Animal rights activists on the march against owners and breeders of dogs and other animals in Bozeman, Montana, and Albuquerque, New Mexico (Stephen Bodio’s Querencia, May 24).
Posts Tagged ‘New Mexico’
Update: judge lifts Letterman restraining order
New Mexico state judge Daniel Sanchez last Tuesday agreed to a request by David Letterman’s lawyers to lift a restraining order previously entered on behalf of a Santa Fe woman who had accused the TV host “of using special code words such as ‘Oprah’ to woo her into marriage” (see Dec. 22, Dec. 23) (Stephen M. Silverman, “‘Absurd’ Letterman Restraining Order Tossed”, People, Dec. 28). Some comments: Wendy McElroy, Third Edge of the Sword, Meryl Yourish, In the Lion’s Den.
Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s coffee case
Thirteen courts have reported opinions looking at product-liability/failure-to-warn claims alleging that coffee was “unreasonably dangerous” and the provider was thus liable when the plaintiff spilled coffee on him- or herself. Twelve courts correctly threw the case out. Another trial court in New Mexico, however, didn’t, and became a national icon when the jury claimed that Stella Liebeck deserved $2.9 million in compensatory and punitive damages because McDonald’s dared to sell the 79-year-old hot 170-degree coffee.
The case is ludicrous on its face, as a matter of law and as a matter of common sense. Eleven years later, this should be beyond debate, yet somehow, it keeps coming up in the blogs, and we keep having to refute it. (Dec. 10, 2003, Aug. 3, 2004, Aug. 4, 2004).
Amazingly, rather than argue that the tort system shouldn’t be judged by the occasional outlier, the litigation lobby has succeeded in persuading some in the media and on the left that the Liebeck case is actually an aspirational result for the tort system, and, not only that, but that anyone who says otherwise is just a foolish right-winger buying into “urban legends” (Aug. 14, Aug. 16, and links therein). Even the Mikkelsons at snopes.com have made the mistake of buying into the trial lawyer hype, calling the case “perfectly legitimate” and effectively classifying the common-sense understanding of the case as an urban legend.
But the real urban legend has to be that the case has any legitimacy. Worse, this urban legend is being taught to a generation of law students by professors like Jonathan Turley and Michael McCann. Now, any peripheral mention of the McDonald’s coffee case provokes a gigantic backlash from the left, who, while congratulating themselves on their seeing past the common-sense view of the case and being above urban legends, spread a number of urban legends of their own about the case. Witness the 200-plus comment outpouring at Kevin Drum’s Political Animal blog. This post provides a partial rebuttal to some of the things said in that thread, and will hopefully serve as a FAQ in the future.
In N.M. for now, no “Right To Eat Enchiladas”
By enacting “cheeseburger bills” (see Mar. 13, Mar. 17 and Dec. 3, 2004) state legislators can attempt to make clear (in case courts had any doubt about the matter) that there is no cause of action against food purveyors for causing obesity in those who partake of their wares. Such bills have been making progress around the country, with 12 state legislatures enacting them in 2004 and others likely to follow this year. New Mexico, however, will not be among those states: both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee have voted to shelve the idea on narrow party-line votes, with Democrats opposed to the legislation and Republicans in favor. “I don’t dispute the idea of personal responsibility, but I dispute the notion that any tort action is on its face frivolous,” said Rep. Gail Beam (D-Albuquerque), who chairs the House consumer committee. The bill had earlier passed the Senate Consumer and Public Affairs Committee. Its sponsors, Sen. Steve Komadina (R-Corrales) and Rep. Terry Marquardt (R-Alamogordo), had given it a locally adaptive title: the “Right To Eat Enchiladas Act”. (“Legislative roundup”, The New Mexican (Santa Fe), Feb. 23; Erin Madigan, “‘Cheeseburger’ bills fill state lawmakers’ plates”, Stateline.org, Feb. 15).
Forum-shopping your defamation case?
Consider scenic New Mexico, which runs an extra-long statute of limitations and thus will welcome claims extinct elsewhere. The tactic didn’t work, however, for ex-Congressional wife Carolyn Condit, who went there to sue USA Today to escape other states’ limits on stale claims. Unfortunately for her case, she could offer no evidence that the allegedly libelous article had circulated in N.M., “since only the first edition of USA Today was distributed in the state and the story appeared only in the second edition,” as AP noted; a federal judge accordingly threw out her suit last August for lack of jurisdiction (“Judge dismisses libel suit by wife of Gary Condit”, AP/North County Times, Aug. 5, via CalBlog, Jan. 14 and Jan. 26). For New Mexico forum-shopping by the plaintiffs in the “Dazed and Confused” case, see Ted’s Oct. 12 post (also Dec. 8). For more details on the lack of connection of that case to New Mexico, see the memorandum of defendants in support of motion to dismiss (courtesy Courthouse News (PDF)).
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).
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.
Canada: no psychic-trauma damages for rescuer
“A former Canadian sailor will not be allowed to sue Swissair for the trauma he suffered following the crash of Flight 111 in 1998, a Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge ruled today. Lorne Joudrey, 40, had argued that the airline should compensate him for the psychological damage that resulted from his role in the recovery operation in the days after the jet plunged into the ocean near Peggy’s Cove, N.S., killing all 229 people aboard.” (“Ex-sailor can’t sue Swissair over trauma”, Canadian Press/Toronto Star, Jul. 7). For a similar ruling from a federal judge in New Mexico, see Apr. 1.
Parents yes, governments no
Fuhgeddaboudit, Bill Bennett: “grandstanding politicos seem intent on getting the government into the business of censorship. … It has been said that when Democrats start talking about children, it’s time to hide your wallet; when Republicans start talking about children, it’s time to TIVO the good stuff for posterity.” (Prof. Bainbridge, Jun. 4; Adam Thierer, National Review Online, Jun. 4). And another parent, this time a New Mexico resident with a 12-year-old boy, has been menaced by authorities with child abuse charges for taking his child off Ritalin, the antidepressant drug (Brian Robinson, “Pills vs. Talking: Dad Investigated for Taking Son Off Meds”, ABC News, Jun. 7). For an earlier case along the same lines, see Jul. 26-27, 2000. (via Wizbang). Sydney Smith has more (Jun. 8).
Karma ran over his dogma, cont’d
More petard-hoisting: “A champion of Berkeley rent control was ordered last week to pay his former tenants more than $100,000 in restitution by the very rent board he campaigned to create. By a unanimous vote, the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board found that Michael Berkowitz, a paid aide to Councilmember Maudelle Shirek, had willfully misrepresented his residency status at his 2820 Derby St. property to skirt rent control. Berkowitz also works in a second position as chief of information services and neighborhood planning for the City of San Francisco.” (Matthew Artz, “Rent Board Orders Council Aide To Repay Overcharged Tenants”, Berkeley Daily Planet, Feb. 27)(via Myria who had it from Classical Values). And this just in: Republican Joe Thompson, the minority whip of the New Mexico House of Representatives, “was charged with drunken driving, hours after attending a bill-signing ceremony to highlight the state’s newest effort to crack down on DWI offenders.” (“Lawmaker arrested for drunken driving after attending anti-DWI ceremony”, AP/San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 4)