A Stitch in Haste

For reasons that I will disclose at some future point, I have a need to brush up on my frivolous litigation blogging.

So here's a "speed round" of silly lawsuits -- a sort of "dream team" if you will.

ITEM: We all think our dogs are priceless, so I guess a $4 million custody lawsuit is no big deal, right? Not divorcing spouses, mind you, but mere apartment roommates. My take: The paperwork for the animal should be probative if not dispositive, and there should be no question of money damages, only a declarative judgment of who is the dog's legal caretaker.

ITEM: Dogs. Hair. Haircut. Bad haircut. Lawsuit. For $150,000. The fun part? The plaintiff signed a waiver indicating she knew she was being serviced by a trainee.

ITEM: A bad haircut isn't the only way to ruin someone's beauty --

A Manhattan scavenger hunt landed a Tennessee tourist in the hospital with a smashed face, according to the teen's mom, who is suing the theatrical company that runs the game.
...
He was instructed to get on a bicycle and ride to the base of the Brooklyn Bridge near Fulton Street, where he would find a clue tied to a metal fence, according to his lawyer.

The real scavenger hunt is for what really happened when the young man crashed the bike: was it bad brakes or the fact that the kid had no irises:

Nerby confirmed that her son was born without irises but said he regularly rides his bike without incident back home.

I spy with my (iris-equipped) eye ... some very interesting litigation approaching.

ITEM: And of course, what dream team is complete without Michael Jordan?

A Northeast Portland man is suing basketball superstar Michael Jordan and Nike founder Phil Knight for a combined $832 million. Allen Heckard filed the suit himself, June 29th in Washington County Court. Heckard says he's been mistaken as Michael Jordan nearly every day over the past 15 years and he's tired of it.
...
Heckard is suing Jordan for defamation and permanent injury and emotional pain and suffering. He’s suing Knight for defamation and permanent injury for promoting Jordan and making him one of the most recognized men in the world.
...
Some might wonder how he decided to sue Knight and Jordan for $416-million each. "Well, you figure with my age and you multiply that times seven and ah, then I turn around and ah I figure that's what it all boils down to."

Just sue it? (Via Phalanx; see also Overlawyered times two.)

Today's frivolous lawsuit:

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.
...
The plaintiffs accuse the corporate defendants ... of a "civil conspiracy," saying they should have foreseen their entertainment "would spawn such copycat violence."

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

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.)