in a game, are similarly misguided. For example, CJD complains about Louisiana immunity for Mardi Gras parade injuries from thrown prizes–but neglects to mention that the immunity came about from community outrage when the predominantly African-American “Zulu Krewe” announced in 1987 that it would no longer engage in the decades-old tradition of throwing decorated coconuts from floats because of liability concerns. In any event, the immunity provided by the law is sufficiently limited that even today, the Zulu Krewe only hands out the coconuts rather than throws them. Heaven forfend. (Nora Sherman, “Guide to the Mardi Gras Parades”, Tulane Arcade, Feb. 13; Zulu history).

In some cases, CJD simply misleads about the scope of the immunity.

CJD: [A]fter an autopsy, there are some extra body parts hanging around so the coroner puts them in [the wrong] coffin. … Indiana’s morticians lobby made sure they wouldn’t be legally accountable for any of this.

Fact: A mortician is only immune for this mistake if those remains have been “hanging around” for three years without being placed in a coffin or urn and there is no written contract specifying where those remains go. IC 23-14-55-2(c). (And why should a cemetery owner be liable for a coroner’s mistake anyway?)

CJD: [I]n a bunch of states, an agent or real estate owner can’t be held liable for failing to tell a potential buyer or renter that the house is “psychologically affected.” What’s scarier than a haunted house? A statehouse that grants immunities like this one.

Fact: The only law that CJD cites, Indiana’s, provides “an owner or agent may not intentionally misrepresent a fact concerning a psychologically affected property in response to a direct inquiry from a transferee.” IC 32-21-6-6. Connecticut law similarly strips immunity when a purchaser makes affirmative inquiries. Sec. 20-329ee. Are you really concerned whether an HIV+ person used to live in a house? A buyer is entitled to ask and demand disclosure (though the federal fair housing laws may come into play). But why is CJD so concerned about protecting the rights of bigots to sue on the psychological damage self-imposed by their bigotry? Where’s the justice in requiring a seller to admit their HIV+ status on pain of liability for failing to affirmatively do so?

The complaint about haunted house immunity is especially ironic, given that the famous New York haunted house case of Stambovsky v. Ackley–where a court held that a buyer could back out of a home purchase because the seller failed to disclose poltergeists–is a famous poster child for a justice system run amok. 169 A.D.2d 254, 572 N.Y.S.2d 672 (1st Dept. 1991).

CJD: [M]aybe you leave [a deer] carcass out in the sun while celebrating the joy of hunting. Does that mean you can’t donate the meat to a charity…? … And if someone gets sick from eating the meat that’s gone bad, is that your fault? Not in a bunch of states, it isn’t! [A donor] of wild game meat for free use by a charity (a soup kitchen, for example) has limited liability for injuries or death caused by the age, condition, or packaging of the meat.

Fact: The fact pattern described wouldn’t result in immunity; in all of the states cited by CJD, the hunters could be sued for being grossly negligent or even reckless.

CJD: In Oklahoma, institutions using dogs unclaimed at the pound aren’t liable to the dog’s owners if they kill or injure the dog during a “scientific” experiment.

Is CJD seriously arguing that a research lab that purchases a dog about to be euthanized at the pound should bear the risk that an owner will claim the dog later?

CJD: In Arizona, a veterinarian who files a report with a local law enforcement agency, stating that he believes a dog he’s treated or examined has participated in a dogfight, is immune from liability.

Is CJD seriously claiming that vets should be liable for mistakenly reporting suspected cruelty to animals? That’s a good way to ensure that such cruelty doesn’t get reported.

CJD: Pawnbrokers in Missouri and Nevada who don’t release or dispose of pledged property, because they’ve been ordered to hold it by a police officer, are immune from liability.

Amazing! CJD actually contends that someone should be sued for obeying a lawful order of the police.

If ever there was proof that the Center for Justice and Democracy cares little for justice or democracy or consumers, it’s this report that shows the only things CJD cares about are trial lawyers and creating as much litigation as possible, regardless of its effect on justice, democracy, or consumers.

Center for Justice & Democracy’s Zany “Zany Immunity Law Awards” is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

“Should have watched his step answering call of nature“, Mar. 8-9, 2003.

Couldn’t help eating it, 2003: “Give me my million“, Jun. 20-22; “Judge tosses McDonald’s obesity case“, Jan. 23 (& Jan. 27-28); “Anti-diet activist hopes to sue Weight Watchers“, Jan. 13-14.  2002: Letter to the editor, Oct. 23; “Claim: docs should have done more to help woman quit smoking and lose weight“, Sept. 18-19; “Personal responsibility roundup“, Sept. 12; “Fat suits, cont’d“, Jul. 26-28; “‘Ailing man sues fast-food firms’“, Jul. 25; “Sin-suit city“, Jun. 10; “McArdle on food as next-tobacco“, May 27; “‘Targeting “big food”‘“, Apr. 29-30; “Life imitates parody: ‘Whose Fault Is Fat?‘”, Jan. 23-24.  2001: “‘Diabetic German judge sues Coca-Cola for his health condition’“, Nov. 18.  2000: “‘Caffeine added to sodas aims to addict — study’“, Aug. 18-20.  1999: “Toffee maker sued for tooth irritation“, Nov. 5-7; “Not just our imagination” (calls for class-action suits against fast-food, meat purveyors), Sept. 25-26.

Warning labels and disclaimers, 2003: “‘Wacky Warning Label’ winners“, Jan. 13-14.  2002: “Satirical-disclaimer Hall of Fame” (Australian humor magazine), Oct. 28-29; “‘Warning …’” (Dave Barry humor column), Aug. 16-18; “Read the label, then ignore it if you like” (flammable carpet adhesive), Jul. 12-14; “Pitcher, hit by line drive, sues maker of baseball bat“, Apr. 19-21; “Injured in ‘human hockey puck’ stunt“, Mar. 18; “‘Before you cheer … “Sign here”‘“, Mar. 15-17; “Didn’t know cinema seats retracted“, Feb. 13-14; “Warning on fireplace log: ‘risk of fire’“, Jan. 25-27.  2001: “Et tu, UT?” (Utah will not enforce parent-signed release forms for children), Nov. 16-18; “Disclaimer rage?“, Oct. 15; “Needed: assumption of risk“, Jul. 27-29; “Quite an ankle sprain” (failure to warn of gopher holes in parks), Apr. 20-22; “‘Wacky Warning Label’ winners“, Jan. 19-21.  2000: “Columnist-fest” (Girl Scout horseback riding disclaimer), Apr. 6; “Rise of the high school sleepover disclaimer“, Mar. 22; “From our mail sack: skin art disclaimers” (tattoo consent form), Mar. 1; “Weekend reading: columnist-fest” (Laura Pulfer on warning labels), Feb. 5-6; “Never iron clothes while they’re being worn” (Wacky Warning Label contest winners), Jan. 18 (& letter to editor, Jan. 21-23).  1999: “Christmas lawyer humor” (Yuletide greetings consisting entirely of disclaimers), Dec. 23-26; “Weekend reading” (disclaimers “creeping into nearly every aspect of American life”), Jul. 31-Aug. 1. 

Blamed for suicides, 2003: “‘No suits by lawbreakers, please’“, Jan. 27-28 (& Jan. 31-Feb. 2).  2002: “The blame for suicide“, Sept. 25-26; “‘Addictive’ computer game blamed for suicide“, Apr. 3-4. 2001: “Utah: rescue searchers sued“, Nov. 26, 2001; “‘Shooting range sued over suicide’“, Sept. 27; “$3 million verdict for selling gun used in suicide“, Sept. 17; “‘Suicide- Attempt Survivor Sues’” (department that issued cop his gun), Jan. 24-25. 

Excuse syndromes, 2002: “Blue-ribbon excuses” (sex on train), Oct. 7-8; “So depressed he stole $300K“, Mar. 19; “Rough divorce predisposed him to hire hitman“, Feb. 13-14. 2001: “Stories that got away” (multiple-personality defense), Jul. 23; “‘Pseudologica fantastica’ won’t fly” (judge’s fibs on resume), Jun. 7 (& Aug. 20-21); “Judge buys shopaholic defense in embezzling“, May 25-27; “The malaria drug made him do it“, Mar. 28.  2000: “Blue-ribbon excuses” (baked goods mutilator, lawyer pleading incompetent self-representation), Oct. 6-9; “Predestination made him do it” (Pope’s assassin and Fatima prophecy), June 6; “Victim of the century?” (misbehaving school principal collects disability benefits for sexual compulsion), Jun. 2-4; “Prozac made him rob banks“, Mar. 1; “Blue-ribbon excuse syndromes“, Feb. 12-13; “Latest excuse syndromes“, Jan. 13-14.  1999: “Doctor sues insurer, claims sex addiction“, Oct. 13. 

“Lightning bolt in amusement park’s parking lot“, Jun. 23, 2003; “‘Woman attacked by goose sues county’“, Jan. 27-28, 2003; “Quite an ankle sprain” (watch where you’re going in parks), Apr. 20-22, 2001. 

“MIT sued over student’s nitrous-oxide death“, Feb. 25, 2003; “By reader acclaim: ‘Parents file suit over student’s drug death’” (abuse of Oxycontin), Jul. 25, 2001. 

“Take care of myself?  That’s the doc’s job“, Feb. 14-16, 2003; “Claim: docs should have done more to help woman quit smoking and lose weight” (Pa.), Sept. 18-19, 2002.

“Satirical-disclaimer Hall of Fame” (Australian humor magazine), Oct. 28-29, 2002; “Tobacco: Boeken record” (The Onion parody), June 19, 2001; “Jury orders ‘Big Chocolate’ to pay $135 billion to obese consumers” (parody), Aug. 3, 2000; “This side of parodies” (fictional account of self-inflicted icepick injury), Oct. 5-6, 1999. 

Sports risks: “Sis-Boom-Sue” (cheerleading), Jan. 15-16, 2003; “Skating first, instructions later“, Sept. 25-26, 2002; “Pitcher hit by line drive sues maker of baseball bat“, Apr. 19-21, 2002; “Australian roundup” (Perth bodysurfer), Nov. 23-25, 2001; “Needed: assumption of risk” (baseball thrown into stands, skydiving), July 27-29; “‘Lawsuits could tame ski slopes’“, Feb. 6, 2001; “Promising areas for suits” (foul-ball cases and other stadium injuries), Dec. 7, 2000; “Teams liable for fans’ safety” (Colorado: hockey puck hit into stands), Aug. 15; “‘Skydivers don’t sue’“, May 26-29; “Trips on shoelace, demands $10 million from Nike“, April 7-9, 2000. 

Gambling: Letter to the editor, Oct. 23; “Personal responsibility roundup“, Sept. 12, 2002; “Sin-suit city“, Jun. 10; “‘Next tobacco’ watch: gambling“, May 20-21, 2002 (& May 31); “‘Gambling addiction’ class action” (Quebec), June 20, 2001.

Hot beverages: “Litigation good for the country?” (Carl T. Bogus), Aug. 19, 2002; “British judge rejects hot-drink suits“, Mar. 29-31, 2002 (& Aug. 10, 2000); “By reader acclaim” (Illinois case; complainant sues mother), Jan. 11, 2001; “‘Court says warning about hot coffee unnecessary’” (Nevada Supreme Court), Jul. 18, 2000; “Now it’s hot chocolate“, Apr. 4, 2000. 

“‘Family of boy injured by leopard may sue’“, Jul. 18, 2002; “Skinny-dipping with killer whale: ‘incredibly bad judgment’“, Sept. 21, 1999 (Oct. 7 update: case dropped). 

“Wasn’t his fault for lying drunk under truck“, Aug. 16-18, 2002; “‘Win Big! Lie in Front of a Train!’“, Jun. 26-27, 2002 (& Jul. 12-14); “Australian roundup” (graffiti artist on train), Nov. 23-25, 2001; “Hit after laying on RR tracks; sues railroad“, Oct. 23, 2001. 

“‘Man awarded $60,000 for falling over barrier’“, Mar. 5, 2002. 

“Utah: rescue searchers sued“, Nov. 26, 2001. 

“Suit blames drugmaker for Columbine“, Oct. 24-25, 2001. 

“Mosh pit mayhem“, Sept. 7-9, 2001. 

“Urban legend alert: six ‘irresponsibility’ lawsuits“, Aug. 27-28, 2001.

“Don’t rock the Coke machine“, Jul. 20-22, 2001. 

“Tobacco: Boeken record“, June 19, 2001. 

Scary!: “From dinner party to court” (U.K. hypnotist), May 22, 2001; “Hypnotist sued by entranced spectator“, March 3-14, 2001; “Girl puts head under guillotine; sues when hurt“, March 8, 2000; “Haunted house too scary“, Jan. 6, 2000; “‘Scared out of business’” (decline of community Halloween haunted houses), Nov. 5-7, 1999. 

Stop having fun (children’s recreation): see schools page. 

“Tendency of elastic items to recoil well known“, Mar. 6, 2001.

“By reader acclaim” (sues alleged crack dealers over own addiction), Jan. 11, 2001.

“Smoker’s suit nixed in Norway“, Dec. 18-19, 2000; “Personal responsibility takes a vacation in Miami” (Engle tobacco verdict), July 8, 1999.

“Highway responsibility” (Derrick Thomas suit), Nov. 28, 2000.

“Fat tax proposed in New Zealand“, Oct. 31, 2000. 

“More things you can’t have: raw-milk cheeses“, Oct. 3, 2000; “More things you can’t have” (unpasteurized cider, New England square dances), Sept. 27, 1999; “More things you can’t have” (rare hamburgers, food sent to summer camp), August 9, 1999.

“Smoking and responsibility: columnists weigh in” (after Florida verdict), Jul. 28-30, 2000. 

“‘”Whiplash!” America’s most frivolous lawsuits’” (book collects cases), Jul. 14-16, 2000. 

“Inmate: you didn’t supervise me” (horseplay alone in cell), Jul. 7, 2000. 

“Can’t sue over affair with doctor” (court rules it was consensual), Jun. 13, 2000. 

“Risky?  Who’da thunk it?” (currency speculator sues over losses), Jun. 9-11, 2000. 

“‘Jury awards apparent record $220,000 for broken finger’” (hurt while dancing), May 22, 2000. 

“Videogame maker agrees to furnish safety gloves“, Mar. 13, 2000. 

“Letourneau scandal: now where’s my million?” (boy sues), Apr. 20, 2000.

“All dressed up“, Apr. 19, 2000. 

“Down repressed-memory lane I: costly fender-bender” (eggshell-psyche plaintiff), Dec. 29-30, 1999. 

“Down repressed-memory lane II: distracted when she signed” (separation agreement), Dec. 29-30, 1999.

“GM verdict roundup” (lawyers shift drunk drivers’ responsibility to automakers), Dec. 16, 1999; “Drunks have rights, too“, Dec. 1, 1999. 

“Rolling the dice (cont’d)” (Internet gambler sues credit card companies that advanced him money), Dec. 7, 1999; “Rolling the dice” (same), Aug. 26, 1999.

“Responsibility, RIP” (columnist Mona Charen), Nov. 2, 1999. 

“The art of blame” (death of child left in hot van), Oct. 20, 1999. 

“Nominated by reader acclamation” (killer’s parents sue school district, lawmen for failing to prevent Columbine massacre), Oct. 18, 1999. 

“Block PATH to lawsuits” (fall out of tree in yard, sue your employer), Sept. 1, 1999. 

“To restore individual responsibility, bring back contract principles” (Cato Institute paper by Prof. Michael Krauss), Aug. 16, 1999.

“Somebody might trip” (NYC condemns prints-of-the- Hollywood-stars sidewalk as slip hazard), Aug. 13, 1999. 

“All have lost, and all must have damages” (huge award to salesman who hawked bad insurance policies since he’s a victim too), Aug. 3, 1999.

Through much of American history, courts discouraged lawsuits arising from risks that individuals were deemed to have assumed in the course of going about familiar activities, such as the risk of being thrown while horseback riding, of slipping on toys underfoot while visiting a house with children, or of being hit with a foul ball while attending a ball game.  (Stored search on “assumption of risk”: Google, Alta Vista). Under the doctrine of “contributory negligence”, they often dismissed, as a matter of law, cases where a complainant’s own negligence had helped cause an accident.  They were even less likely to entertain cases in which someone’s knowing or deliberate dereliction had placed him in physical peril, such as cases in which people sue over injuries sustained in the course of committing crimes or attempting suicide.  And finally, they gave broad respect to express contractual disclaimers or waivers of liability: if a party was on notice that the other side in a transaction wasn’t willing to assume a responsibility, it wouldn’t be easy to tag them later with that responsibility in court. 

By the 1950s all these old barriers to liability had come under sustained attack in the law schools, where they were viewed as insulating defendants’ misconduct from legal scrutiny and impeding the forward march of liability law as a (high-overhead) variety of social insurance.  Most states moved from contributory negligence to comparative negligence, which allows a plaintiff whose negligence helped cause an accident to sue over it anyway, though for a reduced recovery.  Waivers and disclaimers began to be struck down as unconscionable, against public policy, not spelled out with sufficient clarity, etc.  And assumption of risk was whittled down by way of a dozen techniques: the most influential torts scholar of the postwar period, William Prosser, took the view that “that implied reasonable assumption of risk should not be allowed to reduce a plaintiff’s damage in any way” (Chase Van Gorder, “Assumption of Risk Under Washington Law“). 

The result is today’s American legal environment in which plaintiffs routinely try their luck at suits after being injured climbing high-voltage utility structures while drunk, skinny-dipping in icy pools with captive killer whales, trying “wheelies” and other stunts on industrial forklifts, and smoking for decades.  Some of these suits succeed at obtaining settlements while others fail, and it’s important to bear in mind that assumption of risk and related doctrines have not disappeared entirely.  Their general decay, however, has been important in bringing us today’s hypertrophy of such areas of law as premises liability, product liability and recreational liability. 

The website of attorney D. Pamela Gaines has useful resources on assumption of risk as it applies to such areas as premises liability, recreation and amusement parks. At the International Mountain Bicycling Association site, Tina Burckhardt explains “recreational use statutes” which grant some protection from liability lawsuits to landowners who allow free recreational use of their property.

Archived personal responsibility items, pre-July 2003 is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system