A Stitch in Haste

Here are some links regarding lawsuits that libertarians might have opinions on, one way of the other. Open thread -- comment away on any of them.

ITEM: "Sir, you appear to be intoxicated ready for another." Talk about Dram Shop laws!

The company that serves beer at Giants Stadium was slammed for a second time yesterday when a jury added $75 million in punitive damages to the award -- now a staggering $135 million -- for serving suds to a soused fan who left a girl paralyzed in a drunken wreck.

The decision comes a day after the same Bergen County jury ruled that Meadowlands food and drink vendor Aramark had to pay half of a $60 million judgment to cover the girl's living and medical expenses.

That makes $105 million the catering conglomerate must shell out over the 1999 wreck, in which tipsy fan Daniel Lanzaro plowed into a car as the then-2-year-old Antonia Verni and her family were returning from a pumpkin-picking trip.
...
Antonia's family argued that Aramark was responsible for the accident, which left her a ventilator-dependent quadriplegic, because it continued to serve Lanzaro after he was extremely intoxicated. The New Jersey man, who is serving a five-year prison sentence, had a blood alcohol level of 0.266, three times the legal limit and equal to some 16 beers.
...
Aramark's attorney, Keith Harris, argued that Lanzaro tricked beer vendors into serving him by appearing not to be drunk.
...
[The child's lawyer] said he hopes the ruling will change the way beer is sold at stadiums everywhere. "You cannot condone or allow visibly intoxicated people to consume alcohol," he said.

My Take: Dram shop laws are not offensive to libertarian principles per se: run your business negligently, be prepared to pay the price. Far more important is the fact that the claims against the NFL and the Giants were (properly) dismissed. Liability simply cannot be infinitely vicarious, no matter how tragic the incident.

Related Post:
Should Alcohol Be Banned from Stadiums?

-----

ITEM: "Thank you, unbiased stranger!" Point of Law Forum reports that client lawsuits against Wall Street firms based on claims of biased research are generally failing:

After the 2003 settlement in which 10 Wall Street firms agreed to pay $1.4 billion in fines and restitution over charges of having improperly tilted their stock research to favor underwriting clients, class action lawyers "spen[t] millions of dollars on television and newspaper ads in search of people who lost money on WorldCom and other stocks mentioned in the settlement." But "[s]ecurities-industry arbitration panels have rejected the vast majority of cases decided so far." "'We bet big, and so far we have lost big,' says [a class action lawyer]."

My Take: Remember "cause in fact" and "proximate cause" from first-year torts? Well, news flash: the same principle applies to securities litigation. The client must not only prove that she lost money investing in EvilCorp ("loss causation"), but also that the tainted research caused her to buy EvilCorp stock in the first place ("transaction causation"). Just as "cause in fact" is easy to show, but proximate causation can be more difficult, so too with loss causation and transaction causation. Stick to mutual funds, kids.

UPDATE: Word just came down that class actions against the eye of the storm, former Merrill Lynch analyst Henry Blodget, have been dismissed for exactly the same reason (i.e., no transaction causation).

Related Post:
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the..."

-----

ITEM: "Have you got anything without Spam in it?" Courtesy of Privacy Spot --

[A] spammer is suing a spamee who complained about all the spam he was receiving. The alleged spammer, a company known as Atriks, is suing Jay Stuler for lost contracts caused by Stuler's allegedly defamatory statements.

Stuler allegedly called Atriks a "notorious spam gang," and the company is listed on the Spamhaus database as a known spammer. Nevertheless, Atriks claims it has complied with the CAN-SPAM Act, and that Stuler's comments therefore amount to defamation. "They apparently are angry that spamming has become difficult for them and blame me," said Stuler.

My Take: A "spamee"? Anyway, "notorious spam gang" is clearly too vague to constitute a defamatory statement. However, the plaintiff spammer also claims that the defendant used the term "criminal." Oops. I smell a settlement.

Related Post:
U.S. & U.K.: Expand War on Spam