Friday, April 11, 2014
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Do not pee in a co-worker's coffee urn. Compensatory damages were $1 and punies were $5,000. This case reminds me of the 1872 Illiniois case of Alcorn v. Mitchell, in which a jury awarded $1,000 to a plaintiff who was spat upon. Virginia Lawyers Weekly has details.
Friday, April 4, 2014
A med mal filing in California accuses a hospital of negligently placing a live patient in a morgue freezer and freezing her to death. Originally, the family sued for mishandling of a corpse, an exception to limitations on negligent infliction of emotional distress. New evidence, however, caused the family to sue for wrongful dealth. The case was originally dismissed, but was reinstated by an appellate court. The hospital expressed remorse, but does not comment on pending cases. CNN has the story (video).
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
The Lousiana Legsilative session began last Monday, and a bunch of tort reform bills have been introduced:
- HB 799 - prohibiting contingency fees in outside counsel contracts
- HB 482 & 483 - venue in latent disease cases
- HB 917 - lowering the monetary threshold required for a jury trial to $0
- HB 925 & SB 414 - regulation of the lawsuit lending industry
Coalition for Common Sense has links to the bills and a summary of the bills' status.
Monday, March 10, 2014
In "Would Litigation Financing Improve Mass Torts," the National Law Journal examines an article by Professor Byron Stier suggesting that plaintiffs should be allowed to sell their claims to financial entities. As Chris mentioned in an earlier post, Byron's article was part of the "Perspectives on Mass Tort Litgiation" symposium held at Widener last April.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
I am sorry to report the passing of one of the great empirical legal scholars of our day: Professor Ted Eisenberg (Cornell). Professor Eisenberg, age 66, died on Sunday from a heart attack. From the Cornell statement:
Known as the “grandfather of empirical legal studies,” Eisenberg was a passionate teacher, beloved colleague, and prolific scholar during his 33 years at the Law School.
A legendary figure in the areas of bankruptcy, civil rights, and the death penalty, Eisenberg has used innovative statistical methodology to shed light on such diverse subjects as punitive damages, victim impact evidence, capital juries, bias for and against litigants, and chances of success on appeal. He is the founder of the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Eisenberg taught courses on bankruptcy and debtor-creditor law, constitutional law, civil rights, contracts, federal income taxation, and empirical studies of the legal system.
Photo atttribution: Cornell Law School
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
A new article in Albany Law Review addresses a growing issue of personal responsibility: the use of cell phones as a causal factor in accidents. In Don't Text, Talk and Walk: The Emerging Smartphone Defense in Personal Injury Litigation, Robert Lang explores recent case law where the plaintiff and/or defendant was distracted on a cell phone at the time of an accident.
Some possible exam material in this one!
Monday, February 3, 2014
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Recently the New York Court of Appeals rejected medical monitoring. Behrens and Appel approve:
The New York Court of Appeals reached the right conclusion. For over 200 years, one of the fundamental principles of tort law has been that a plaintiff cannot recover without proof of a physical injury. This bright-line rule may seem harsh in some cases, but it is the best filter courts have developed to prevent a flood of claims, provide faster access to courts for those with reliable and serious claims, and ensure that the sick will not have to compete with the nonsick for compensation.
The full op-ed (behind a pay wall) is here.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Monday, January 27, 2014
On January 21, 2014, the Pennsylvania Sureme Court finally* decided Lance v. Wyeth. The court held that drug manufacturers could be liable for negligent design of an FDA approved drug. I believe this is the first jurisdiction to accept this theory. Drug & Device Blog has a thorough analysis of the opinion.
*finally because the case was argued in 2011 and has been pending before the state supreme court for nearly three years.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
This is slightly off-topic, but I know a significant number of torts professors also teach insurance courses. My hometown newspaper, The Patriot-News, does an excellent job of independent reporting. Today's paper has a great series on flood insurance (highly relevant to a river town like Harrisburg) and the effects of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Act of 2012. The online version at PennLive is here.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Ruthann Robson at Con Law Profs reports on a Washington state case, where the court held that a statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims violated the state constitution's equal protection clause. Robson has a full dicussion of the decision at Con Law Profs.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Saturday, January 11, 2014
My Widener colleague, John Culhane, often writes for Slate. He is thinking through a piece about potential torts in the George Washington Bridge closure and asked me to post the following:
Does anyone want to weigh in on whether the BridgeGate scandal currently engulfing the Christie Administration is likely to result in successful tort litigation against state officials by those who suffered economic loss because of the traffic nightmares? The first hurdle would be the extent of sovereign immunity for intentional bad acts in New Jersey (which I'm hoping someone just knows!), but the more interesting questions have to do with whether the economic loss rule, which applies to accidental harm cases, would prevent suits for this kind of intentional misconduct. I'm thinking that New Jersey would be one state where the claim might have some traction, because of the People Express case, 495 A.2d 107 (N.J. 1985) (not much followed, but not overruled as far as I can tell), which expresses a broadly progressive view of tort liability. I'm also thinking that there's some traction in the interference with economic relations cases, even though these usually require specific intent to interfere with an economic relationship rather than an intent to do some other kind of harm (such as a battery, or, in this case, to make life miserable for the Ft. Lee mayor (as if he didn't have enough problems already!).
Any thoughts, torts colleagues?
You can respond in the comments or e-mail John directly at email@example.com .
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Monday, January 6, 2014
Really interesting case from Indiana at the intersection of torts and professional responsibility -
A lawyer was a partner in a firm. Firm client wanted to buy land that the partner owned. Partner refused but entered into a land use agreement with the firm client. There were disagreements over the land use contract. Firm client met with firm partners and threatened to take its business elsewhere unless the dispute was resolved with the partner. The firm removed the partner from the firm....
The partner subsequently filed a tortious interference agasint the firm client, and the Indiana Court of Appeals has just held that the partner can proceed. BNA has a full report on the case.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
A North Carolina man has filed a suit alleging alienation of affections not only against the man who had an affair with his wife, but also against Ashley Madison, an online dating site that markets to people interested in affairs. The North Carolina legislature restricted heart balm actions to natural persons in 2009, but the plaintiff's lawyer argues that the actions leading to the breakup of the marriage occurred in 2007 and the old law applies. The Charlotte Observer has the details.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Ken Bensinger at the LA Times reports that Toyota is engaged in settlement talks over the sudden unintended acceleration (SUA) cases that resulted in death or injury. (Toyota previously settled the economic loss cases, and the court approved that settlement last July). Our friend Byron Stier, over at Mass Torts Profs, is quoted in the article.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
A New Jersey Superior Court reaffirmed that only the golfer taking the shot is legally responsibile for yelling "fore" for an errant shot. In Corino v. Duffy, the court held that two bystanders - friends of the golfer hitting the ball and part of the threesome - were not liable for the golfer's shot striking the plaintiff in the right eye. A copy of the decision is available here. The Legal Blitz has more on the decision.