Posts Tagged ‘taxpayers’

“Extra-special education at public expense”

The amazing industry that has sprung up to advance parents’ demands that schools accommodate their “learning-disabled” offspring is an old story around these parts (see here and here, for example). Even so, the San Francisco Chronicle’s recent investigative report can provoke a gasp:

* Even though federal, state and other sources already spend more than $4 billion a year to subsidize the provision of special education in the state of California, school districts in the state still shift more than a billion dollars out of their regular school budgets to pay for accommodation demands that include “private day schools, boarding schools, summer camps, aqua therapy, horseback therapy, travel costs, personal aides” and dolphin therapy.

* Administrators at Woodside High on the Peninsula offered a 15-year-old with learning disabilities and anxiety “daily help from a special education expert” as well as “a laptop computer, extra time for tests — and an advocate to smooth any ripples with teachers. If an anxiety attack came on, he could step out of class.” Not good enough for his parents, who decided to send him to a $30,000/year private school in Maine. Their lawyer demanded that the district pay not only the tuition but also for the whole family’s repeated cross-country travel costs to visit him there.

* Schools routinely buckle under to demands they regard as unreasonable, not only to avoid the expense of litigation but because the law tilts against them; a single procedural misstep in the hugely complicated process can leave them liable for damages and hefty legal fees. Since secret settlements are common, taxpayers may find it hard to grasp the extent of the monetary hemorrhaging.

* “It’s a blank check,” said [Paul] Goldfinger, vice president of School Services. “The system is stacked so that one segment of the population — disabled children — has first call on funding, and the others get whatever’s left.”

Infuriating reading (Nanette Asimov, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 19). (& see Mar. 31 post, where comments continue).

Suing Craigslist — with your money

The federal taxpayer, by way of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, funnels substantial sums to private “fair housing” advocacy groups for purposes of suing landlords, newspapers, and other likely suspects over alleged housing discrimination; raising consciousness among potential claimants and others; and generally promoting expansive readings of housing-bias law. For example, in this listing of $20 million worth of fiscal 2002 grants, HUD boasts of bestowing $242,339 on the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. for something called its Private Enforcement Initiative (PEI), described as follows:

While addressing the needs of minorities in the metropolitan Chicago area, the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights will increase awareness of fair housing rights; empower victims to report incidents of discrimination; develop credible, legitimate evidence to support discrimination complaints; increase the number of complaints referred to HUD for enforcement; and provide relief to discrimination victims. Utilizing access to pro bono attorneys from Chicago’s most prominent law firms, as well as their resources, the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee will receive, document, and investigate individual complaints of discrimination.

If the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee sounds vaguely familiar, it’s probably because it’s the group that last month filed a widely criticized lawsuit against Craigslist (Feb. 9, Feb. 20) seeking to force the online service to pre-censor users’ postings of roommate and other housing classifieds (rather than just pull them off after complaints, as now).

Even if the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee suit fails in court — as is widely expected — the controversy is likely to continue. In yesterday’s New York Times, Adam Liptak says the activists are likely to push for federal legislation stripping website operators of their current protection against being held liable for users’ postings. (“The Ads Discriminate, but Does the Web?”, Mar. 5). Don’t assume that “fair housing” advocates are powerless on Capitol Hill these days, either: at one set of hearings last week, all the witnesses called (including this one (PDF), quoted in the Times piece) were there to speak up for expansive enforcement of the law, with nary a dissenting word about any possible competing values at stake. More: Maggie’s Farm.

“Not About The Money” Files: Ronan Public Schools lawsuit update

Updating our Nov. 8, 2004 entry, plaintiffs’ attorney Gary Zadik made our favorite argument when asking a jury to award $1.7 million of damages against the school district for the parents of schoolchildren who cut class and died after imbibing a half-gallon of vodka.

“This case is not about money,” plaintiffs lawyer Gary Zadik of Great Falls told the jury in his closing statements Wednesday morning.

Members of the jury apparently took him at his word, because they awarded none.

The parents argued that if the school had called them earlier, they would’ve been able to find the boys, a claim that is somewhat weakened by the fact that their bodies weren’t found until three days after they died, as well as the fact that one of the parents was called. Justin Benoist’s mother testified that “she was an alcoholic, that one of her sons had recently died in a fire because he had passed out drunk at a party and failed to smell the smoke, that none of her surviving children remained in her legal custody, and that Justin at age 11 already had a probation officer supervising him because of behavioral problems.” (John Stromnes, “Jury finds Ronan School District not liable for drinking deaths of two boys”, The Missoulian, Mar. 2; John Stromnes, “Trial over boys’ drinking deaths opens”, The Missoulian, Feb. 28).

Most dubious public-liability claims

A list from Britain includes “a bin man who made a claim against his council after being ‘startled’ by a dead badger which fell out of a bag, a shoplifter who sued because she fell down stairs while running from the scene of a crime, and a motorist who claimed he did not see a traffic roundabout in daylight – despite there being a large tree in the middle.” (Patrick Barkham, “The wronged trousers, and other scams”, The Guardian, Jan. 3; “Dubious insurance claims ‘rising'”, BBC, Jan. 2).

Taxpayers on hook for $60.9M cerebral palsy case

Lawyers blame Jacksonville Navy hospital doctors for Kevin Bravo Rodriguez’s severe cerebral palsy (Nov. 12; Nov. 4, 2004; Feb. 2, 2004; Aug. 13, 2003; etc.). He cannot see, speak, swallow, or move his arms and legs, and will not live past age 21. Modern technology saved Bravo Rodriguez’s life after he was born without a heart-rate or respiration, and keeps him alive with 24-hour care that was adjudged to cost $10 million over the course of short life. The verdict included $50 million in pain and suffering. Because this was a Federal Tort Claims Act case, a judge was the finder of fact, and Carter-appointee Senior District Judge Jose A. Gonzalez can be credited with the largest FTCA verdict in history, which (including the millions in jackpot attorneys’ fees) will come out of taxpayers’ pockets unless it is reversed on the government’s promised appeal. (Nikki Waller and Noaki Schwartz, “A bittersweet $60.9 million”, Miami Herald, Nov. 25). This is attorney Ervin Gonzalez’s second appearance in Overlawyered this year for a $60 million+ verdict—see July 10.

Deep pocket files: Yong Huang v. Chicago PD

On January 2, 2003, thieves stole a wallet at the Redfish restaurant and jumped into a getaway Dodge Intrepid driven by Lakesha Smith. Police started to pursue, and were called off the chase; one sergeant disregarded the order, and continued pursuit, though never faster than 30 mph. Five minutes later, the Intrepid ran a red light, hit an SUV, and then richocheted into a pedestrian, 25-year-old Qing Chang. Smith and another passenger have been charged with murder; a hearing is pending December 12.

But meanwhile, a civil jury has already determined that Smith and her passenger were only 25% responsible—which makes Chicago taxpayers entirely responsible for a $17.5 million award. Chicago has changed its chase procedures, though, of course, citizens killed by criminals who aren’t caught will have no cause of action against Chicago or the trial lawyers who forced Chicago into adopting a policy that makes lawsuit prevention more important than crime prevention. And it’s not clear what good changing the policy does if Chicago can still be held liable if a police officer disobeys orders to stop a chase. (Frank Main, “City slapped with $17.5 mil. judgment”, Chicago Sun-Times, Oct. 25; NBC5, “City To Appeal $17.5 Million Police Chase Crash Verdict”, Oct. 25; Ben Bradley, “Charges filed in wake of local chase”, ABC7 Chicago, Jan. 5, 2003). See also: Mar. 29, Mar. 15 and links therein.

The bear’s death warrant? Public liability

We’ve reported before (Mar. 18, 2004) on how, after court decisions in Arizona eroded the state’s longstanding immunity from being sued over the actions of wild animals, lawyers began obtaining large verdicts from public managers over humans’ harmful encounters with wildlife — with the result that managers began moving to a “when in doubt, take it doubt” policy of slaughtering wild creatures that might pose even a remote threat to people. The continuing results of the policy came in for some public discussion last month after a bear wandered into a residential area near Rumsey Park in Payson, Ariz. and was euthanized by Arizona Game and Fish personnel:

[Ranger Cathe] Descheemaker said that the two Game and Fish officials were no doubt following procedure, and that bears are routinely destroyed ever since the agency was sued when a bear mauled a 16-year-old girl in 1996 on Mt. Lemmon near Tucson.

“Since Game and Fish lost that lawsuit, they do not relocate any bears,” she said. “The fact that bear was in town was its death warrant.”

(Jim Keyworth, “Bear found near Rumsey Park destroyed”, Payson Roundup, Sept. 6). For another set of complications that can arise from public liability for wildlife — namely, pressure to close off the general public’s access to wilderness — see Mar. 29.

Lawsuits on the levee

After reports (see Sept. 9) in National Review Online, the Los Angeles Times and elsewhere that Army Corps of Engineers levees and other flood-control measures in southern Louisiana were derailed by litigation over environmental impact statements, critics of the projects respond that the measures in question were badly planned, ineffective in addressing flood dangers, and were eventually let drop for good reasons. (G. Tracy Mehan III, “Dam It”, National Review Online, Sept. 12; press release by University of Texas lawprof Thomas A. McGarity of the left-wing Center for Progressive Reform, Sept. 9 (PDF)). Jonathan Adler comments on NRO “The Corner” here and here.

Deep Pocket Files: Taxpayers responsible for porch collapse?

You may recall the unfortunate collapse of a Chicago porch at a party that killed thirteen and injured 57. Of course there are lawsuits against the building owners and the contractor who built a porch that couldn’t support 70 people. But the plaintiffs’ attorneys recognize that that insurance and the defendants’ underlying assets will run out quickly. Thus, they have sought to join the city of Chicago as a defendant for allegedly failing to enforce building codes. (Because, as anyone who has lived in Chicago knows, what that town needs is more city workers.)

John Ehrlich, the city’s chief assistant corporation counsel, told Cook County Judge Jeffrey Lawrence that if he didn’t drop the city from the lawsuit, it could lead to suits against other cities for everything from bad restaurant food to house fires.
“That makes the city of Chicago an insurer for every single bad incident that occurs on private property. And it makes every city — every municipality in the state — an insurer for every bad incident” that happens, Ehrlich said. ”If you allow that to happen, you will have [the] bankruptcy of every single municipality and local government in the state. That is simply untenable.”

(Nathaniel Hernandez, “Porch suit threatens Illinois cities: lawyer”, Chicago Sun-Times, Aug. 24).

Yosemite rock-climber’s survivors sue

The parents of a rock climber killed by a rock slide while climbing a face at Yosemite National Park have sued the National Park Service for $10 million, armed with the theory of a maverick professor who believes overflow from a waste-water system lubricated and weakened the face. An attorney for the park warns that if the suit is successful it could lead to bans on rock-climbing at Yosemite and elsewhere, and many climbers side with the park, saying those who take up the sport should assume the risk of rock slides. (Eric Bailey, “Another peril for climbers”, Los Angeles Times, Aug. 22; Jerry Bier, “Suit filed in Yosemite rock-slide death”, Fresno Bee, Nov. 4, 2001)(via Southern California Law Blog). Spartacus comments (Aug. 22). Update Dec. 17: court dismisses suit.