Posts Tagged ‘New Jersey’

“Cultural training required for doctors”

Paging Sally Satel: Acting New Jersey Gov. Richard J. Codey last week signed into law legislation requiring doctors to receive so-called cultural competency training as a condition of obtaining or renewing their licenses to practice medicine. The measure is apparently the first of its kind, but advocates are pushing similar measures in other states as well. (Shawn Rhea, Camden Courier-Post, Mar. 24). Background: Sally Satel and Jonathan Klick, “Don’t Despair Over Disparities”, Weekly Standard, Mar. 1, 2004, reprinted at Satel’s site.

Richard Kreimer rides again

New Jersey: “A homeless man who sued and received $230,000 after being ejected from a library in Morris County is now suing NJ Transit for kicking him and other homeless people out of train stations.” Richard Kreimer, who has filed many suits over the years, is asking for $5 million. (“Homeless man who sued library takes on NJ Transit”, AP/Asbury Park Press, Mar. 15; John Cichowski, “Some riders wear suits, some file them”, Hackensack Record, Mar. 15; Ronald Smothers, “Homeless Gadfly Returns, Warming Up Lawsuits”, New York Times, Jan. 21). “‘As soon as you walk into a train station and you look like a bum, the cops come right over to you,’ Kreimer said.” (“Homeless Man At Home In Court”, New York Post, Mar. 15). For more background, see John Cichowski, “Duffel-bag lawyer takes on the City of Brotherly Shove”, Hackensack Record, Feb. 26, 2004. Update Feb. 25, 2006: Kreimer obtains settlement from bus company.

New England sledding

From north of Boston: “The Norman Rockwell image of children sledding in New England snow is being replaced by a snowy hill with a ‘No Trespassing’ sign posted. In many cases, golf courses offer the best sledding in town, but higher insurance rates — and in some cases a refusal to insure — have pushed many golf course managers to ban the traditional winter activity.” (David Rattigan, “This winter, sledders finding it a tough go”, Boston Globe, Jan. 6)(via Common Good Society Watch). For similar reports from New Jersey, see Jan. 28.

More on the $105 million Aramark verdict

We previously reported (Jan. 21) on Daniel Lanzaro’s drunk driving accident litigation; the little girl he paralyzed won a $105 million verdict against Aramark over beer sales at Giants Stadium because Lanzaro did some of his drinking there that day, in part by bribing a beer vendor to ignore Aramark’s two-beer-per-purchase rules. (Before the game, Lanzaro purchased a six-pack of Heineken; he did some drinking at two strip-clubs after the game, as well.) The New Jersey Law Journal has more on the case:

  • The NFL defendants settled for $700,000, despite prevailing on a summary judgment motion;
  • Judge Richard Donohue excluded evidence that Antonia Verni’s father might have prevented the injuries to his daughter had he put the two-year-old in a car seat rather than an adult seat-belt;
  • Verni also sued Toyota; Verni’s Corolla didn’t fare well when Lanzaro’s pickup slammed into it head-on, and Toyota paid $190,000 to get out of the case;
  • There’s collateral litigation to be had among plaintiffs’ family members and sets of lawyers over who gets the money. And, of course, there will be an appeal.

As previously reported, the judge also excluded evidence of Lanzaro’s two previous drunk-driving arrests. (Henry Gottlieb, “In Wake of Record $105M Verdict, Fee Fights and Coverage Contests Emerge”, Feb. 2; Wayne Coffey, “Wasted Innocence”, NY Daily News, Jan. 30; Kibret Markos, “Expert backs beer vendor”, The Record, Jan. 12). As famous sportswriter/treacle-author Mitch Albom notes, “Either your stadium goes dry, or people will leave drunk.”

A correction: we previously reported that the entire $135 million verdict was awarded against Aramark; in fact, $30 million of the verdict is damages against the drunk driver, Daniel Lanzaro, who had already settled for the limits of his insurance coverage. Aramark’s share is $30 million compensatory, $75 million punitive, and about $6-7 million in interest, with the interest continuing to accumulate. After he settled with the plaintiffs, Lanzaro changed his story to be more favorable to the Vernis’ case. (Ana M. Alaya, “Lawyer for Giants Stadium beer vendor loses bid for mistrial”, Newark Star-Ledger, Jan. 13).

An additional thought: A big argument for plaintiffs at trial was the claim that Aramark, which serves to the two million or so fans who attend football games at Giants stadium each year, had been averaging about seven complaints a year for selling beer to drunks, but only took disciplinary action a fraction of the time. The press hasn’t covered Aramark’s response to this assertion, but one wonders if fear of employment litigation stayed its hand. Earlier damned-if-you, damned-if-you-don’t files include Aug. 30.

Another point: A reader writes to note that Aramark was probably selling watered-down beer, which would be further evidence that post-game drinking was responsible for Lanzaro’s .266 blood-alcohol level, though, again, it shouldn’t matter: Aramark didn’t make the guy drive drunk.

Sorry, kids, no sledding

“Choosing safety over tradition, legal fears over downhill thrills, some local governments, including [New Jersey’s] Camden and Gloucester Counties, have banned sledding in their parks.” Phillipsburg, N.J., in Warren County, has had a ban on its books for more than a decade but only began enforcing it recently following a $150,000 payout over a boy’s broken leg. “As a result, it was thought prudent by the insurance company to put signs up saying sleigh-riding is prohibited,” said town attorney Joel Kobert. “Nobody wants to deny a child the ability to play in the snow, but you sanction it in today’s world at substantial cost.” In Greenwich, Ct., which lost a $6 million lawsuit last year to a high-income resident injured while sledding, they haven’t banned the pastime, but that’s probably because the town is among the nation’s most affluent, and can afford to pay an insurance bill and deductible that nearly doubled after the sledding case and other courtroom losses. (Christine Schiavo, “Sledders are finding it tough to hit the slopes”, Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 26).

$105 million against stadium beer vendor

Servers at Giants Stadium in northern New Jersey sold beer to a highly intoxicated patron, so a jury has ordered Aramark, the beer concessionaire, to pay $30 million in compensatory and $75 million in punitive damages to pay for the later acts of the drunkard, who after leaving the game drove off into a catastrophic accident. (Ana M. Alaya, “Jury adds $75 million penalty for beer seller”, Newark Star-Ledger, Jan. 20; David Voreacos, “Aramark loses big in lawsuit”, Bloomberg/Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 20). The plaintiff’s lawyer in the case (see Oct. 10, 2003) had asked for damages against the National Football League and the Giants as well, but according to KipEsquire (Jan. 20) those claims were dismissed, or else the award might have been really big. Correction: the jury’s compensatory verdict was split $30 million against Aramark and $30 million against the drunk driver; we originally reported that the entire award was against Aramark, but have fixed the references above.

More: New Jersey Law Journal, Jan. 21, reports that the NFL and Giants paid an undisclosed settlement to be let out of the case, though they also prevailed on a summary judgment motion; and it turns out that Daniel Lanzaro of Cresskill, N.J., the drunk driver, drank at a club with friends after leaving the stadium but before getting into the crash. Yet more: AP adds that “The NFL forbids beer sales after the third quarter, and the Giants close beer concessions at the start of the third quarter. The stadium also mandates that fans can buy only two beers at a time, but the Vernis’ lawyers contend that Lanzaro sidestepped that rule by giving the vendor a $10 tip and was allowed to buy six beers.” And according to the New York Post, “Giants Stadium officials intend to aggressively monitor tailgating and drinking” (emphasis added) in the aftermath of the verdict. Update: Feb. 2.

Common Good “Gatekeeper Awards”

Philip Howard’s Common Good organization has announced (Dec. 16) its second annual Gatekeeper Awards for judges who rule inappropriate litigation out of court. (For the first round, see May 12, 2004). Winners this year include:

* An Indianapolis judge who ruled against an attempt to sue a cell phone company over an accident that a driver got into while using a cell phone;

* A New Mexico judge who, citing the privileges arising from the constitutional separation of church and state, refused to allow a surviving family to sue a Roman Catholic priest over allegedly insensitive remarks at a funeral which they said implied that the deceased was headed for Hell;

* A New Jersey judge who refused to allow a suit for negligent parental supervision after a five-year-old boy accidentally collided with and injured an sixteen-month-old girl at a block party;

* A Connecticut Supreme Court judge who wrote an opinion rejecting the doctrine of “self-compelled publication” in employment law, under which dismissed workers sue over injury to their reputation arguing that, whether or not their former employer has said anything damaging about them to outsiders, they have been obliged to spread the defamatory allegations themselves in the course of explaining themselves to potential future employers (see Aug. 10, 1999).

“Judge to hubby: forget prenup, pay up”

Donna Austin, 37 at the time, signed a prenuptial agreement waiving alimony before marrying Craig Austin back in 1989, in what was a second marriage for both parties. Nonetheless, a Massachusetts appeals court has decided that her alimony waiver is “unreasonable” and will not be enforced. A lawyer for Craig Austin says his client plans appeal and says Donna Austin benefited substantially from the division of property assets from the marriage. (David Weber, Boston Herald, Dec. 30). And the New Jersey Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether Craig Caplan, who retired in his 30s with a so-called silver parachute, should be obliged to return to the work force to pay increased child support, thus sparing his ex-wife Sandra the need to dip into her $2.4 million divorce settlement; for more on the “imputed-income” doctrine, see Sept. 18, 2003 (Michael Booth, “In Divorce Case, Early Retiree Gets Tangled in Silver Parachute”, New Jersey Law Journal, Oct. 6).

Suing car dealers

Litigation against auto dealers has gotten better-organized and more entrepreneurial, according to a report in the trade publication FastTrack.

“We probably have 12 to 13 lawyers down here who make their living solely on suing auto dealers,” says Ted Smith, Executive Director of the Florida Auto Dealers Association. “The Florida litigation environment for dealers is an evolving nightmare. It is a norm to see an attorney bring a case for damages of $10,000 and a court award of $200,000 in attorneys’ fees. There is no way to stop the trial lawyer from churning fees even [in] small damages cases.”

California lawyers invoked the state’s famously broad consumer-protection laws to sue about 1,200 auto dealers for sins that included using the wrong font size in ads or using the acronym “A.P.R” instead of spelling out “Annual Percentage Rate”. Dealers were graciously afforded the chance to settle for $10,000 apiece. (Matt Pinnell, “Hunt for the Frivolous Lawsuit”, FastTrack (AIADA), Fall). And New Jersey lawyers have hit nearly every dealership in the state with class actions alleging excessive or poorly disclosed fees for vehicle registration and other services; settlements have been controversial, however, for providing juicy fees to the lawyers while affording consumers only coupons. (Charles Toutant, “Car-Dealer Class Actions: Coupons for Clients, Big Bucks for Lawyers”, New Jersey Law Journal, Nov. 3).