FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 28, 2000
CONTACT: John Sullivan
PHONE: (916) 443-4900
NOTE TO REPORTERS AND EDITORS:
A look back over the past 12 months reveals that, when it comes to ridiculous lawsuits and courtroom curiosities, the new Millennium started where the old one left off. Some examples...
Missed Goal in the Blame Game
A Bay Area man sued Daly City, a soccer goal post manufacturer, and the company that installed it after a goal post crossbar fell on his head. As explained to a San Mateo County superior court jury, the man and some companions had stopped by to see a park-employee friend who let two of them ride with him in a park maintenance golf cart. The man and his seat mate took over driving and intentionally steered the cart into a goal post with the force six times that of a 200-pound man running 15 mph. Jurors said "no" to this lawsuit and a court of appeal backed them up.
Warning Label of the Year
Covering most of the liability bases, makers of High Cotton doormats developed a warning label of "Important things you should know about your new doormat" that includes:
When to Hold 'Em and When to Fold 'Em
The national plaintiffs' law firm of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, best known for the litigatory panache and campaign generosity of securities lawyer Bill Lerach, provided potential defendants with plenty to worry about - but sometimes a smile or two as well:
Makers of the Pokémon trading card game were sued with fanfare by the Lerach firm under racketeering and unfair competition law for introducing children to the evils of gambling. But attempts by the firm's San Diego lawyers to put a crusading spin on the lawsuit suddenly stopped. As explained by an American Lawyer magazine writer, one of the defendants, 4Kids Entertainment, Inc., had for several years been a Milberg Weiss corporate client in New York. "Had" was the operative word, for as the magazine reported: "Quicker than a Charmander can sling a Geodude, 4Kids fired Milberg Weiss as its corporate counsel and the firm withdrew from the Pokémon class action."
For most lawyers, dreams of big Y2K lawsuit fees never came true. Perhaps the biggest bubble bursting was the Milberg Weiss firm's suit against Silicon Valley's Intuit for not acting soon enough in providing Y2K compliant software in its popular Quicken program. A major hitch developed in Lerach's class action case when the company got all its fixes in place well before January 1. A Santa Clara County superior court judge tossed the suit out, but gave the Lerach lawyers a chance to argue why they should get attorney fees in a case they didn't win on behalf of people who weren't damaged.
The lawyers asked for $1.4 million on the theory that their lawsuit caused Intuit to act. So the judge gave the lawyers a fee to cover the few days between the date they filed suit and Intuit's announcement of new software. That came to $7,000, which when spread over the total time the lawyers said they spent on the case grossed the Lerach firm about $4.37 an hour.
Remote Control
A 17-year-old Florida high school student sued a Sacramento area travel agency for failing to tell her to look out for traffic in Cancun, Mexico. The student was hit by a cab while crossing a city street on a senior class graduation package trip set up by the agency. The student lost.
Lawyers on the Green
Each year produces its share of golfing liability cases and 2000 was no exception.
Innocents Abroad
Hertz was sued for not providing a copy of the 4,327- page California Vehicle Code to a British tourist when it rented him a car. A motorcycle/car accident occurred when he tried an illegal U-turn on the Pacific Coast Highway. A court of appeals threw the case out, saying it's clear law that car rental companies need only make sure their renters have a valid drivers license and aren't obviously unfit to drive when they hand them the car keys. The tourist told the court he thought U-turns were legal because he saw so many drivers making them in the short time he had been in California.
Low Cost Therapy (Civil Justice Study of the Year)
After Saskatchewan switched to a no-fault auto insurance system in the mid-1990s, university researchers examined the effect on people claiming whiplash injury. The study found a 28% drop in whiplash claims under no-fault and 50% drop in the time injury claims remained open. Under the old system, damages were awarded for pain. But not under no-fault. In the researchers' words: "The elimination of compensation for pain and suffering is associated with a decreased incidence and improved prognosis of whiplash injury." A long way of saying: "No gain, no pain."
# # #
