Posts Tagged ‘New Jersey’

Piping Plovers Cancel Fireworks

The piping plover is a neurotically fragile bird that abandons its low-lying nests on beaches in response to noise, and suffers from being prey for dogs, raccoons, foxes, and skunks, its only defense being relatively ineffective camoflauge. Though the Fish & Wildlife Service under the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations did not believe it necessary to create critical habitats for the thousands of plovers that remain, the Clinton administration eventually settled a lawsuit brought against it by agreeing to establish a critical habitat in 2001. (The efforts may be for naught, since plovers migrate to Canada, and not even Canada provides such dramatic protections for endangered species, much less “threatened” species.) Now, a number of towns up and down the East Coast have been required to cancel their fireworks ceremonies on the grounds that the noise might interfere with the nesting. Jerry Della Femina, the inventor of the “Meow Mix” theme-song used to “torture” Guantanamo prisoners, is especially unhappy that his annual fireworks party has been cancelled, and has been using his advertising wiles to generate publicity on the issue; in response, a local Fish & Wildlife official has threatened him with prison rape, but that hasn’t stopped Della Femina from publishing his recipe for Garlic Piping Plover. (Paul Vitello, “Clash of Beach-Nesting Species: Plover and Human”, NY Times, Jul. 2; Julia C. Mead, “Those Little Birds on the Beach Mean No Fireworks in the Sky”, NY Times, Jun. 23; Kai Ma, “Plovers force cancelation of July 4th fireworks in East Hampton”, Newsday, Jun. 24; Seth Harkness, “Fireworks canceled to keep birds safe”, Portland Press Herald, Jul. 2; Marina McGowan, “Piping Plovers Cancel Fourth of July Fireworks”, Long Island Press, Jul. 3; Kitty Merrill, “Indy Goes Inside: The Great Plover Controversy Of 2005”, The Independent, Jun. 29; Jerry Della Femina, “The Grinch Who Stole The Fourth Of July”, The Independent, Jun. 29). In Stone Harbor, New Jersey, the federal government required dredging to protect the plovers, with a cost to local taxpayers of $3 million. In exchange, nine pairs of plovers were able to establish nests, four of which produced young, and one plover of these young fledged—a three-million dollar bird. (Richard Degener, “Settlement on table in Cape spoils case”, Press of Atlantic City, Mar. 22; DOJ press release, Feb. 12, 2003).

Rip tide warnings might pose legal danger

Putting up signs warning visitors of the dangerous rip currents off New Jersey’s Long Beach might seem like an obvious step. “However, Long Beach Township Attorney Richard Shackleton said there are liability issues to consider. According to the law, the town does not have to warn people about natural conditions, and if Long Beach put up a sign and a jury found its warnings to be inadequate, the town could possibly be found liable for a drowning or injury. Having no signs, he said, reduces the risk of being sued.” (Brian Prince, “Warning: Rip tide alerts not islandwide”, Asbury Park (N.J.) Press, Jun. 15). See Jun. 30, 2004 (similar).

Proximate cause, void in N.J.?

David Bernstein and commenters (Jun. 10) discuss a 1999 case (Canesi v. Wilson) in which the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a woman could sue over the “wrongful birth” of a baby with birth defects because the doctor didn’t warn her that a drug he prescribed during the pregnancy was suspected of causing such defects, even though she was unable to offer any expert testimony indicating that the drug had actually caused the defects (and scientific evidence was accumulating that it had not in fact done so).

Not such a great place for free speech either

“Welcome to New Jersey. A horrible place to do business,” reads the billboard message [erected by William Juliano, a discontented Mount Laurel, N.J. businessman]…

So far, the state has done nothing about the billboard, and it’s unclear whether it could. “At some point, we’ll have to consider action against him,” [Environmental Protection chief Bradley] Campbell said, implying a potential legal fight.

(Geoff Mulvihill, “A sign of the times: New Jersey ‘horrible'”, AP/Akron Beacon Journal, Jun. 2). More: Ron Coleman also noticed this one (Jun. 2).

Medical matters: new at Point of Law

Loads of coverage of health matters in recent weeks over at our sister website, including: liability fears and emergency room admissions; New Jersey bans “retaliating” against expert witnesses over testimony they give, no matter how untrue it may be; Ted on one lawprof’s grossly misleading use of med-mal statistics, and a second round of the same; pain medication in nursing homes (and more on nursing homes); two doctors pick up stakes; Australian med-mal rates fall after reform; same thing in Texas; HHS introduces a distinctive “early offers” program for medical malpractice claims involving its clients; please don’t let him grow up to be an M.D.; Pennsylvania hospitals’ bill; MICRA and Prop 103; the March of Dimes wants Bendectin back; federal judge Loretta Preska in Manhattan throws out a major Dickie Scruggs case against the non-profit health sector; and a must-read article on defensive medicine. To explore all this and much more, follow the links provided or visit the site’s topical page on medicine and law.

More on District of Columbia v. Beretta, U.S.A.

We get mail:

You mention in your District of Columbia v. Beretta, U.S.A.” post that other commentators, such as Mr. Healy and Mr. Levy, have argued that individual states, not the federal government, should be initiating legislation preventing lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The idea is that businesses can “withdraw from doing business in a state that has an oppressive tort regime.” Your counter-argument, however, is that the latter idea “doesn’t help gun manufacturers who don’t do business in the District of Columbia to begin with.”

But, in fact, can’t businesses withdraw from states to the point where these businesses no longer have the “minimum contacts” necessary for the state courts to assert personal jurisdiction over the businesses? Then the businesses would be avoiding the oppressive tort laws of those states, but the states would not have personal jurisdiction for any lawsuits against these businesses.

Chris Schmitthenner

It is correct that gun manufacturers will, in litigation, attempt to get themselves out of the case by arguing lack of personal jurisdiction via such precedents as Asahi Metal Industry Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court of California. However, there are two separate issues that prevent Asahi from providing complete relief.

First, plaintiffs will argue that there are minimum contacts that suffice for personal jurisdiction. They’ll argue that the manufacturers placed ads in magazines that would be seen by residents of the state. They’ll argue purposeful availment under the same factual theories that underlie the “nuisance” claims in the Weinstein litigation. Cf. GTE New Media Services v. BellSouth Corp. (D.C. 2000) (plaintiff entitled to discovery whether defendant, while not physically present in District, intended for District residents to do business with it and caused injury within District); LaMarca v. Pak-Mor Mfg. Co. (N.Y. 2000) (distinguishing Asahi to find personal jurisdiction). In the case of the D.C. city council law, the manufacturers may even have problems to the extent they have lobbyists in the area. A particular judge may well decide that it’s a jury issue, and many manufacturers won’t want to take that risk.

Second, even if D.C. courts do not have personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer, little stops a D.C. plaintiff from suing a gun manufacturer in a state where there is personal jurisdiction. For example, in Peterson v. BASF, Minnesota state courts applied the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act to a nationwide class; in Ysbrand v. DaimlerChrysler, Oklahoma state courts applied Michigan law. One can easily imagine a D.C. plaintiff and a well-funded attorney filing suit in Los Angeles County against a California manufacturer asking for application of D.C. law. I think, in such a circumstance, gun manufacturers have strong arguments under the principles behind Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts that, if D.C. has no personal jurisdiction over a defendant, choice-of-law principles cannot be used to apply D.C. law to the defendant in a manner consistent with due process. But the question, to my knowledge, has not yet been resolved definitively; the defendants in Peterson and Ysbrand certainly were within the personal jurisdiction of the forum whose law was applied. Cf. also the different case of Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., where a New York plaintiff was allowed to sue an Ohio/California defendant using New Hampshire courts and laws, solely for the purpose of taking advantage of a favorable statute of limitations.

In short, gun manufacturers have strong arguments for application of the Healy/Levy federalism theory should such a suit actually happen. But plaintiffs get to choose their forum, and a large part of forum-shopping is finding a forum where the courts are less likely to resolve issues of law in favor of the defendant. The advantage of an immunity law is that it removes that uncertainty.

I’ve opened comments on the narrow question of the interrelationship between personal jurisdiction and choice of law. Please keep discussion civil and limited to this issue.

Update:David Hardy provides another example.

Update: Blockbuster late fees

To settle litigation filed by the attorneys general of 47 states, the Blockbuster video chain

has agreed to take down the “No Late Fees” signs in its video stores. Customers will continue to pay extra to rent movies for longer than a week — but Blockbuster won’t call that a late fee.

It will be a “restocking” fee or something similar.

The company also agreed to make refunds available for some customers who paid under the earlier policy, and to pay $630,000 to the state AGs for their pains. New Hampshire and Vermont declined to join the action, with the head of consumer protection in New Hampshire explaining that there hadn’t been complaints from his state’s customers; New Jersey continues to pursue its own suit (see Mar. 10). (Michael D. Sorkin, “Blockbuster settles case over signs advertising no late fees”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Mar. 30; Peter Lewis, “State settles Blockbuster late-fee allegations”, Seattle Times, Mar. 30; “N.H. opts out of Blockbuster late fees settlement”, Portsmouth Herald News, Mar. 31).

Lawsuit cash advances

The mushrooming “legal finance” industry offers to advance injury claimants cash on the barrel, to be repaid only if their suits are successful. Some firms have charged effective interest rates exceeding 100 percent a year, but the business generally operates beyond the reach of moneylending laws and has mostly escaped the sort of hostile attention that has been directed at say, the payday loan industry and its alleged “predatory lending“. That may be changing, however. New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer (who says he gets only unflattering attention in this space?) has reached settlements calling for clearer disclosure of fees from at least ten litigation-cash-advance firms, including one based in New Jersey which billed a client $19,000 for a cash advance of $3,000 two and a half years earlier, later accepting a smaller sum. (Joseph P. Fried, “Waiting To Settle a Lawsuit? Beware of Cash Advances”, New York Times, Apr. 4). For a glimpse of how the business sometimes works, see Barbara Ross, “Costly trip for Zongo family”, New York Daily News, Feb. 14.

More: Financial Rounds (Apr. 5) points out that we shouldn’t assume the legal finance company is actually pocketing an extraordinarily high overall return on its cash advances since in cases where client/plaintiffs obtain neither a verdict nor a settlement it will lose the money. Fair enough; but once again suggestive of the near-parallel with subprime lenders, many of which also must write off a nontrivial share of debt holdings as uncollectable. Do legal finance companies (which of course can screen for case “collateral” based on quality) in fact suffer a rate of nonpayment that much exceeds that of so-called predatory lenders? It would be interesting to find out.

N.J. appeals court: parents can’t waive kids’ rights

A New Jersey appellate panel, split 2-1, has ruled that parents can’t sign a legally binding waiver of their kids’ right to sue a skateboard park for injuries. And kids can’t sign such a waiver either. If the result is that one or another recreational activity just isn’t offered to kids at all, well, tough noogies. Appeal is likely, but for now the message is: your family’s right to sue is far too important to let you decide whether to give it away. And quit that muttering about “choice”, bud; we’re making the choices around here. (Henry Gottlieb, “Parents Can’t Waive Child’s Right to Sue for Skateboard Park Injuries”, New Jersey Law Journal, Mar. 24). For more on kids’ recreation, follow these links as well as the many newer links on our personal responsibility page.