- Remember that ludicrous case where the Florida driver fell asleep, crashed his Ford Explorer, his passenger was killed, and a jury blamed Ford to the tune of $61 million? (See also Sep. 10.) A Florida court got around to reversing it, though only to grant a new trial under a variety of erroneous evidentiary rulings that prejudiced Ford, rather than because the suit was too silly to ever conceivably win in a just society. The remand goes back to the same judge that let the suit go forward and committed multiple reversible errors in favor of the plaintiff. [Ford Motor v. Hall-Edwards (Fla. App. Nov. 7, 2007); Krauss @ Point of Law; Daily Business Review; Bloomberg/Boston Globe]
- Not really a man-bites-dog story, but Geoffrey Fieger (Aug. 25 and rather often otherwise) speaks. [ABA Journal]
- Uh-oh: Former litigator hired to invest $100m in court cases for UK hedge fund. [Times Online]
- The real NatWest Three deal. [Kirkendall; July 2006 in Overlawyered]
- Homeowners fined $347,000 for trimming trees without a permit—after the Glendale Fire Department sent them a notice telling them to trim their trees for being a fire hazard. (h/t Slim) [Consumerist]
- Disclaimers at children’s birthday parties (h/t BC) [Publishers Weekly]
- British Christmas parades handcuffed by litigation fears. (h/t F.R.) [Telegraph]
- Underlawyered in Saudi Arabia: A “19-year-old Saudi gang-rape victim was recently sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail for being in a car with an unrelated male when the attack occurred. Last week, her lawyer was disbarred for objecting too vociferously.” [Weekly Standard]
- Don’t forget to vote for us at the ABA Journal Blawg 100.
Posts Tagged ‘personal responsibility’
Deep pockets file: Kristin Rossum murder case
You may recall the case of De Villers v. County of San Diego (Mar. 2006; Jul. 2006). Kristin Rossum was found guilty of poisoning husband Gregory de Villers and trying to make his death look like a suicide; his family sued both Rossum and her employer, the county of San Diego, and a jury found that Rossum was only 75% responsible, but that still put taxpayers on the hook for $1.5 million. An appellate court has stepped in to belatedly throw out the case against the County. (via On Point)
Federici v. U-Haul
Here is an interesting but tragic case currently in trial in King County, Washington. Maria Federici, a then 24-year-old woman was gravely injured when an entertainment center flew from a U-Haul trailer attached to a vehicle operated by another motorist. It smashed through the windshield of Federici’s following vehicle, striking her in the face crushing every bone in it. She suffered blindness and permanent disfigurement. Media accounts are here, here and here.
I’m not posting to criticize Federici’s suit per se. It has noteworthy flaws to be sure–for instance there is evidence suggesting her blood alcohol content (BAC) was above the legal limit while she was driving, but the BAC was obtained under circumstances suggesting the results were unreliable (the injury trauma and resultant blood loss may have affected the BAC.) And her boss testified that she had only one glass of wine prior to the accident. Notably, the court disallowed the BAC evidence at trial.
So, Federici sues the motorist who failed to tie down the entertainment center, U-Haul and the rental company for alleged design flaws in the trailer and alleged negligent rental practices. Okay, so the motorist can own up for his negligence and U-Haul and the agency can own up for theirs, right? Not so fast. Washington State allows for a fault-free plaintiff to recover all damages from any defendant even 1% at fault.
With or without evidence of intoxication I wonder if Federici could have avoided anything flying toward her while traveling at freeway speeds. So, let’s assume the jury assigns her zero fault. That leaves 100% of potential fault for the defendants. Now, if you read the media accounts it seems to me that the motorist carries the majority of any fault for failing to secure his load, causing the accident. But, who has the deepest pockets? Let me help you: it’s not the motorist.
The plaintiff attorney in this instance will pull out the stops–do anything–to implicate U-Haul, and to a lesser extent the rental agency for any little amount of liability they can so that his client can collect the entire judgment from them (I suspect U-Haul has sufficient assets; the rental agency, if the Mom-and-Pop type, maybe not.) I don’t blame the plaintiff’s attorney, really–he has to advocate his client’s interests. But, it shows how twisted and wrongheaded the joint & several statute is in Washington. Nothing against Federici here, she’s suffered enough. But I struggle with holding some people accountable for damages caused by others. Does this make any sense to you?
Let’s look at the Mission Statement for the American Association for Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America):
The Mission of the American Association for Justice is to promote a fair and effective justice system – and to support the work of attorneys in their efforts to ensure that any person who is injured by the misconduct or negligence of others can obtain justice in America’s courtrooms, even when taking on the most powerful interests.
I’m all for that! Especially that part that says “fair”. Is it fair to hold a 1% wrongdoer accountable for 100% of the damages? If so, why? Because I don’t agree and I’d like to know if I’m wrong. And, I just know the AAJ would scream bloody murder if anyone tried to amend that statute.
Welcome to West Virginia: Joe Meadows v. Go-Mart
Joe Meadows was drunk. Very drunk. 0.296 percent blood-alcohol content drunk, 12 or 13 beers worth. Fortunately, he didn’t drive in that state. Unfortunately, he chose to sleep it off by resting under a parked 18-wheel truck. More unfortunately, the driver, Doug Rader, who didn’t check to see whether there might be drunks lying under his truck at 1:40 a.m., ran over Meadows. Rader had EMT training, and was able to save Meadows’s life, but Meadows lost a leg, and sued both the truck company and the store that owned the parking lot. A Kanawha County jury decided that Meadows was only a third responsible for his injury, which means he “only” gets two thirds of the three million dollars they awarded. (Since Meadows had only asked for $2.3 million, one detects nullification to get around the fact that he was found partially responsible.) Plaintiffs’ attorneys Jesse Forbes, Bill Forbes and Roger Decanio state they are “pleased” with the verdict. (Vic Sprouse, “West Virginia isn’t a judicial hellhole? Tell that to Go-Mart”, West Virginia Record, Oct. 10; Andrew Clevenger, “Hernshaw man awarded $2 million in loss-of-leg case”, Charleston Gazette, Oct. 4; Cheryl Caswell, “Jury awards $3 million to man who had leg torn off by tractor-trailer”, Charleston Daily Mail, Oct. 4).
Emily Bazelon on personal responsibility
Slate’s Emily Bazelon doesn’t read the owners’ manual for her car, does something the owners’ manual explicitly says not to do—recline a seat in a moving car—and hurts herself. Bazelon blames… the automaker and NHTSA for not doing more to warn her, and serves as a mouthpiece for plaintiffs’ lawyers who specialize in such arguments, lionizing one who won a $59 million verdict against Toyota for his client’s own foolhardiness.
The NHTSA official Bazelon talks to points out that she’s taking one safety issue out of context; Bazelon pooh-poohs it because, after all, it happened to her and some other people, too! But Bazelon ignores that there are several dozen other dangerous problems addressed in the owners’ manual, many of which would kill or injure far more passengers than reclined drivers’ seats. One cannot just look at the idea of putting a single additional sticker on the dashboard: the car would have to be literally wallpapered with additional warnings to cover every warning of a matter at least as hazardous as car-seat reclining, at which point we’re back to the problem of owners ignoring warnings. Bazelon simply fails to address this reality.
But, hey, I’ll join Bazelon in telling you: don’t recline your car seat in a moving vehicle. (Long-time Overlawyered readers already know this from two separate posts.) Also, don’t drive with your windows open, your doors unlocked, or your seatbelt unfastened. Reattach your gas cap after filling the tank. Look behind you and ensure the path is clear before going in reverse. Keep your eyes on the road. Don’t pass a car in a no-pass zone or drive twice the speed-limit. Sit up straight, especially in a front seat with airbags. Don’t have loose heavy objects (including unbelted passengers) in the passenger compartment of the car. Don’t permit children to play with power windows; don’t leave children unattended in a car that is on; don’t leave the car on when you’re not in it; don’t try to jump into a moving vehicle. Don’t leave your shoes loose while driving. Be careful when shifting gears. Do not violently swerve an SUV, especially if there are unbelted passengers. Always be aware of the danger of pedal misapplication. Don’t fall asleep while driving. Don’t drive recklessly, and if you do, don’t leave the road. Use your parking brake when you park. Replace a tire after repeatedly patching it; don’t drive on bald tires in the rain; and replace your ten-year old tires before you have to drive on a spare. Make sure your floor mat isn’t interfering with the pedals. Don’t drive into the back of a truck at 60 mph without braking. Et cetera.
(And welcome, Instapundit readers. Check out our vast selection of automobile and personal responsibility articles.)
Cheater’s Poetic Justice / Guestblogger Sendoff
Check out this story about a man’s alleged infidelity exposed after 1-800-FLOWERS mailed him a thank you note for flowers he purchased his girlfriend. His wife found the note, called the florist who faxed the receipt detailing the recipient.
So, she files for divorce and he sues 1-800-FLOWERS for breach of contract for revealing the relationship. Now, I don’t suppose this claim has much jury appeal–a cheat asking for money? A million dollars? His attorney frames the issue this way:
Infidelity is one of the things that would qualify as a pendulum-swinger in a divorce case. And now the wife has cold, hard evidence, and it is solely because of 1-800-FLOWERS.
It may be the florist’s fault she has the evidence but it’s “solely because of” him that he did it. So much for personal responsibility. I wonder how many taxpayer dollars will be wasted in this litigation.
My guestblogging stint here is over, and I really enjoyed it! Thank you Walter Olson! I part with this quote, a compliment to the fine attorneys I have and continue to work with:
If I have seen further [than others] it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.
Sir Isaac Newton 1642-1727
Norway: “Killer claims compensation”
It’s your fault for letting me go: “A man who wildly stabbed fellow passengers on board an Oslo tram three years ago is now seeking compensation from the state. He claims he never should have been released from psychiatric care just days before he went amok, and his victim’s own mother agrees.” (Nina Berglund, Aftenposten, Aug. 24).
In Alabama, the tusks are looser II
We covered this case back in June 2005, and updated it July 27. Now, via Volokh, read Adam Scales on how a dentist assaulted a patient and won a million dollars, Part I and Part II. (Update: And further comment from our guest blogger, Jason Barney.)
Update: and excellent and lengthy analysis from David Rossmiller.
West Virginia Supreme Court benchslap
Above the Law calls opinions where judges criticize one another “benchslaps,” and there’s a doozy of one in West Virginia, made all the sweeter by the appropriateness of the facts for Overlawyered.
Robert Cleavenger and Marissa Strahin were lovers, but at some point the relationship ended. Strahin, pregnant with Cleavenger’s child, moved in with Earl Sullivan in Braxton County, West Virginia. This perturbed Cleavenger, who decided to resolve the matter with a high-powered rifle. Thinking discretion the better of valor, Sullivan fled his property in a car, taking Strahin and her brother, Daniel Strahin, with him. Cleavenger pursued, and fired at the fleeing car, hitting Daniel in the arm.
Now the lawyers enter the picture. In 1999, Daniel Strahin and his parents sued Cleavenger and his parents, and also sued Sullivan on the grounds that it was foreseeable that Cleavenger would come after people on Sullivan’s property. The Strahins demanded that Sullivan’s insurers settle for insurance limits; they refused. The Strahins then conspired with Sullivan for the latter to assign a “bad-faith” claim to the plaintiffs in exchange for a covenant not to execute on any judgment against him. A sham of a trial took place, and a jury awarded over a million dollars to the Strahins, holding Cleavenger 70% responsible and Sullivan 30% responsible. The Strahins then went after Sullivan’s insurers.
West Virginia is enough of a judicial hellhole that it affirmed Sullivan’s liability (for which the insurers paid the $100,000 limit), even though there was no longer a case or controversy against him, but even West Virginia courts would not countenance the attempt to team up against the insurer for the bad-faith claim. After all, Sullivan’s assets were never at risk because he already settled with the Strahins, so there was no harm from the insurer’s refusal to settle, even if it were in bad faith.
Amazingly, Justice Larry Starcher dissented from this common-sense result. But none of the cases he cited supported his dissent. This prompted a concurrence, and the aforementioned benchslap:
“The complexity of the issue is quite evident in view of the fact that absolutely none of the fifteen string-cited cases in Mr. Strahin’s brief is on point with the facts of his case. I should note that the dissenting opinion of Justice Starcher repeats Mr. Strahin’s error, by citing to cases that are not on point with the fact pattern presented to and addressed by the majority opinion.”
In the words of the West Virginia Record, “State Supreme Court Chief Justice Robin Jean Davis lectured Justice Larry Starcher so firmly over a dissent that he probably can count it as credit for continuing education.” (Steve Korris, “Davis lectures Starcher in insurance opinion”, Aug. 16; Strahin v. Sullivan (Feb. 21 majority opinion); Starcher dissent (Jun. 29); Davis concurrence (Jul. 19)).
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t files
Over at Point of Law, guest-blogger Deborah LaFetra discusses the case of Castaneda v. Olsher, where a owner of a mobile home park was sued by a victim of gang-warfare crossfire for permitting gang members to rent space on the lot. Of course, as Pacific Legal Foundation argued (and the court held), any alternative would run afoul of California anti-discrimination law, as well as the impossibility of obtaining information protected by California privacy law.