Grand Daft Auto
---
Today's frivolous lawsuit:
First off, regarding "civil conspiracy": Conspiracy is not a true tort — it's closer to a form of vicarious liability (see Alec's comment below). And "conspiracy" to commit what?
Of course, the lawsuit will likely be framed as a negligence action — foreseeability is generally only relevant in negligence. And the plaintiff's emphasis on causation is also key in any negligence action.
As is duty. A plaintiff cannot prevail in a negligence lawsuit if the defendant owed him no duty.
So what, precisely, is the duty that the makers of GTA owe to the victims? Blank out.
And going back to foreseeability for a moment: the general (and entirely reasonable) rule is that the criminal acts of third parties are never — never — considered foreseeable. The plaintiff's lawsuit would therefore appear invalid ex ante as a matter of law.
If these shakedown trial lawyers really wanted to be clever, then they would consider framing the issue not as a negligence lawsuit, but rather as a product liability action. Simply claim that GTA, by "causing" violent behavior in minors, is defectively designed — and that its manufacturers (and wholesalers and retailers) are strictly liable for any injuries proximately caused by the defect.
If it's good enough for cigarettes (i.e., the thesis that a product that does exactly what it is designed to do can somehow be "defective"), then why not for video games?
One last point:
(Welcome Overlawyered readers.)
Family members of three people slain by a 14-year-old on newsman Sam Donaldson's New Mexico ranch sued the makers of the video game "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" on Monday, claiming the crimes would not have occurred had the teenager never played the violent game.This is, of course, utter nonsense.
...
The plaintiffs accuse the corporate defendants ... of a "civil conspiracy," saying they should have foreseen their entertainment "would spawn such copycat violence."
First off, regarding "civil conspiracy": Conspiracy is not a true tort — it's closer to a form of vicarious liability (see Alec's comment below). And "conspiracy" to commit what?
Of course, the lawsuit will likely be framed as a negligence action — foreseeability is generally only relevant in negligence. And the plaintiff's emphasis on causation is also key in any negligence action.
As is duty. A plaintiff cannot prevail in a negligence lawsuit if the defendant owed him no duty.
So what, precisely, is the duty that the makers of GTA owe to the victims? Blank out.
And going back to foreseeability for a moment: the general (and entirely reasonable) rule is that the criminal acts of third parties are never — never — considered foreseeable. The plaintiff's lawsuit would therefore appear invalid ex ante as a matter of law.
If these shakedown trial lawyers really wanted to be clever, then they would consider framing the issue not as a negligence lawsuit, but rather as a product liability action. Simply claim that GTA, by "causing" violent behavior in minors, is defectively designed — and that its manufacturers (and wholesalers and retailers) are strictly liable for any injuries proximately caused by the defect.
If it's good enough for cigarettes (i.e., the thesis that a product that does exactly what it is designed to do can somehow be "defective"), then why not for video games?
One last point:
Thompson also is the attorney in a $600 million Alabama lawsuit ... that blames "Grand Theft Auto" for the 2003 murders of two police officers and a dispatcher at a rural police department.I guess the idea is that if you file enough frivolous lawsuits, eventually you'll strike pay dirt somewhere.
(Welcome Overlawyered readers.)
Related Posts (on one page):
- Grand Daft Auto
- The Frivolous Lawsuit Dream Team
Posted by Kip on
25 September 2006
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
