Category Archive

The league of extremist gentlemen is at it again as Ed Murnane screws around with fuzzy math to come up with a bizarrely partisan “civil justice” ranking scheme legislative scorecard. Such biased tools are frequent canards offered by all sides of the political spectrum.

Go read Yellow Dog Democrat’s well-rounded explanation of just how pitiful Mr. Murnane’s attempts at stacking the deck actually are. The money quote (among many priceless nuggets of common sense YDD offers) comes in response to the ICJL’s opposition to HB 1798 “Wrongful Death Act-Damages”:

Ironically, the ICJL didn’t oppose GOP legislation passed a couple of years ago that provides the same compensation if someone kills your pet, but opposes wrongful death benefits if someone kills your kid. Murnane must be a dog lover.

Or a complete goof with a bunch of money to toss at pet political projects. Then again, I’m sure Mr. Murnane has no love lost for Mr. Yellow Dog Democrat.

No word on whether the superheroes of the Illinois Civil Justice League are going to answer the call as the Scales of Justice clang away on this case.

Turns out conservative tort “reform” activist Judge Robert Bork slipped and fell while stepping up to the mic before giving a speech at the Yale Club in Gotham City some time back.

For his black and blue bum he is seeking a cool million in punitive damages. That’s not a lawsuit seeking redress for medical expenses — those icepacks for bruised buncheeks can be rather costly, y’know. That’s $1 million he’s seeking in order to hold the Yale Club responsible for the slipperiness of their stage (in our ‘innocent til proven guilty’ land we must presume it was the fault of the stage, and thus the Yale Club, and not Judge Bork’s worst Chevy Chase impression that led to the slip).

According to the American Constitution Society:

[Judge Bork] alleges that the Yale Club is liable for the $1m plus punitive damages because they “wantonly, willfully, and recklessly” failed to provide staging which he could climb safely.

Wantonly? Maybe it was a wonton he tripped on, instead of a banana peel…

The conservative hypocrite Judge Bork himself has said of cases just like his:

State tort law today is different in kind from the state tort law known to the generation of the Framers. The present tort system poses dangers to interstate commerce not unlike those faced under the Articles of Confederation. Even if Congress would not, in 1789, have had the power to displace state tort law, the nature of the problem has changed so dramatically as to bring the problem within the scope of the power granted to Congress. Accordingly, proposals, such as placing limits or caps on punitive damages, or eliminating joint or strict liability, which may once have been clearly understood as beyond Congress’s power, may now be constitutionally appropriate.

Fellow conservative “reformer” Ted Frank ain’t buying Judge Bork’s hypocrisy:

I sympathize with Judge Bork’s serious injuries, but it’s beyond me what his lawyers are thinking in asking for punitive damages. And if any danger is open and obvious such that there is an assumption of the risk, surely the absence of stairs to reach a lectern on a dais is—especially if the dais is of the “unreasonable” height that the complaint alleges it to be. [emphasis added]

Now, the ACS article does not indicate the actual nature of what Mr. Frank considers to be Judge Bork’s “serious injuries”. All their post says is that the case centers on Judge Bork’s hurt head and left leg so it is left up to the reader to determine how “serious” tripping over air can be. And sadly, no one involved is pulling anyone’s leg. (Mr. Frank writes for a site called Overlawyered… and the superheroes of the Justice League have quoted him on occasion, but not on this occasion.)

So, let’s see, in order for one’s overlawyered frivolous lawsuit be considered non-frivolous, one must either be a Big Business company like the makers of Equal who sued their faux sweetener rival Splenda for tasting too good or you have to be a tort “reforming” reformed reformer who no longer believes in reforming things that affect him.

Apparently, we little people don’t rate and we’re just supposed to deal with it if we ourselves trip on a dais (faulty or not) and end up with “serious” injuries.

Like the American Constitution Society, Illinois Reason blog wishes the two-faced Judge Bork a speedy recovery from his bruises (bruised ego included). We also wish the rest of the tort “reformers” a happy journey as they cherry-pick their own evidence to make their “case”.

From the “Gimme a Break” file.

In “Judges Gone Wild” Illinois Civil Justice Leaguer “Mark Swain” writes today about the DC Federal judge who is suing the pants off his local dry cleaner because they lost his pants. Mr. Swain also writes about our own Illinois State Supreme Court Chief Justice Bob Thomas who recently successfully sued a newspaper columnist and the newspaper for which he writes.

Mr. Swain opines that pants-less Judge Roy Pearson in DC is seeking too much money (he is seeking $54 million after being talked down, though Mr. Swain incorrectly still lists his original suit for $67.3mil). And Mr. Swain also believes that Chief Justice Thomas’ accused could not have ever hoped for a fair trial in Illinois courts given Thomas’ position and the fact many of the witnesses on Thomas’ behalf were also judges, Supreme or otherwise.

Mr. Swain seems to come at this from a rational perspective — that these lawsuits are ridiculous and over-the-top — but he fails to see the point by calling them unfair. What Mr. Swain apparently doesn’t realize is that everyone is entitled to their day in court. Sure, most people would rather work through a problem and negotiate a mutually-agreeable compromise before landing in court, but sometimes the courtroom is the final destination.

As Americans we all have that right. Doesn’t mean we’ll win our case as we see it, but it does mean that we as Americans have a last resort, a place that should be a level playing field for all, to address our grievances.

Now if only Mr. Swain would complain about businesses suing businesses lacking in senses of fairness, proportionality, and judgment (that is where most of the conservatives’ nefarious “frivolous” lawsuits come from, after all). In recent weeks, Yellow Dog Democrat noted what would appear to many to be a highly-charged frivolous lawsuit as the makers of Equal fake sweetener sued the makers of Splenda fake sweetener.

Essentially, Equal was suing Splenda because Splenda used the claim “Made from sugar so it tastes like sugar.” Mr. Swain’s hyperbolic claims of “Ridiculous? Outrageous? Gross abuse of judicial process? Yes! Yes! Yes!” also apply to Equal, which was decidedly advocating inequality in good taste and fair play.

Well, at least half that statement is true. Splenda is made from sugar. I suppose the second half of the statement could be up for debate, but to my wife and I (and apparently Yellow Dog Dem) the yellow stuff sure tastes more like the white stuff than the blue stuff or pink stuff. And even though that opinion is just that, an opinion, is it worthy of a lawsuit? To Equal (a brand that was losing big-time to Splenda in the ‘free’ market) it certainly was worth a lawsuit as they claimed the Splenda marketing slogan somehow misled consumers into thinking Splenda was more natural or healthier than other brands of fake sugar (even though the slogan was at least half-true — “made from sugar” — and arguably entirely true).

And that, for better or worse, is the beauty of America. Come up with a better tasting and more profitable artificial sweetener … lose a pair of pants … call your fellow Supreme Court benchmates as witnesses … and you just may get the pants sued off your sweet little behind.

You don’t like it? Move to an unAmerican country.

Ed Murnane, one of the super folk at the Illinois Civil Justice League, has a post out today on two bills that could impact litigation in the state. I disgree with him on one bill, but agree on the other.

First, Mr. Murnane writes about HB1798, a bill which would allow juries to decide awards with regards to “‘grief, sorrow, and mental suffering’ in wrongful death cases” (as Mr. Murnane writes it). He, as a backer of big business’ interests, is naturally opposed to anyone being responsible for a widow’s grief. I disagree.

Mr. Murnane and his allies like to couch this and other jury award issues as some sort of “pay raise” for lawyers. Hardly. Though that is one side effect (and no doubt part of the reason why the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, like any trade group in a similar situation, supports HB1798), the heart of the matter gets to responsibility and accountability, not paychecks.

HB1798 is about ensuring those who are found to be responsible for a wrongful death are held accountable for their actions. To use a crass analogy, Mr. Murnane is on the side of OJ Simpson and Scott Peterson in this matter.

On the other hand, Mr. Murnane also discusses another ITLA-backed bill, SB1296. While I disagree with his goofy mislabeling of  this as a “Deep Pockets Bill” I do agree that this is bad legislation that oversteps its bounds. SB1296 would effectively overhaul liability such that a person or organization which may be found to be only partially responsible in a civil suit could be held liable for 100% of damages.

That’s the dictionary definition of “illogical” and is actually a good chance for Mr. Murnane to recycle his oft-used “unfair” label. (Of course, Mr. Murnane seems to think a lot of tort issues are “unfair” … but I guess that’s bound to happen when you’re more concerned with a business’ bottom line than holding people and organizations accountable for their actions.)

As Mr. Murnane suggests, you can contact your state legislators on either or both of these bills — though SB1296 is the hot one given that it is just out of the House committee and could be voted on by the entire House soon (meaning: contact your State Rep).

Conservatives are up in arms that a class of Chicago 8th graders were shown the movie “Brokeback Mountain.” Among others, both the Petey LaBarbera (the guy who spies on gay folks) at the oddly named Americans for “Truth” and, of course, our good buddy Johnny Ruskin of Illinois Review have written on the matter to exfoliate all that rage and horror at the evil homo-educratic agenda from their pretty little selves.

But what they seem to be most pleased about is that one of those 8th graders is now suing the Chicago Public Schools for half a million dollars … for psychological distress. I guess she (or her grandparents) think seeing cowboys kiss has now scarred her for life and perhaps even given her a lifelong disgust for people who play cowboys for the screen, such as Presidents Reagan and Bush 43. We’ll have to wait to see what their rationale is when they go to court to waste the judge’s time… What’s that? “Waste the judge’s time…” Where have we heard this before?

Strangely enough, folks who support “tort reform” with exclamations of “End frivolous lawsuits!” have yet to weigh in on this matter of great, national importance. I wonder what Petey and Johnny’s conservative allies Ed Murnane, Curt Mercadente and the rest of the superheros at the Illinois Civil Justice League have to say about this frivolous lawsuit. (Then again, maybe it comes down to everybody hating lawyers til a kid sees a movie they don’t like.)

Ed Murnane posts at Illinois Justice blog that Illinois is among the “worst” states as considered by corporate lawyers. Corporate attorneys such as those which help defend Exelon as a result of the water they poisoned in central Illinois. Corporate lawyers such as those who defend the hospital and the doctor which accidentally amputates the wrong limb from your body. Corporate attorneys who are employed by the companies which fund the US Chamber of Commerce, the organization that gave Madison County, Illinois the oh-so-flattering pejorative moniker “judicial hellhole” and set up a silly propaganda paper replete with an editor from the big city to keep pumping that perception out.

Those corporate attorneys.

I wonder what a poll of folks who are hurt by corporate malfeasance, negligence or downright ineptitude would show… (In his defense Mr. Murnane almost asks that same question, but clearly doesn’t care to know the answer since he so quickly dismisses the thought.)

Is the lawsuit climate out of whack? Perhaps. But remember that everyone hates lawyers til they need the best one they can afford — and corporations can generally afford much better attorneys than the rest of us. And Erin Brockovich is still considered a hero among the “little guys” … and a nemesis among the corporate elite.

COMPLETE TANGENT: I wonder if such comments make Mr. Murnane an “Illinois hater”. It’s clear that he thinks our Prairie State is one of the “worst” among the 50. Under the partisan conservatives’ logic, questioning (let alone disparaging) any aspect of a given country or state or person earns one the label “Bush Hater” or “America Hater”. Hmm… see how ridiculous such hyperpartisan name-calling is?