Professor Richard Epstein Argues Against Cap on Liability Damages

Arguments against liability caps don’t just come from plaintiff’s attorneys. Highly respected University of Chicago professor Richard Epstein argues against a statutory cap on damages for BP.

From the Wall Street Journal:

BP Doesn’t Deserve a Liability Cap
By RICHARD A. EPSTEIN

Our national frustration continues to rise with each new drop of BP oil that leaks into the Gulf of Mexico. Everyone knows we can’t legislate away environmental risks without consigning ourselves to the Stone Age. What’s needed going forward is a comprehensive legal strategy that addresses the risks though a combination of regulation before the fact and tort liability (and criminal sanctions where appropriate) afterwards.

Tort remedies are essential to protect people (and their property) who do not have contractual relations with defendants from harms such as air and water pollution. The legal system should never allow self-interested parties to keep for themselves all the gains from dangerous activities that unilaterally impose losses on others—which is why the most devout defender of laissez-faire must insist, not just concede, that tough medicine is needed in these cases. The fundamental question here is one of technique: What mix of before and after sanctions will do the job at the lowest cost?

The first element in the mix is a no-nonsense liability system that fastens full responsibility on the parties who run dangerous operations, no excuses allowed. Accordingly, we have to be especially wary of statutory caps on tort damages, including the current law, under which, in the case of the oil industry, the “total of liability . . . with respect to each incident shall not exceed for an offshore facility except a deepwater port, the total of all removal costs plus $75,000,000.” That $75 million is chicken feed. Fortunately, the law removes that cap if the incident was caused by “the gross negligence or willful misconduct” of any party, or its failure to comply with any “applicable Federal safety, construction, or operating regulation.”

To truly have a “system of justice”, you can not have liability caps–for BP or any other negligent actor.

What Justice Looks Like: “Pants” Judge Loses Appeal

Soo and Jin Chung, the drycleaners who were sued for $67 million, can take some solace from the fact that former judge Roy Pearson is out of a job.

From Law.com:

‘Pants Judge’ Loses Wrongful Termination Appeal

Former administrative law judge Roy Pearson Jr. just can’t catch a break in his quest to hold someone accountable for losing his job with the District of Columbia.

Pearson, recall, was the judge who filed a multimillion-dollar suit against a dry cleaner over a lost pair of pants. The suit didn’t go unnoticed. In 2007, Pearson was denied reappointment to his post as a D.C. administrative law judge. Pearson sued, making a host of claims.

When Pearson’s wrongful termination suit was dismissed by the federal district court in Washington, he turned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Thursday, a three-judge panel upheld the dismissal of the suit . . . .

“The district court correctly concluded Pearson’s testimony before the D.C. Council and private communication with the Council’s staff were not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,” D.C. Circuit Judges Douglas Ginsburg, Karen LeCraft Henderson and Merrick Garland said in a two-page judgment Thursday.

The judges pointed to a D.C. Circuit ruling last year in an unrelated case where the court said that a public employee speaks without First Amendment protection when he reports conduct that interferes with his job responsibilities. “Pearson did just that,” the panel judges said Thursday.

Pearson’s suit against his dry cleaner was also not protected speech, the appeals court said. “That suit did not involve a matter of public concern; as the district court stated, it was more properly ‘characterized as a personal vendetta against a dry cleaners over a pair of pants.’”

Posted on May 28, 2010 in Constitutional Rights, Employment Law
Comments Off

Keating, O’Gara Attorney Gary Young Fights for Free Speech Rights

Keating, O’Gara attorney Gary Young won the dismissal of a lawsuit that, if successful, would have quelled the right of a citizen to criticize a corporation and its management.

Judge dismisses Lancaster Manor defamation suit
Lincoln Journal Star
by Algis J. Laukaitis
March 18, 2010

A judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by Hunter Management against Kim Kaspar and the union that represented Lancaster Manor employees.

“It’s very good news, and it’s consistent with our theory that this was an attempt to shut down our free speech,” said Lincoln attorney Gary Young, who represented Kaspar and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 2468.

Kaspar is president of the union, which fought unsuccessfully to stop the county board from selling Lancaster Manor, a 293-bed nursing home at 1001 South St. The sale is in the final stage of closing.

During several town hall meetings and appearances before the board, Kaspar and the union voiced concerns about Hunter Management and the care it gave residents. The Evanston, Ill.-based company owns all or part of about 40 nursing homes, including Homestead Rehabilitation Center in Lincoln . . . .

Keating, O’Gara Case Filed on Behalf of Anaya Family Featured on National Radio as an Example of the “Creeping Control” of the State

The case of 6 week-old Joel Anaya being seized from his nursing mother’s arms piqued the interest of “the nation’s most listened to radio host.”

Rush Limbaugh featured the Anaya case on his October 30, 2007 morning update.

Rush’s Morning Update: Seized!
October 30, 2007

Six weeks ago, a Nebraska couple became first-time parents. However, their religious beliefs ran afoul of a Nebraska law requiring all newborn infants to receive a mandatory blood test to screen for several diseases. They refused the test. So sheriff’s deputies seized the newborn, allowed health workers to draw and screen the blood — then placed the infant into foster care for almost a week, waiting for the results.

According to a Department of Health and Human Services spokes-babe, this was the first time in Nebraska that an infant has been seized. While other states have similar laws on the books, four states — South Dakota, Michigan, Montana, and Nebraska — don’t offer religious exemptions.

The baby tested okay, and is now back home with the parents. But the parents’ attorney, Jeff Downing, says it’s “a classic case of the government overreaching and violating a family’s constitutional rights.” Although the family isn’t seeking damages — they want to ensure this won’t happen again.

Put aside for the moment whether you agree or disagree with the parents on blood tests. What oughta chill you to the bone is what this incident represents. If government officials won’t hesitate to seize a newborn — imagine what they’ll do with you … should you make a decision they don’t like.

The more power you cede to the government over your health care, the less freedom you and your family have — over your own health, and your own life.

Keating, O’Gara’s Jeff Downing, attorney for the Anaya family, was then interviewed in depth by Rush during the second hour of his program:

RUSH: To the phones, Lincoln, Nebraska. Jeff, thanks for the call, sir. It’s nice to have you here.

DOWNING: Rush, Cornhusker dittos from the reddest of the red states.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

DOWNING: It just so happens, Rush, that I heard the Morning Update this morning, and it’s one of my cases that you had an outstanding commentary on.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

DOWNING: Well, it regards the Nebraska Newborn Screening Program, one of our Nanny State provisions in the law which requires that babies have a heel stick, and five drops of blood are put on some paper, and then the state screens for one of eight inherited metabolic genetic disorders.

RUSH: Such as…?

DOWNING: Such as things like a PKU, cystic fibrosis, hemoglobinopathy, like sickle cell diseases, and so on. These are things which are inherited. They’re incredibly rare, usually one in 10,000, one in 30,000, but nonetheless, our state — along with most other states — have these mandated screening programs. Unfortunately, Nebraska doesn’t have an opt-out provision, and so I, unfortunately, had some clients who, in declining doing the newborn screening after a home birth, were the victim of the Nanny State run amok.

RUSH: Yeah, let me briefly tell the story here because who we’re talking to, you’re Jeff Downing, correct?

DOWNING: Correct.

RUSH: You’re the parents’ attorney.

DOWNING: That’s right.

RUSH: The parents’ — I guess it’s for religious reasons?

DOWNING: Yeah, exactly.

RUSH: Decided that they didn’t want the screening done on their child, and so the state came in and took the kid.

DOWNING: Exactly.

RUSH: The state came in, took the child and tested anyway and put it in foster care, an infant, for a week!

Posted on October 30, 2007 in Constitutional Rights
Comments (1)

Update: Keating O’Gara Files Federal Lawsuit for Denial of Due Process in Newborn Screening Case

mary-anaya-kissing-baby-joel.jpg

Keating, O’Gara has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit (viewable here: amended-complaint.pdf) to vindicate the rights of the Anaya family of Omaha.

On October 11, 2007 without warning or notice, the State of Nebraska removed baby Joel Anaya, then just 5 weeks and 4 days old, from the family home even though there were no emergent medical circumstances.

From The Guardian:

Suit Says Baby’s Seizure Violated Rights
By ANNA JO BRATTON
Associated Press Writer

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) – A Nebraska couple sued state health officials Thursday, arguing their rights were violated when their newborn baby was seized by sheriff’s deputies so a mandatory blood test could be performed.

Joel Anaya, who was almost 6 weeks old, was kept in foster care for six days until the tests came back negative earlier this month.

His parents, Mary and Josue Anaya, believe that the Bible instructs against deliberately drawing blood and that ignoring that directive may shorten a person’s life. State health officials “conspired to deny the Anayas their rights of due process, and to seize and test baby Joel without notice or a hearing in district court,” according to the filed in U.S. District Court in Omaha.

“This is a classic case of the government overreaching and violating a family’s constitutional rights,” said Jeff Downing, the couple’s attorney.

The Anaya family is not seeking damages, but they want to ensure that this won’t happen again if they have more children.

It’s the first time in Nebraska a child was taken from parents to draw the drops of blood from the baby’s heel for the screening, said Marla Augustine, spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Human Services. Nebraska is one of four states – South Dakota, Michigan and Montana are the others – that doesn’t offer a religious exemption for parents who don’t want the test performed.

Health officials say the newborn screening program is one of the state’s most cost-effective public health programs. The newborn blood test – usually performed within 48 hours of birth – screens for dozens of rare diseases, some of which can cause severe mental retardation or death if left undetected.

Last year, out of 26,819 babies tested, 537 tested positive for one of the dozens of diseases, and 43 of those results were confirmed, according to the state’s Newborn Screening Program.

Augustine said Thursday that state officials had not seen the lawsuit and would have no comment.

The decision to seize Joel Anaya and test him was made by Douglas County prosecutors who have said they only did what was necessary to protect the baby’s health.

When the Anayas’ daughter Rosa was born in 2003, a hearing was held in Douglas County District Court and the couple voiced their objections. The state Supreme Court eventually turned down their arguments, but Rosa never was tested.

This time, the county wanted to make sure the testing was completed, said Nicole Brundo Goaley, a deputy Douglas County Attorney. So the county got an order from a juvenile court judge to test the baby.

Sheriff’s deputies came Oct. 11 to take the child, who remained in foster care until tests came back Oct. 16. During that period, social workers let Mary Anaya nurse her son several times a day.

Scott Voorhees of KFAB Radio interviews Mary Anaya and attorney Jeff Downing here.

Posted on October 26, 2007 in Constitutional Rights
Comments (0)

From offices in Lincoln, Nebraska, attorneys at Keating, O'Gara, Nedved & Peter, P.C., L.L.O. serve clients in Lincoln, Grand Island, Kearney, Omaha, Hastings, Norfolk, Fremont, Beatrice, Broken Bow, Valentine, Lexington, North Platte, McCook, Ainsworth, O' Neill, Wayne, Norfolk, Fairbury, Kimball, Sidney, Seward, York, Aurora, Columbus, and communities throughout Lancaster County, Adams, Buffalo, Custer, Gage, Hall, Lincoln and Red Willow Counties, and those injured in traffic accidents on Interstate Highway 80, and Nebraska state highways 81, 83, 183, and 281.