Corp Reform - Not Tort Reform

Because voting for Exxon is the “intellectually honest” thing to do.

Whatever.

Souter already knows how he is going to come out on this — Souter is writing a majority opinion overturning the $2.5 billion punitive damage award in the Exxon Valdez case. He doesn’t have to “support” his opinion as against appellate review, but he does have to face his friends in Georgetown who may not like his intellectually honest vote against a preferred liberal outcome.

Source: LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® » Blog Archive » Likelihood of persuasion

I wish I had something more eloquent in me so late tonight, but I don’t.  I think the best I can muster right now is a “Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.”

 

 

Ham? Oh, I thought you wanted a hand sandwich!

This is just disgusting.

MORRISTOWN, N.J. (CN) - A deli worker at Kings Supermarkets gave an unwitting customer a piece of human flesh with her bologna, causing her husband to "vomit like crazy" when he found the unwanted slice of meat, the Zalla family claims in New Jersey Superior Court.
     While preparing Markeljana Zalla's order, a female deli worker cut herself at the meat slicer and stopped working to seek medical attention. A male co-worker took her place, the lawsuit claims, but instead of cleaning up the bloody slicer, he simply finished the order and handed it to Zalla.
     The next day, while making bologna sandwiches for his children, Armando Zalla "noticed a piece of foreign matter which was obviously a segment of human flesh, which had been discovered between slices of luncheon meat," the complaint states.
     He says his daughter "suffered extreme revulsion upon seeing the flesh fragment and ran away from the scene of the discovery."
     Meanwhile, Armando says he ran to the bathroom and "vomited like crazy."

Source: Courthouse News Service

Chrysler will probably spend more to appeal this case than to just pay the judgment

I’m talking of course about the minivan case:

Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher finds himself in the middle of a nationally watched punitive damages case after a closely divided Tennessee Supreme Court reversed a lower court and upheld a $13.4 million award to a mother whose infant son died in a 2001 car crash.

The ruling is the latest twist in a case that has seen various courts cut punitive damages against DaimlerChrysler Corp. from $98 million to $20 million, to $13.3 million, and finally to zero. But just when momentum was on the side of DCC and Gibson Dunn, the Tennessee Supreme Court reinstated the $13.3 million award last week.

Source: Law.com - Gibson Dunn Will Fight Court's $13.4 Million Reversal in Crash Case

This illustrates a reason why I oppose “loser pays.”  If Chrysler wins this one $13 million appeal, it may save $100 million in future lawsuits.  Hence, it has a financial incentive to spend more than $13 million to win this appeal.  The individual plaintiff, on the other hand, will likely only file this one lawsuit. It’s unfair to potentially put the plaintiff on the hook for fees for work that is part of a defendant’s broader litigation strategy than this one case.

Technorati Tags: loser pays,tort reform,Chrysler,Gibson Dunn,Joshua Flax,Josh Flax

50 Cent's Frivolous Lawsuit against Taco Bell

The Wall Street Journal reports that 50 Cent is suing Taco Bell:

Now, 50 Cent is trying to provide a little more for himself — through legal means. He’s suing Taco Bell, a division of Yum! Brands Inc., for, among other things, trademark infringement, alleging that the restaurant drafted a fake letter (attached at the end of the complaint) purporting to ask Jackson to change his name to “79 Cent,” “89 Cent” or “99 Cent” in order to publicize its “79-89-99 Cent Why Pay More Value Menu.”

Taco Bell released the letter to the national press in June before sending it to Jackson, the complaint alleges. “Simply put, Taco Bell knew that it would likely have had to pay Jackson a multi-million-dollar fee to get his endorsement, even if he had agreed to do it — which is in doubt,” says the suit, which was filed by Reed Smith’s Peter D. Raymond and Wallace B. Neel. “Rather than face rejection or pay fair value, Taco Bell chose to steal his endorsement and to enjoy all the publicity of being associated with a mega-star while bearing none of the costs.”

A spokesman for Taco Bell said: “We made a good faith, charitable offer to 50 Cent to change his name to either 79, 89 or 99 Cent for one day by rapping his order at a Taco Bell, and we would have been very pleased to make the $10,000 donation to the charity of his choice.”

Source: Law Blog - WSJ.com : 50 Cent Looking for Big Change Outta Taco Bell

Taco Bell made a legitimate offer to 50 Cent: If he "rapped" his order at a Taco Bell location, Taco Bell would (a) donate $10,000 to the charity of his choice, and (b) give free food to all the patrons of that Taco Bell.  There is nothing improper about this offer.  The complaint makes much ado of the fact that Taco Bell published this letter before mailing it to 50 Cent.  So what?  Contract law doesn't make offers invalid if they're published to a wide audience. 

The frivolity doesn't stop there.  According to the lawsuit, the "low-end" Taco Bell diluted the value of the 50 Cent brand by asking him to endorse their restaurant.  Celebrities are asked to endorse products all the time.  If for some reason they're not interested in endorsing the product, they decline the offer.  Does it really make sense to then allow the celebrity to sue the company seeking the endorsement? 

Playboy Magazine routinely makes generous offers to celebrities to pose in the magazine, including recently to Ashlee Simpson and the stars of Desperate Housewives.  No one in their right mind thinks that these public offers means these celebrities have endorsed the magazine.  Similarly, no one in their right  mind should think that 50 Cent endorsed Taco Bell because they made him an offer. 

Did Taco Bell imitate 50 Cent by talking about their "79-89-99 Cent" menu?  Sure.  But 50 Cent hasn't trademarked referring to plural sums of money in the singular - just when it happens to be 50 Cent(s). 

This lawsuit is frivolous, and the worst part about it is that most proposals for damage caps wouldn't apply to it because he's seeking economic damages.  You tell me if it's fair that under tort reform proposals, Taco Bell would only be liable for $250,000 in noneconomic damages if someone died from their food, but may have to pay millions to 50 Cent for making him an endorsement offer.

Technorati Tags: 50 Cent,Taco Bell,50 Cent Lawsuit,frivolous lawsuits,tort reform

If you didn't support telecom immunity, you should support this scumbag's lawsuit

Let me get this out of the way first:  Former tax attorney James Colliton pleaded guilty to having sex with a 15 year old and a 13 year old girl.  He is, to put it mildly, a scumbag.  He received a 2-year sentence when it should have been at least twenty years.  He's a disgrace to himself and the legal profession.  Even worse than him is the mother of the two girls, who is the one who took the money.  Sick people.

That said, I'm tentatively supporting the lawsuit he's filed against American Express.  My entire opinion is likely to change if the AmEx contract grants AmEx the right to work with law enforcement without a subpoena: 

AP reports that a disbarred Manhattan lawyer, who has been convicted of statutory rape, has sued the American Express Co. for giving police credit card information that he says led to his capture in Canada, where he had fled to avoid prosecution.

Source: PointofLaw.com | PointOfLaw Forum: Convict-lawyer sues AmEx for helping police find him

Does this lawsuit remind you of anything that's been in the news recently?  OK, the headline tipped you off - FISA.  Think about it: Many of us are upset that Congress caved and granted immunity to the telecoms who provided law enforcement with information about subscribers without requesting a subpoena.  If AmEx gave up this information without a subpoena, they've committed the same sin as the various telephone companies did.  But in this case, it's actually even worse.  Supposedly, the telecoms provided data to help us prevent a terrorist attack - lives were supposedly in danger.  This guy, on the other hand, wasn't a terrorist.  If he wasn't captured immediately, a bomb wasn't going to go off.  People weren't going to die.  The guy was too busy hiding out to be soliciting sex.

The reason the cops needed this info may be because they dropped the ball: 

Of all the many stories that have fallen within our jurisdiction, the story of James Colliton is perhaps the most sordid. In March 2006, Colliton, a former tax attorney at Cravath, was indicted on charges of paying two teenage sisters for sex (and paying their mother to permit it). After being arrested in Canada, he was mistakenly released and became a fugitive for a few days before being caught in an East Village hotel room. Click here for our Law Blog Coverage.

Source: Law Blog - WSJ.com : In Plea Deal, Ex-Cravath Lawyer Admits To Sex Crimes

The stories are unclear as to whether AmEx provided info to the cops after he "escaped" their custody.  If that's the case, do you think that fear of getting caught for their mistake is why the cops didn't try and get a subpoena?  I mean, on the facts presented I don't think any judge would have declined to issue one.  Even if AmEx was giving the cops information before the "escape," it still sounds like there would have been no problem getting a subpoena.

It's easy not to get up in arms over this because, as I said, the guy is a total scumbag.  But surely at least one of the people caught up in the warrantless surveillance the telecoms engaged in was as big a scumbag, if not bigger.  I just can't see anyway not to be a hypocrite if I oppose this guy's lawsuit since I supported the lawsuits against the telephone companies.  What AmEx did is what the telecoms did, but on an individual scale.

P.S. Michael Krauss asked if this lawsuit is the definition of chutzpah. 

Nope, what this guy's defense attorney did is:  "In April 2006, Greenberg was singing a different tune, reportedly calling the two young alleged rape victims perjurers and one of them a “skank.” “My client made $500,000 a year,” he said. “He had the wherewithal to pay for any piece of tuchus on the planet. And he paid that skank?”

Technorati Tags: James Colliton,Cravath,tax lawyer,underage girls,FISA,American Express

Did "reform" rhetoric result in an improper jury verdict?

Or maybe the plaintiffs' attorneys didn't explain that money is the only punishment the jury can dole out:

Pittsburgh attorneys are seeking a new trial in a medical malpractice case in which a jury found a hospital negligent in a patient's death but awarded $0 survival damages because the jury said "no amount of damages will adequately punish" the hospital.

The case was tried in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court before a 12-member jury in May.

Michael Rettger, 24, died after his brain abscess allegedly was not treated in time by the staff at the Pittsburgh hospital he was admitted to, according to the plaintiffs' pretrial statement.

The jury found in its May 23 verdict that the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center at Shadyside's care of Rettger fell below the standard of medical care and was a factual cause of harm to Rettger, according to the jury statement attached to the verdict form. The jury awarded $2.5 million in Wrongful Death Act damages, but awarded zero dollars in Survival Act damages.

"After eight days of testimony in the case of Rettger v. UPMC Shadyside, it is the unanimous opinion of the jury that no amount of damages will adequately punish UPMC," the jury statement said. "It is our belief that UPMC Shadyside's policies, culture, and lack of competent supervision resulted in the death of Michael Rettger."

Source: Law.com - Med-Mal Jury Says 'No Amount' Will Adequately Punish Hospital

Imagine this in a criminal context: "No amount of jail time will adequately punish the defendant, so he gets none."  Doesn't work, does it?

Will the EPA weaken asbestos rules?

Andrew Schneider thinks so:

From top doctors and scientists to widows, public health experts are mustering to try to keep the EPA from watering down regulations determining the cancer-causing danger of asbestos exposure.

At a meeting in Washington tomorrow, the EPA's Superfund cops – the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency – will take testimony on the agency's plans to change the way it estimates potential cancer risk to those who inhale fibers of asbestos.

The scientific debate boils down to a conflict between the public health community and corporations that have used or still market asbestos containing products or material.

The debate hasn't changed for decades and won't tomorrow.

Scientists paid by the automotive and chemical industry and miners of sand, tale, taconite and gravel contaminated with asbestos, argue that whichever type of asbestos they use "can't be harmful" because the size, shape or chemical composition of their asbestos fiber is benign. On the other side, physicians who have treated thousands of asbestos victims, and scientists who have documented the public health toll, just point to the graveyards.

....

"Their business model is straightforward. They profit by helping corporations minimize public health and environmental protection and fight claims of injury and illness," wrote Michaels, the director of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at the George Washington School of Public Health.

....

Do I believe all this effort by these public health authorities, many of whom who have fought this battle for decades, will do anything to force EPA to do what's best for the public?

Not a chance.

EPA leaders won't even listen to their own experts, who say there is an urgency by industry's lobbyists to get this new risk assessment on the books before there is a new occupant in the White House and before agency Administrator Steve Johnson moves on to be a well-paid spokesman for the pesticide or chemical industry.

Remember, this is the same agency that, in its "Value of a Statistical Life," just lowered its official estimate of life's value, from about $8.04 million to about $7.22 million.

Mother Jones, the legendary fighter for worker's safety and health in the 1920s wrote "Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living."

Source: Public health experts rally to keep EPA from easing asbestos risk rules

Ever notice that corporations never want to "err on the side of caution" when lives are at risk?

Prius Class Action - wonder if my favorite critic will object...

Doesn't your mileage depend upon your driving style?  And don't some people with very light feet get well over 55mpg in a Prius?

Toyota falsely advertises that its Prius hybrid gets 55 miles per gallon, a class action claims in Orlando Federal Court. The class claims the car gets no more than 46 mpg (48 city and 45 highway).

Source: Courthouse News Service

And will proud Prius owner Ted Frank object to this class action as he did the GTA class action?

Technorati Tags: Prius,mpg,lawsuit

Jury trashes garbage company that falsified evidence

Here's a quick tip on how not to get punished by a jury: Don't falsify evidence.

Evidence including a “smoking e-mail” has helped persuade a Cleveland jury to award a record $46.6 million to a former trash company manager who was fired after he refused to dismiss three employees, all of whom were about 60 years of age.

Ronald Luri, 55, alleged in his wrongful termination case that not only did Republic Services Co. (NYSE: RSG) retaliate against him for engaging in the “protected activity” of complying with age discrimination law, but it also blocked his efforts to find another job in the Cleveland area.

The jury award –- the largest in Ohio history -– includes $3.5 million in compensation for Luri's lost wages as general manager of Republic's Cleveland office and $43.1 million in punitive damages. “I stood up for the rights of my employees and I was penalized for it,” Luri told the Cleveland Plain-Dealer after the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas jury reached its verdict last week.

Jurors said the key evidence was an e-mail memo written by Luri's boss, Jim Bowen. A computer forensics expert testified that Bowen had post-dated the memo and added criticism of Luri's job performance two weeks after Luri filed the lawsuit in August 2007.

Source: On Point - A New Take On Legal News

Trouble is, the punitive damages award is about 12 times the compensatory... so there's no way this will survive appeal.  If this were just a run-of-the-mill wrongful termination suit, I might agree that 12 times is too high.  But in this case, I don't think it is.  First, the guy got fired because he refused to fire other employees just for being old.  And second, I don't think a litigant who falsifies evidence should be entitled to very many protections in court.  We'll see how it turns out.

Technorati Tags: Ronald Luri,Republic,age discrimination,wrongful termination,Ohio,punitive damages

John Edwards needs to take this case

Leave it to Texas to ban t-shirts with "words" on them.

Admittedly, that headline is misleading, given that the lawyer in question is not just any lawyer but former presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards and that the principle at issue has nothing to do with the student's love of the legal profession. Still, a student at Waxahachie High School in Texas is suing school administrators in federal court in Dallas for the right to wear a John Edwards 2008 T-shirt to school. Paul Palmer, a junior at the school, claims the school's policy prohibiting "slogans, words or symbols" on clothing violates the First Amendment. The Student Press Law Center describes how the lawsuit came about:

Source: Legal Blog Watch

Technorati Tags: John Edwards,censorship,politics,Texas