Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘Indiana’

The Lawsuits of Madison County

In 2002, Madison County (Dec. 3, Oct. 7, etc.)–where juries and judges are notorious for finding liability where no other courts will–led the nation in class actions per capita when there were 77 filed in the state courts there. In 2003, the number of class actions filed in Madison County rose to 106. The number was three as recently as 1998. (Brian Brueggeman, “Class-action lawsuits set a record”, Belleville News-Democrat, Jan. 2; Sanford J. Schmidt, “Debate renews in wake of record class action filings”, Alton Telegraph, Jan. 4; Michael Bobelian, “Congress Eyeing Major Reforms Of Class Actions”, New York Lawyer, Jan. 5).

One example of the forum shopping is a 2003 asbestos case of Whittington v. U.S. Steel. The plaintiff claimed to have been injured as a result of exposure to asbestos on the job in Gary, Indiana, and sued his former employer, U.S. Steel. A plaintiff-friendly judge let a legally frivolous argument against application of workers compensation laws go to the jury–which appears to be the first time a tort suit against an employer for asbestos exposure was permitted to get to a jury. The jury, on flimsy evidence that the asbestos exposure occurred at U.S. Steel or that U.S. Steel was negligent (helped by a ruling precluding U.S. Steel from showing the safety measures they had employees take), awarded $50 million in damages and $200 million in punitives. “I could hardly write it down,” the jury foreman said. “I’ve never seen numbers that big.” The size of the award, compounding at 9% interest, caused U.S. Steel to decide to settle for a fraction of that amount rather than take their chance with an appeal. (Paul D. Boynton, “$250 Million Asbestos Verdict Awarded Against U.S. Steel”, Lawyers Weekly USA, 2004; Peter Page, “Asbestos Exposure Cases Draw Big Awards”, National Law Journal, Apr. 10, 2003; Brian Brueggemann, “Man awarded $250 million in cancer case”, Belleville News-Democrat, Mar. 29, 2003).

Filed under: , , , ,

U.S. lawyer count now exceeds 1 million

Welcome USA Today readers: the national newspaper reports that the number of lawyers in the U.S. now exceeds one million, and that the number of students taking the Law School Admission Test is nearing the previous record, set in 1990-1991. The article quotes yours truly at some length and mentions this website. “Lawyers say they are busy. Fifty-three percent say their greatest challenge is managing increased workloads, according to a November poll by the Affiliates, a lawyer and paralegal staffing service.” (Del Jones, “Lawyers, wannabes on the rise”, USA Today, Dec. 26) (also reprinted, via Gannett News Service, in Indianapolis Star, Arizona Republic, Salt Lake Tribune, and others)

Filed under: , ,

Pet store sued

As anyone who goes to a pet store knows, customers frequently bring their pets with them. Unfortunately for Uncle Bill’s Pet Center in Indianapolis, ten-year-old Travis Post had been petting rabbits, and thus “smelled like food” when pet store regular Christopher Simms allowed Travis to hold Simms’s ten-foot python while Simms talked to Travis’s mother. The family has sued Uncle Bill’s (as well as Simms), claiming they should have done more to protect Travis from the resulting attack. “‘Uncle Bill’s had a duty to keep their premises in a way that is safe for invitees,’ [family attorney E. Ralph] Hoover said. ‘Obviously, it’s not safe when you allow people to bring wild animals in and allow them to be around children.'” (Vic Ryckaert, “Uncle Bill’s faces suit after python bit a boy”, Indianapolis Star, Dec. 10) (via Obscure Store).

Hoover is essentially asking a jury to find that pet stores have a legal duty to either (a) bar children or (b) use employee time to screen customers, anticipating in advance which combination of customer and pet will be dangerous to other customers when their mothers leave them unattended. The likely real-world result, if damages are assessed, will be that insurers will require pet stores to bar outside animals. (Dog bites are, after all, much more common than snake bites.)

Now, perhaps we as a society want to create rules that bar animals from pet stores so that people like Christopher Simms and Travis Post’s mother only let small children handle gigantic snakes outside the confines of Uncle Bill’s Pet Center. But isn’t that a decision better made by a legislature considering the totality of the situation rather than a jury considering an individual case?

Filed under:

Compulsive gamblers not faring well against casinos

Although hope springs eternal among some trial lawyers and foes of legalized gambling that casinos might be made legally responsible for the losses of problem gamblers they negligently failed to eject from their premises, courts are still unwilling to see it that way, with three cases early this year all resulting in strong pro-casino opinions. (I. Nelson Rose, “Compulsive Gamblers Lose Again, In Court”, Jun. 2). Among them was the widely publicized case (see Sept. 12, 2002) of David Williams, who sued the Aztar casino for failing to exclude him although it had reason to know he was violating an order to stay away. U.S. District Judge John Tinder wrote that the case was barred by applicable precedent and added: “Whether this case is viewed as a claim for just compensation… or an effort to hit the jackpot in litigation that he couldn’t achieve on the river boat casino… through this lawsuit and a plethora of federal and state law theories, Williams seeks a determination that the gambling industry owed him a duty to protect him from himself. Despite his counsel’s creative efforts, and regardless of Williams’ sympathetic plight, neither federal nor Indiana law provides him any refuge or reward.” (“Compulsive gambler loses lawsuit against Casino Aztar”, Louisville Courier-Journal, reprinted CasinoMan, Mar. 7; “Problem gambler asks court to reverse ruling”, Las Vegas Review-Journal, May 14).

Filed under: , , ,