Back in January, in a monologue making fun of Mitt Romney’s lavish lifestyle, talk show host Jay Leno showed a photo of Sri Darbar Sahib, a Sikh holy shrine, identifying it as Romney’s summer home. The American Sikh community was less than amused, and now a lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a Sikh community organization, charging Leno with libel for “exposing Sikhs to hatred, contempt and ridicule.”
Online human rights petition demanding that Leno stop “defaming” Sikhs
Speaking of unwinnable lawsuits, two involving our National Pastime:
- In Georgia, the father of a 10-year-old girl who suffered a fractured skull after being hit by a foul ball at an Atlanta Braves game in 2010, is suing the team for not providing adequate protection: the family claims the section they were sitting in should have had protective netting, even though the section they were sitting generally does not have protective netting, and even though every ticket notes that “The holder assumes all risk and danger incidental to the game of baseball, whether occurring prior to, during or subsequent to, the actual playing of the game, including specifically … the danger of being injured by thrown or batted balls, thrown or broken bats,” and reminders to stay alert are posted on the scoreboard. (More)
- And in New Jersey, a woman is suing a boy who, as an 11-year-old warming up in the bullpen during a Little League game two years ago, made a bad throw and hit her in the face. She failed in her attempt to sue the Little League organization, so now she wants $150,000 from the boy.
The woman was sitting at a picnic table about 5 feet away from the bullpen. Personally, I’d say go after the genius who placed the picnic table 5 feet away from the bullpen.
The Naked Indian — a New York City street performer (shown below with Dorothy and the Tin Man; Times Square can be a very strange place sometimes) — claims that the Naked Cowboy, a New York City street performer who apparently originated the “Naked” concept (there’s also a Naked Cowgirl) wants to sue him. Maybe and maybe not, but this interview with the Naked Indian is amusing.
In 2009, in Great Britain, Fiona Dickie was in an automobile accident but went on to win the Miss Edinburgh title. The most serious lingering effect of the accident is that she suffers chronic back pain any time she wears high heels, which she continues to do at charity events.
In her lawsuit against the man responsible for the accident, the judge commended her for continuing to make charitable appearances, saying “She knows she can wear high heels but will suffer the next day for doing so. Its eems to me that rather than being criticized, she should be commended for her efforts,” and “This is not the conduct of a malingerer or someone who is seeking to secure the most compensation possible for her injuries.”
He awarded her £18,000 (about $28,500), rather than the £3500 the defense was arguing for.
Which is all very well… but it sounds a great deal like she was awarded the £18,000 not just for her injuries, but because the judge admired the fact that she continued to help charities despite them.
© 2012 by Bill Bickel unless otherwise noted.
So claiming that Mitt Romney lives in your particular holy shrine is libelous?
The “commendable plaintiff” thing is really bothersome. I can understand the desire to reward the plaintiff more, but that also means punishing the defendant more, which makes no sense. If the extra reward came from taxes, at least this would have a minimal impact (taxpayers wouldn’t relish the thought, but it’d be a drop in the bucket), but this means the defendant is going to spend that many more years scraping up the dough (assuming they’re an average joe) because the judge was impressed with the plaintiff. The defendant had no control over what sort of person the plaintiff would be, so it shouldn’t be a factor.
The general rule is that you take your plaintiff “as is” in tort cases. So if tripping on your sidewalk would have only resulted in bruises for most people, but it was the 104-year-old neighbor who tripped and broke 17 bones, you’re on the hook for the whole expense.
This isn’t really a case about how worthy the plaintiff is. It’s a question of placing a monetary value on the injury. How much is it worth to have an injury that prevents you from wearing high heels (or that causes significant, but endurable, pain when you do)? If that’s the ONLY noticeable effect to an injury *I* sustain, it isn’t worth very much, because I rarely find the occasion where wearing high heels seems like a good idea. Although there are some injuries that have more-or-less the same level of effect on anyone who suffers them (like, say, fatal ones), there are any number of injuries which will have a varying effect on the lives of their sufferers because of what they do, whether for work or for play. A broken finger affects a talented amateur concert pianist more than it does me. A nagging muscle injury in the lower leg will affect a bicycle road-racer more than a person who spends their leisure hours watching televised bicycle road races. The monetary award for the negligent person who caused the injury should match the “value” of what the plaintiff has been deprived of.
An injury that only affects a person when they wear high heels should yield a higher award if A) the person works in a job that demands heels, or B) the person has a hobby that is greatly diminished by being unable to wear heels. (Thus cutting off the answer of “just don’t wear heels”).
OK, then, I’ll say it. Just don’t wear heels. I don’t see where appearing at charity events *requires* you to wear high heels. It may diminish your glam to wear flats, but there are very dressy flats out there.
Sorry, you can’t win that way. If you say “OK, go ahead and wear heels”, you have to compensate her for the pain she feels when she does it. If you say “Fine, just don’t wear heels”, you have to compensate her for taking away her ability to wear heels. The only way to win is to not cause the injury in the first place… which is kind of the point.
Naked Cow Hag is more like. Probably a former stripper who got too old. Time to put on your clothes and find a desk job, ma’am.
Todd, she knows she’s no fashion model: that seems to be part of her act. She was raking in money hand-over-fist the day I saw her so, you know, crying all the way to the bank…
I’m equally bothered by the “despicable” or “overly rich” defendant concept, which has been abused countless times by plaintiffs (and their overly greedy attorneys), as well as by juries who frequently award groundlessly inflated sums. We could short-circuit a large portion of the ligitigous gold digging that goes on in this country by simply passing a law that awards the plaintiff strictly damages, but transfers all penalties (tripled amounts, etc.) to charity or the government. With no incentive to rape the evil defendant for the benefit of the innocent plaintiff, juries would be more likely to award amounts that correspond to the facts, instead of their emotions.