Posts Tagged ‘personal responsibility’

Deep pocket files: Jonathan Samuels v. Bellino Equities Boca

Jonathan Samuels employed a 52-year-old widow named Marta Pinto, who was having domestic abuse problems with her boyfriend, 79-year-old Marc Benayer. Samuels helped Pinto disengage from that relationship, which apparently upset Benayer. On a Rosh Hashana in Boca Raton, Benayer greeted Samuels at his synagogue’s services, wished him a happy new year, and asked him outside to chat; Samuels agreed, and Benayer shot Samuels twice in the back. Samuels was in intensive care for two weeks and has yet to return to work; Benayer has been charged with attempted murder. Samuels has sued Benayer (of course), but also… the owner of the shopping center that leases space to the synagogue, alleging failure to provide adequate security. (Howard Goodman, “Blaming shopping center for assault makes no sense”, Sun-Sentinel, Feb. 16).

Other Deep Pocket File entries.

Nobody is Making Sure I Get Paid Enough

The basic complaints in the suit are so common as to not really be newsworthy. Mary Sidney, COO of San Jose State University’s foundation, filed suit recently that she is underpaid vs. her white male peers who hold similar jobs. Here is the line, though, that caught me attention:

The foundation’s board of directors failed to ensure that Sidney was properly compensated, according to Sidney’s complaint.

Wow! Throw away all those “you get what you negotiate books”, there is already someone else out there that has the legal responsibility to make sure you are paid enough. Think of all the hardship I put my family through, moving them to new cities so I could take new jobs with better pay — it was all wasted effort. I should have been able to stay in one place and let my bosses take responsibility for making sure I was paid enough. (Becky Bartindale, “Suit claims salary bias” San Jose Mercury News, 2/16)

Deep pocket files: Ernst v. Chen’s Restaurant

66-year-old Daniel Ernst was paralyzed from the chest down when drunk-driving Timothy Beauregard hit him with his Oldsmobile while making a left turn. “Beauregard admitted to a criminal charge of drunken driving, seriously bodily injury resulting, the next year and received a 10-year suspended sentence with probation from Superior Court Judge Edwin J. Gale.” Beauregard wasn’t visibly drunk when Chen’s Restaurant served him a mai tai and a beer, but a jury found the restaurant 25% responsible for the accident, which puts Chen’s entirely on the $15.2 million damages hook under Rhode Island law, a detail the press account omits. (This assumes, of course, that one who drinks mai tais in Chen’s Restaurant in Westerly, Rhode Island, is not capable of paying a 75% share of a $15.2 million judgment.) (Katie Mulvaney, “Veteran hit by drunken driver nets $15.2 million”, Providence Journal, Feb. 14). Rhode Islanders Against Lawsuit Abuse will be seeking to reform the state’s joint and several liability laws this legislative session.

Mom locks kid in car, sues firemen and police

Guita Sazan Silverstein accidentally locked her toddler son in her car on a hot day. A recording of her 911 to a Stamford, Connecticut, dispatcher shows her arguing against breaking the window of the Audi to rescue her son, preferring that police “watch” the boy while she runs over a mile home for a second key. (Silverstein’s explanation is that she feared shattered glass would injure her child.) The window was broken, the boy was rescued, and Silverstein was arrested for child endangerment (allegedly when she tried to leave the scene against police orders while the rescue was pending), and now she wants to sue the city’s police and fire department over the arrest and resulting publicity. “Her attorney, Matthew Maddox said Silverstein should not have been arrested after the July 25 incident. Maddox said police and fire officials should take the blame for any delay or difficulties extracting the boy.” (Tobin A. Coleman, “Lawyer: Officials to blame for baby in car incident”, Stamford Advocate, Jan. 24; AP/Boston Globe, Jan. 24).

Canadian high court to rule on social-host liability

“The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments [last] Wednesday about a case that will decide if hosts are responsible for the behaviour of their alcohol-consuming guests. The issue stems from a 1999 New Year’s Eve drunk driving accident caused by Desmond Desormeaux, who left a house party near Ottawa after consuming 12 beers.” A victim in the subsequent crash “has been seeking compensation from Desormeaux’s hosts, Julie Zimmerman and Dwight Courrier, for letting him drive home drunk.” The Ontario courts have thus far ruled against her case. (CTV, Jan. 19). See Sept. 12, 2002. Many but not all American states have embraced social-host alcohol liability, and the topic has also stirred controversy in Australia, where the high court of the largest state, New South Wales, rejected the principle recently (Feb. 23, 2005).

Safari park gives up, fences off lions from cars

Fear of lawsuits by park guests who ignored warning signs and opened their car windows (see last Feb. 2) has had its effect:

In the competition for most feared creature, lawyers have now eclipsed lions.

If Lion Country Safari can’t stop people from opening their car windows in front of the dangerous cats, they can put up a fence to prevent a potential frightful outcome — lawsuits….Fearing an attack will cause a traumatic injury and lawsuit, the park put up a fence between the cars and the lions last month, essentially ending one of the quirky attractions of South Florida since 1967.

Once a popular family attraction around the country, most drive-through “safari” parks have now closed, “and only one in Winston, Oregon, still allows people to drive among the kings of the jungle”. (Rochelle E.B. Gilken, “At Lion Country, cats cut off from cars”, Palm Beach Post/Miami Herald, Dec. 29).

Deep pocket files: blaming banks for terrorist attacks

In the Middle East dispute, it’s not just the Left that files silly lawsuits (Mar. 16). A Hamas suicide bomber, Raed Abdul Hamid Misk, injured Tzvi Weiss in an August 19, 2003 attack. Weiss and his family seek damages—against a British bank, National Westminster Bank, and no one else. Why? Hamas receives money from a group called “the Union of Good [sic].” The Union of Good raises funds that are channeled through Interpal. And Interpal, which was designated as a terrorist organization by the United States on August 22, 2003 (three days after the suicide bombing), has some bank accounts at NatWest. (The U.K., however, where the bank is located, disagrees with the U.S. assessment, and refuses to label Interpal as a terrorist organization.) Thus, the plaintiffs seek to hold the bank (and only the bank) liable. (Carrick Mollenkamp, “Making Banks Accountable for Terror”, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 6). Why stop with banks? Why not the grocers? The AEI Liability Project has a copy of the memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss on its “Documents In The News” page. Earlier successful deep-pocket search holding innocents liable for act of terrorist: Oct. 27. Update Oct. 8: judge denies motion to dismiss.

Shouldn’t have put its berm where he wanted to skid

California: “A driver who had been drinking and admitted he took a curve too fast can sue The Newhall Land and Farming Company because his car skidded off a Valencia road and hit a berm on the firm’s land, causing his sports car to overturn. … Motorist Douglas Domel of Santa Clarita also has legal action pending against the city of Santa Clarita and the manufacturer of the 2001 Dodge Viper he was driving.” (Patricia Farrell Aidem , “Court: Driver can sue developer”, L.A. Daily News, Dec. 23). For a related case, see Nov. 7, 2003 (homeowner not liable for garden-wall crash).

“How To Increase Liberty In America”

National Review’s 50th Anniversary Issue is on the newsstands (table of contents) and one of its features is a mini-symposium by ten writers on the topic “How To Increase Liberty In America” (more: “Corner”, Jacob Sullum at Reason “Hit and Run”, criticizing Robert Bork’s entry). I’m one of the contributors; my piece calls for reviving the vital old principle of assumption of risk in our courts. The piece is online to subscribers only at the moment.

Speaking of symposium entries that are online to subscribers only: the October issue of The American Lawyer ran a supplement on the cost of litigation, again with contributions from numerous authors. My piece focused on the cost of the discovery (information-demanding) phase of lawsuits.

At some future date I may get around to posting these pieces. In the mean time, readers should consider supporting both these fine publications, whether by subscribing or by buying single copies.