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).
Posts Tagged ‘personal responsibility’
AEI: Who Is to Blame for Obesity?
A webcast of today’s American Enterprise Institute panel on obesity and lifestyle litigation is now on-line. I spoke at the second panel, moderated by AEI’s Michael Greve, along with activists Richard Daynard and Alison Rein, and Thomas Haynes of the Coca-Cola Bottlers’ Association. Todd Zywicki moderated an earlier panel on empirical research on the causes of obesity.
Garage jumping
By reader acclaim: “Teenagers in Orlando, Fla., are leaping between 80-foot high public parking garages in a new trend called ‘garage jumping.'” And when some of them fail to make it from one structure to the other, what do you think happens next? Right-o: attorney Vincent D’Assaro is now “filing a lawsuit against the city of Orlando and the private garage owner” on behalf of Tim Bargfrede, 18, who fell six stories and was knocked unconscious on impact after a failed jump. D’Assaro says the fence was “very, very short” and inadequate to prevent a teen from (deliberately) making the jump. The family says “both garages need to take responsibility”, it being apparently too much to expect young Bargfrede to do so. (“Teens Leaping For Thrills In ‘Garage Jumping’ Trend”, Local6.com (WKMG-TV), Mar. 1; “Teen survives six-story fall from garage”, St. Petersburg Times, Jan. 1).
Pittsburgh RR crossing case
Accept cookies? [Y/N/Sue]
Hundreds of blogs have noted the case from Durango, Colo. (see our Feb. 4 post) in which Wanita Renea Young sued teenagers Taylor Ostergaard and Lindsey Jo Zellitti, who’d baked homemade cookies, delivered them to various homes including Young’s as a surprise, and in doing so scared Young by banging on her door at 10:30 p.m., causing her an anxiety attack. A selection of comments:
* “I find it a bit amusing that the lady is claiming that the banging on the door made her think that burglars were present…we all know how burglars knock before entering…” (commenter Mark Noonan at Dean Esmay)
* “Young said she believes that the girls should not have been running from door to door late at night. “Something bad could have happened to them,” she said.
Something bad….yeah, like getting sued!” (all-encompassingly)
* “I hate articles like this. You can’t get any decent coverage of a legal issue unless it’s coming from a legal source. … We can’t fairly critique [the judge’s] decision because we don’t know what evidence it was based on. We don’t know what evidence it was based on because the article is clearly and fundamentally biased in favor of the defendants.” (Drew Vogel of the Terminus blog, commenting at Dean Esmay)
* “The karmic beauty, of course, is that for $900 this lady will be known the world over for fifteen minutes of ignominy and a couple of decent girls will wind up on the talk show circuit or have some good material for college essays.” (commenter docpops at Metafilter)
A sampling of others (warning, serious rudeness in some): BoingBoing, Ben Kepple, WizBang, RajeRant (“It’s times like this that I’m ashamed to be a lawyer”), Cliffs of Insanity, FishTown Chatter, Distorted Perspective, Ambulance Down.
Triple Play of Lawsuits
As I reported over on Sports Law (Feb. 1) and is also reported on Common Good (scroll down), disgruntled parents should beware the potential wrath of their children’s coaches. Parent Marc Martinez was not happy with his son’s baseball coach, John Emme, and filed a lawsuit against him “alleging that [coach Emme] hurt his son’s chances at a college baseball scholarship” by forcing him to throw too many pitches and by making “derogatory comments about [his] pitching ability to potential college coaches.” ( Martinez’s son had a 4-7 record that year.) The case received both local and national media attention and Martinez was not kind in his descriptions of Emme. So, Emme countersued for damage to his reputation. The jury favored Emme, dismissing Martinez’s claims against him and awarding the coach $700,000. Said one juror, “I think this should send a message to parents.” (Dave McKibben, “Corona del Mar High Coach Big Winner in Slander Suit,” L.A. Times, Jan. 28).
Train crash worsened his drinking: $8.5 million payout
“A train conductor won an $8.5 million settlement from a railroad after claiming that a 2002 collision between his commuter train and a freight train worsened his alcoholism. Patrick Phillips, 52, contended that a mild concussion suffered in the crash triggered a desire for alcohol that transformed him from a ‘controlled’ alcoholic into one who drank himself into malnutrition and eventual dementia, his lawyer said. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway confirmed Tuesday that it settled the case out of court.” (AP/Lakeland Ledger, Feb. 2; Dan Weikel, “Conductor’s Crash Suit Is Settled”, L.A. Times, Feb. 2).
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.
Dillard’s pays $15M to settle escalator suit
Dillard’s has agreed to pay $15 million to the family of a young girl who lost three fingers when they became trapped in an escalator in one of its Florida stores. At the time of the settlement, the jury had already awarded the family $9.4 million in compensatory damages and was about to hear evidence in the punitive damage phase. The department store chain admitted some liability for the accident, because the escalator had a history of catching shoppers’ shoes. (“Dillard’s must pay $9 million to girl maimed by escalator, South Florida Sun Sentinel,” Feb. 1)
The jury, however, assigned only fifteen percent of the blame to the little girl’s mother, who left her five year-old unsupervised in the store. At the time of the incident, the girl was playing on the down escalator, running and jumping up it in the wrong direction. She slipped while doing so and her fingers became trapped. (Jamie Thompson, “Dillard’s blames escalator accident on girl’s misuse,” St. Pete Times, Jan. 28)
Apparently, some members of the jury have not seen the movie Mallrats, which clearly warns of this danger. At least two jurors wanted to give the little girl all $35 million asked by her lawyers. (Jamie Thompson, “Settlement Surprises Jurors,” St. Pete Times, Feb. 2)
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).