- By Emily Gottlieb
- Deputy Director, Center for
Justice & Democracy
INTRODUCTION
No one likes a hypocrite. Yet one would be
hard pressed to find more hypocrites than in
the “tort reform” movement. Take a look at
the record of a host of lawmakers, lobbyists
and even journalists who complain about
lawsuits and argue that the rights of injured
consumers to go to court should be scaled back
because we are too “litigious.” Yet when
they or family members are hurt and need
compensation for their own injuries, often
minor ones, these same individuals do not
hesitate to use the courts to obtain
compensation, to right a wrong, to hold a
wrongdoer accountable or to obtain justice.
The same is true for corporations that have
funded the “tort reform” movement. These
companies support efforts to immunize
themselves from liability for harming
consumers. But when these same companies
believe they have been wronged by a business
competitor, they are the first to sue.
In this report we take a look at the cases of
several proponents of tort restrictions who do
not “practice what they preach.” We
examine individuals who have sued sometimes
for millions of dollars while at the same time
championing damage caps and other severe
liability restrictions for others. We also
look at corporate litigants who have lent
financial or other support to groups like the
American Tort Reform Association (ATRA), the
Manhattan Institute and state business
coalitions like New Yorkers for Civil Justice
Reform (NYCJR). [1]
Notably, tort restrictions advocated by
these organizations virtually never limit the
rights of corporations to sue business
competitors for commercial losses. This
list is by no means exhaustive but merely
representative of businesses and other “tort
reformers” who say one thing but do another
when it comes to the civil justice system.
INDIVIDUAL HYPOCRITES
George W. Bush
As Texas Governor, George W. Bush was one of
the “tort reform” movement’s biggest
proponents. One of Bush’s first acts as
governor in 1995 was to meet with
representatives of nine Texas Citizens Against
Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) chapters in a salsa
factory outside of Austin, after which he
declared a legislative “emergency” on
“frivolous lawsuits.” Over his two terms,
Bush signed a series of brutal bills that
severely reduced injured consumers’ rights
to go to court.
However, when it comes to solving problems
involving his own family, Bush heads straight
to court. In 1999, Bush sued Enterprise
Rent-A-Car over a minor fender-bender
involving one of his daughters in which no one
was hurt. Although his insurance would have
covered the repair costs making a lawsuit
unnecessary, Bush sought additional money from
Enterprise, which had rented a car to someone
with a suspended license. In this case, Bush
seemed to understand one of the most important
functions of civil lawsuits — to deter
further wrongdoing. The case settled for
$2,000 to $2,500. [2]
ABC News Correspondent John Stossel
As 20/20 viewers know, there are few things
that irk John Stossel more than people who
file lawsuits. “We all have pain and
suffering in our lives. And if each time we
hang onto it until we get some kind of
compensation, society can’t work,” he
says. [3]
When speaking before corporate-funded groups
such as the Cato and Manhattan Institutes,
organizations whose members advocate severely
restricting the ability of injured consumers
to sue companies for their injuries, he can
barely contain his contempt for those who file
lawsuits and the attorneys who represent them.
[4]
But what did John Stossel do when a pro
wrestler hit him in 1986 after Stossel implied
pro wrestling was fake? He sued. And in
settling his lawsuit, Stossel reportedly
accepted $200,000 for his pain and suffering. [5]
U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.)
As a United States Senator, Rick Santorum has
repeatedly supported limits on consumers’
rights to seek compensation in the courts. In
1994, Santorum sponsored the Comprehensive
Family Health Access and Savings Act that
would have capped non-economic damages at
$250,000. [6]
In a 1995 floor speech supporting damages
caps, Santorum said, “We have a much too
costly legal system. It is one that makes us
uncompetitive and inefficient, and one that is
not fair to society as a whole. While we may
have people, individuals, who hit the jackpot
and win the lottery in some cases, that is not
exactly what our legal system should be
designed to do.” [7]
But the same rhetoric does not seem to apply
to Senator Santorum. In December 1999 Santorum
supported his wife’s medical malpractice
lawsuit against her chiropractor for $500,000.
[8] At
trial, the Senator testified that his wife
should be compensated for the pain and
suffering caused by a botched spine
adjustment, claiming that she had to “treat
her back gingerly” [9]
and could no longer accompany him on the
campaign trail. After the verdict, Santorum
refused to answer phone calls asking what
impact the case had on his views of “tort
reform.” [10]
According to his spokesman Robert Traynham,
“Senator Santorum is of the belief that the
verdict decided upon by the jury during last
week’s court case of his wife is strictly a
private matter. The legislative positions that
Senator Santorum has taken on tort reform and
health care have been consistent with the case
involving Mrs. Santorum.” [11]
In January 2000, a judge set aside the
$350,000 verdict, deeming it excessive, and
offered a reduced award of $175,000 or a new
trial on damages only. [12]
Alaska State Representative Mark Hodgins
Alaska’s Republican Assemblyman Mark Hodgins
was a proponent of a severe “tort reform”
package, including caps on damages, that was
enacted in Alaska in 1997. Yet on two separate
occasions — once in 1989 and again in 1994
— Hodgins filed “loss of comfort, care and
consortium” claims against the families of
teenage drivers who struck his wife’s car.
The 1989 lawsuit settled out of court. The
outcome of the 1994 suit, filed two years
after the accident, is unknown. [13]
“Lawsuit Abuse” Group Founder and Trustee,
Sterling Cornelius
Sterling Cornelius, owner of Cornelius
Nurseries and Turkey Creek Farms in Houston
and a trustee of the corporate front-group,
Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA), is one
of the most vocal businessmen complaining
about lawsuits and advocating tort
restrictions in Texas. With the help and
support of the Texas CALA group, Texas enacted
a series of “tort reforms” in 1995,
including caps on punitive damages and severe
restrictions on lawsuits filed under Texas’
Deceptive Trade Practices Act. [14]
But in 1993, Sterling filed a $100 million
lawsuit against DuPont, claiming that its
fungicide, Benlate, damaged his companies’
crop and nursery. Among the damages Cornelius
sought were $75.3 million in punitive damages
under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act as
well as additional punitive damages. Because
his lawsuit was filed before enactment of the
1995 legislation, his lawsuit was not affected
by the “tort reforms” that passed. [15]
Florida State Representative Art
Argenio
Republican Representative Art Argenio in
Florida has been one of the state’s most
outspoken supporters of restricting the rights
of injured Floridians to go to court, calling
himself “a leader” in this movement. But
in 1993, when Argenio was injured by a driver
who hit him as he jogged along the street,
what did he do? He sued the driver, of course.
Moreover, campaign literature distributed by
Argenio’s opponent noted that he filed suit
even though his insurance company had paid all
his medical bills. Argenio, it seems, wanted
more money to compensate him for what he said
were “severe and permanent injuries” — i.e.,
noneconomic damages, the kind of injuries
“tort reform” proponents continuously rail
against. The case ultimately settled. The
compensation he received must have helped him
recover. Three years after the accident,
Argenio ran in a marathon. [16]
Florida State Representative Mark
Flanagan
As a member of the House Civil Justice and
Claims Committee, Mark Flanagan was a major
force behind severe tort restrictions that
were enacted in Florida in 1999, sponsoring
and co-sponsoring bills that protect
manufacturers of defective products, while
calling Florida “the most litigious society
in the world.”
But it was a different story when his own
daughter fell from a daycare center’s jungle
gym and broke her leg in 1995. Flanagan sued
both the day care center and the manufacturer
of the jungle gym, alleging that the
manufacturer “negligently and carelessly
designed” the apparatus and that the
preschool failed to properly supervise his
daughter. Like many injured victims whose
rights Flanagan’s legislation decimates, the
lawsuit alleged that his daughter suffered
from “severe pain” and “lost the
capacity to enjoy life.” After 18 months of
litigation — and two months before his bid
for re-election — Flanagan settled for an
undisclosed amount. [17]
Texans for Lawsuit Reform Board
Members
In April 1995, Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR)
helped lobby for legislation that capped
punitive damages, limited governmental and
professional liability, undermined joint and
several liability and decimated Texas’
Deceptive Claims Practices Act. [18]
Yet at the time this legislation
passed, TLR Board members Leo Linbeck, [19]
Richard Trabulsi and Richard Weekley had
themselves filed over 60 lawsuits either
personally or as business owners. Between 1978
and 1995, Leo Linbeck’s construction company
was the plaintiff in at least 37 lawsuits. In
one suit, which was settled confidentially,
his company sued its own insurance company for
triple damages stemming from the deaths of
three workers in a construction accident. In
another case, settled in November 1988,
Linbeck sued for punitive damages.
By 1995, Board member Richard Trabulsi had
also filed suit numerous times. In 1986, as
the owner of Richard’s Liquor and Fine
Wines, Trabulsi sued Walgreen’s to force it
to stop selling alcohol in Texas. He also
filed a personal-injury suit against his
company in which the company prevailed. He
told the Houston Post, “I have had
access to the courts a number of times I had
forgotten.” [20]
As of 1995, TLR President and co-founder
Richard Weekly, head of Weekley Properties and
Weekley Development and a partner of David
Weekley Homes, had sued six times; his
companies had sued 14 times. [21]
W.V. Supreme Court Justice Richard Neely
In January 1994, West Virginia Supreme Court
Justice Richard Neely testified before the New
Jersey Senate Commerce Committee as it
considered bills designed to abolish the
state’s tort system. Appearing as a paid
spokesman for the corporate front-group, New
Jersey Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, Neely
attacked every player in the civil justice
system, from lawyers to judges to injured
victims who sue.
Those pronouncements were surprising given
Neely’s personal history with the civil
justice system. In 1986, he reportedly sued
TWA because his bags arrived 70 minutes late.
He demanded $38,000, $3,000 of which was a
“speaker’s fee” for telling other
passengers about the delay. Three years later,
the case settled for $12,500. In 1993, Neely
sued Goodyear Tire after a wheel fell off his
father’s Cadillac. He sought $49,000 that
included $2,000 for himself for five-hours
worth of telephone calls to his parents. As
Neely testified before the New Jersey Senate,
the case was dismissed. [22]
Citizens for a Strong Ohio
Advisory Board Member R. Emmett Boyle
In 1996, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce lobbied
for a package of laws that made it more
difficult or impossible for injured Ohio
citizens to sue wrongdoers and be fairly
compensated for their injuries. [23]
On August 16, 1999, the Ohio Supreme Court
struck down this package of laws in its
entirety, calling it “openly
subversive of the separation of powers and, in
particular, of the judicial system”
established by the Ohio Constitution. State
ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v.
Sheward, 86 Ohio St.3d 451 (1999). During
the 2000 elections, Citizens for a Strong
Ohio, a group created by the Ohio Chamber of
Commerce, [24]
spent an estimated $5 million to oust Supreme
Court Justice Alice Robie Resnick, who wrote
the Sheward decision. [25]
Yet when it comes to his own
company, Citizens for a Strong Ohio Advisory
Board Member R. Emmett Boyle does not hesitate
to sue. In 1995, Boyle’s company, Ormet
Primary Aluminum Corporation, sued Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, Employers
Insurance of Wausau, Globe Indemnity Company
and Home Indemnity Company, seeking coverage
for environmental contamination at its
Hannibal, Ohio reduction facility and
remediation costs. After five years of
litigation, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the
lower court’s decision to throw the case
out, finding that the company had known it was
liable for the contamination yet waited 16
years before notifying its insurers. Ormet
Primary Aluminum Corporation v. Employers
Insurance of Wausau et al., 88 Ohio St.3d
292 (2000).
CORPORATE HYPOCRITES
The following corporations have funded or are
members of either national or state
organizations that advocate “tort reform.”
Tort reforms are always aimed at curbing
litigation by sick and injured consumers
against corporations, hospitals and other
wrongdoers. Such “reforms” rarely affect
“business-to-business” litigation, leaving
corporations with unfettered use of the courts
to obtain compensation for their commercial
losses from trademark infringements, breach of
contract, patent infringements, unfair
completion or a host of other commercial
claims. Sometimes the targets of their
lawsuits are much smaller businesses or even
consumers. The following are a few examples:
Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
From the 1970s through the 1980s, Aetna was an
outspoken leader in efforts to push for tort
restrictions and to create juror scorn for
trial lawyers and lawsuits. In the 50s, 60s
and 70s, Aetna was among several insurance
companies that had launched direct advertising
assaults on the civil jury system. These ads
were so misleading that in the 1978 case, Quinn
v. Aetna Life and Casualty Co., 409
N.Y.S.2d 473, the New York Supreme Court found
that two Aetna ads could convince some jurors
to reduce arbitrarily personal injury awards.
The court held that these ads “violate[d]
the state public policy against jury
tampering, unduly burden[ed] plaintiffs’
right to an impartial jury, and distort[ed]
the trial process by providing otherwise
inadmissible insurance evidence...”
Yet Aetna has not hesitated to use the civil
jury system when it suits itself, in
particular to recoup its own insurance
payouts. For example, in 1998, Aetna sued to
recover money it had paid to its customer,
Merchants Company, for thefts it claimed were
caused by lax security by another company,
Pendleton Detectives. Aetna went before a
jury, which awarded Aetna $174,000. The
verdict was upheld on appeal. Aetna
Casualty & Surety Co. v. Pendleton
Detectives, Inc., 182 F.3d 376 (5th
Cir.1999).
Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
In the early 1990s, Anheuser-Busch sued a
small publishing company over a parody
advertisement for “Michelob Oily” beer
published in Snicker magazine in 1989.
The company alleged “trademark
infringement” and “unfair competition.” Anheuser-Busch,
Inc. v. Balducci Publications et al., 28
F.3d 769 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied,
513 U.S. 1112 (1995). Anheuser-Busch won the
case but still paid the publisher $10,000 for
the negative and paste-up sheet of the ad and
all remaining copies of the magazine. [26]
Eastman Kodak Company
Eastman Kodak holds a number of patents
and does not hesitate to sue when it believes
its patents are being infringed upon. For
example, in 1990, Eastman Kodak sued Goodyear
Tire and Shell Oil for patent infringement
over a process that increased the molecular
weight of polyester. The jury awarded Kodak
and its co-plaintiff $12 million. Eastman
Kodak Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,
Civ-2-90-221 (E.D. Tenn.1995). In 1993,
Eastman Kodak filed another patent
infringement case against Sony for use of a
magnetic recording system used in VCR
machines, camcorders and other products. [27]
Eli Lilly & Co.
From 1995 to 1997, Ely Lilly filed three
separate lawsuits — two for patent
infringement and one for additional civil
claims — against Biochimica Opos, a
manufacturer of bulk pharmaceutical chemicals
for generic drug companies. The suits
concerned the production and sale of an
antibiotic drug. Eli Lilly & Co. v.
American Cyanamid et al., 66 F. Supp.2d
924 (S.D. Ind. 1999); Eli Lilly & Co.
v. Roussel Corp. et al., 23 F.Supp.2d 460
(U.S. Dist. Ct. NJ 1998); Eli Lilly &
Co. v. American Cyanamid et al., 896
F.Supp.851 (S.D. Ind. 1995). The companies
settled all three cases in January 2000. Under
the settlement agreement, Ely Lilly received
$110 million. [28]
Enterprise Rent-A-Car
In 1998, Enterprise Rent-A-Car began
litigation against Rent-A-Wreck — a company
25 times smaller than Enterprise — over
Enterprise’s trademarked phrase, “We’ll
Pick You Up.” Rent-A-Wreck had used radio
ads that contained the phrase “And of
course, they’ll pick you up.” Later, after
a purported settlement between the companies,
Enterprise tried to stop Rent-A-Wreck from
obtaining a trademark for the phrase,
“We’ll Give You A Lift.” Enterprise
Rent-A-Car Co. v. Rent-A-Wreck of America,
98-CV-592 (E.D. Mo.1999). In 2000, Enterprise
sued Rent-A-Wreck for civil contempt for using
“We’ll Give You a Lift.” The contempt
motion was dismissed. [29]
Exxon Corporation
Major corporations like Exxon support laws
to limit the ability of average consumers to
sue their insurance companies when those
companies unfairly deny claims. But when
Lloyds of London refused to pay Exxon $250
million for losses it suffered as a cargo
owner resulting from the Valdez oil spill in
Alaska, Exxon did what all consumers should
have the right to do. Exxon sued its insurance
company. In this case, Exxon won. Exxon
Corp. v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyds,
No. 93-40252 (Harris County Dist. Ct., Tex.,
April 8, 1996).
Exxon has used the courts for other purposes
well. For example, in August 1998, Exxon sued
Mobil Oil Corp. for patent infringement
involving a catalyst that makes better
plastics. Exxon Corp. v. Mobil Oil Corp.,
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17555 (S.D. Tex.). A
jury awarded Exxon $171 million and a judge
issued an order prohibiting Mobil from
infringing on Exxon’s patent. [30]
Ford Motor Company
The company that now finds itself embroiled in
massive amounts of litigation involving
Explorers and Firestone tires has joined
efforts to limit consumer lawsuits. But in
August 1999, when student and Mustang
enthusiast Robert Lane posted internal Ford
documents — which he had received
anonymously — on the Internet, Ford
immediately sued Robert Lane. Ford’s request
for a temporary injunction was denied as a
violation of the First Amendment. The court,
however, did restrict Lane’s use of the
documents and other material copyrighted by
Ford. Ford Motor Co. v. Lane, 67
F.Supp.2d 745 (E.D. Mich.1999). As of May
2000, the case was still pending.
In addition, in February, Ford won a temporary
injunction against a Cleveland man halting
sales of 52 domain names containing the word,
“Ford,” on the Ebay website. In another
lawsuit filed in March, Ford is seeking over
$100,000 from each of the 95 companies and
individuals named as defendants who registered
domain names like “fordsucks.com” and
“57tbird.com.” [31]
GEICO
Aside perhaps from the tobacco industry, there
has been no industry that has pushed harder
for laws that restrict injured consumers’
rights to sue than the insurance industry.
This year, GEICO teamed with three other
insurance companies — Allstate, Progressive
and New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance
Company — to file a $60 million civil suit
against a group of doctors, chiropractors and
management companies alleging violations of
RICO, common-law fraud and other claims. Progressive
v. Advanced Diagnostic, No. 601112-00
(N.Y. Super. Ct., March 14, 2000). The case
has yet to be resolved.
Honeywell Inc.
In 1994, Honeywell filed suit against
American Flywheel Systems, Inc., claiming that
American Flywheel had failed to pay the $2
million it owed relating to work on a flywheel
battery. American Flywheel countersued and
won, with the jury rejecting Honeywell’s
claims and awarding Flywheel $38 million on
its counterclaims. Honeywell Inc. v.
American Flywheel Systems Inc., CV
94-14428 (Marcopia Co. Super. Ct., Ariz.1996).
Johnson & Johnson
Johnson & Johnson, makers of Mylanta in
partnership with Merck, sued Smithkline
Beecham Corp. for false advertising regarding
the nutritional benefit of Tums over Mylanta.
The court dismissed Johnson & Johnson’s
complaint. Johnson & Johnson-Merck
Consumer Pharmaceuticals Co. v. SmithKline
Beecham Corp., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13689
(S.D.N.Y.1991). The lower court’s decision
was upheld on appeal. Johnson &
Johnson-Merck Consumer Pharmaceuticals Co. v.
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 960 F.2d 294
(2nd Cir.1992).
In 1995, Johnson & Johnson/Merck filed
another false advertising suit against
SmithKline over claims that Tums and Tagamet
HB were superior to Pepcid AC. The court
issued a preliminary injunction, ordering
SmithKline to suspend the ads. [32]
In 1999, Johnson & Johnson sued Bausch
& Lomb for making claims about the
superiority of its extended wear contact
lenses. [33]
Pfizer Inc.
In early November 1999, Pfizer filed suit to
stop a merger between American Home Products
and Warner-Lambert just hours after it
proposed a competing bid for Warner-Lambert. Pfizer
Inc. v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 17524
(Del. Ch. Ct., Nov. 4, 1999). Later that
month, Pfizer filed another suit against
Warner Lambert and AHP, this time claiming
that Warner-Lambert violated an agreement that
prohibited Pfizer from moving to acquire
Warner-Lambert as long as the two companies
marketed the cholesterol-reducing drug,
Lipitor, together. Warner Lambert then sued
Pfizer to end the Lipitor marketing agreement.
[34]
In January 2000, Warner-Lambert
agreed to explore Pfizer’s $80 billion
merger offer. In June, Pfizer completed its
merger with Warner-Lambert. [35]
Riddell Sports, Inc.
On May 2, 1995, David Mauer, Chief Executive
Officer of Riddell Sports, Inc., argued before
a Senate subcommittee that restricting the
rights of injured victims to sue was necessary
to counter the “skyrocketing cost of
insurance premiums and other expenditures”
associated with lawsuits. “Without changes
to our legal system,” Mauer claimed, “no
American company will find it economically
feasible to manufacture football helmets or
other equipment used in inherently dangerous
sports.” [36]
He neglected to mention that in
1994, Riddell itself had two lawsuits pending
in New York federal court. The first suit,
against Sport Supply Group, concerned
ownership of the MAXPRO trademark for football
helmets and other equipment under the terms of
a licensing agreement. Riddell Sports, Inc.
v. Sport Supply Group, 1994 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 2909 (S.D.N.Y.). The second alleged a
scheme to manipulate the price of Riddell
stock. Riddell Sports, Inc. v. Brooks,
1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3621 (S.D.N.Y.).
Schutt Sports, Inc.
On March 4, 1997 Julie Nimens, President and
Chief Executive Officer of Schutt Sports,
Inc., testified before the Senate Commerce
Committee about the need for a federal product
liability law that would have placed severe
restrictions on the rights of consumers to sue
manufacturers of defective products. She
alleged that litigation and the threat of
“frivolous lawsuits” stifled innovation,
hurting businesses and consumers. [37]
Nimens failed to mention — until Senator
Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.) brought it up —
that in 1978, Schutt Sports sued Riddell,
Inc., claiming that the protective face masks
on Riddell helmets too closely resembled
Schutt’s and that Riddell copied its sizing
specifications. The case was thrown out, with
the court noting “seldom have we seen a
lawsuit as unwarranted and frivolous as this
one.” Schutt Manufacturing v. Riddell,
Inc., 673 F.2d 202, 204 (7th Cir.1982).
Moreover, in 1989, Schutt sued Riddell over an
agreement with the National Football League in
which Riddell provided free helmets to players
in exchange for their displaying Riddell’s
logo during games. The trial court found that
Schutt failed to produce sufficient evidence
to support any of its state and federal
claims. Schutt Athletic Sales Co. v.
Riddell, Inc., 727 F.Supp.1220 (N.D.
Ill.1989).
CONCLUSION
In 1975, Indiana lobbyist Frank Cornelius,
whose clients included the Insurance Institute
of Indiana, helped secure passage of a
$500,000 cap on medical malpractice awards and
elimination of all damages for pain and
suffering in Indiana. As he wrote in the New
York Times on October 7, 1994, he now
“rue[s] that accomplishment.” Beginning in
1989, Frank Cornelius experienced a series of
medical catastrophes that resulted in his
wheelchair confinement, respirator-assisted
breathing and constant physical pain.
When he turned to the Indiana courts to
provide a remedy, to compensate him for his
massive injuries and hold the negligent health
care providers accountable, the law was no
longer there for him. The Indiana legislature
had taken his rights away. Though his medical
expenses and lost wages amounted to over $5
million, his claims against both the hospital
and physical therapist at fault settled for a
mere $500,000 — the limit on damages for a
single incident of malpractice. [38]
In some ways, the hypocrites of
“tort reform” are an amusing list. But
tragedy for them lurks just around the corner,
just like it did for Frank Cornelius.
NOTES
[1] Information relating to specific
corporate sponsorship of ATRA and the
Manhattan Institute is based on John
Gannon’s article, “Tort Deform – Lethal
Bedfellows” (Essential Information, 1995),
citing Chesebro, Kenneth, “Galileo’s
Retort: Peter Huber’s Junk Scholarship,” Amer.
Univ. L. Rev., Volume 42, No. 4 (Summer
1993). Very few state “tort reform” groups
publicly list their corporate members. One of
the few that does, with the most comprehensive
public list available, is New Yorkers for
Civil Justice Reform. NYCJR’s list can be
found at the organization’s website, http://www.nycjr.org.
[2] Burger, Timothy, “Bush sued
Enterprise Rent-A-Car over daughter’s fender
bender,” Daily News, August 26, 2000;
“Bush sued rental agency over fender
bender,” Houston Chronicle, August
26, 2000.
[3] Martin, John, “ABC takes aim
at the ‘blame-game,’” Providence
Journal-Bulletin, October 26, 1994. See,
Stossel, John, “The Blame Game: Are We a
Country of Victims?” ABC News,
October 26, 1994.
[4] Rose, Ted, “Laissez-Fair
TV,” Brill’s Content, (March 2000),
found at www.brillscontent.com/
features/stossel_0300.html, Cato Policy
Report, (September/October 1999), found at
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n5/catoevents.html;
Stossel, John, “Pandering to Fear,”
keynote address at Manhattan Institute
conference, January 20, 1999, listed at http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/past_events_1999.htm;
Solomon, Norman, “Media Moguls on Board,” Extra!,
(January/February) 1998, found at www.fair.org/extra/9801/cato-media-moguls.html;
Warren, James, “Born-Again Free-Marketer,”
Chicago Tribune, December 4, 1994.
[5] Lacy, Mike, “ABC report looks
at system of litigation,” Tampa Tribune,
January 2, 1996; Martin, John, “ABC takes
aim at the `blame-game,’” Providence
Journal-Bulletin, October 26, 1994. See
also, Hoffman, Ken, “Talking on the
radio and making some (air)waves,” Houston
Chronicle, January 3, 1996; Slewinski,
Christy, “Stossel Contemptuous In Trouble
With Lawyers,” Daily News, January 2,
1996. Notably, on the August 11, 2000 edition
of ABC’s “20/20,” Stossel was forced to
make an apology for fabricating data that
disparaged the benefits of organic food.
Makiinger, Felicity and Jim Rutenberg,
“Apology Highlights ABC Reporter’s
Contrarian Image,” New York Times,
August 14, 2000.
[6] Keller, Amy, “Judge Strikes
Down Award in Santorum Case,” Roll Call,
January 10, 2000; White, Ben, “POLITICS; For
a Senate Champion of Malpractice Damage
Limits, a Controversy Close to Home,” Washington
Post, December 25, 1999.
[7] “Wife’s Malpractice Win Is
Jury Award Pa. Senator Doesn’t Mind,” Commercial
Appeal, December 15, 1999.
[8] Keller, Amy, “Karen Santorum
Wins Lawsuit Va. Jury Gives Senator’s Wife
$350,000 Victory,” Roll Call,
December 13, 1999.
[9] Id.
[10] “Santorum’s Views On
Litigation Questioned,” Pennsylvania Law
Weekly, December 20, 1999.
[11] “Lawsuit critic’s wife wins
medical claim,” Telegraph Herald,
December 15, 1999.
[12] Keller, supra note 6.
[13] Kizzia, Tom, “Phillips
Weathers Whitmore’s Strong Challenge,” Anchorage
Daily News, November 6, 1996; Kizzia, Tom,
“Tort Reform-Backer Is A Plaintiff
Himself,” Anchorage Daily News,
November 1, 1996.
[14] See, e.g., Sterling,
Cornelius, “When juries give plaintiffs
outlandish awards, little folks pay,” Houston
Chronicle, May 23, 1993; Piller, Ruth,
“Fledgling group takes on abuse of
lawsuits,” Houston Chronicle,
February 28, 1993; Houston CALA website, http://www.calahouston.org.
[15] “Tort reform lobbyists have
litigious history,” Austin
American-Statesman, April 13, 1995.
[16] Argenio, Art, “Argenio: I
Have Never Filed A Frivolous Lawsuit,” Stuart
News/Port St. Lucie News, August 30, 2000;
Rosynsky, Paul, “Flier Details `93 Suit In
Attack On Argenio,” Stuart News/Port St.
Lucie News, August 30, 2000.
[17] Lyons, Tom, “The truth
doesn’t always lie somewhere in the
middle,” Sarasota Herald-Tribune,
October 24, 2000; Makiouquere, Brett, “State
Rep. Flanagan Settles Negligence Suit,” Sarasota
Herald-Tribune, September 1, 1998;
Russell, Gordon, “Paradox? Reformer Wages
Suit,” Sarasota Herald-Tribune, March
13, 1998.
[18] Patterson, Kelly, “More tort
reform needed, businessman says,” Dallas
Morning News, March 9, 2000; Glaberson,
William, “Damage Control: A special report:
Some Plaintiffs Losing Out In Texas’ War on
Lawsuits,” New York Times, June 7,
1999; Texans for Lawsuit Reform website, http://www.tortreform.com.
[19] Linbeck headed the commission
that investigated the November 18, 1999, Texas
A&M bonfire collapse. He said that
liability questions “did not figure into his
commission’s work. The commission, however,
appeared to let off the hook two private
entities that legal experts say also could
face lawsuits, especially since potential
damages from A&M are so limited.” Lee,
Christopher, “Despite commission, Aggies
still dwell on deadly bonfire collapse,” Dallas
Morning News, May 4, 2000.
[20] “Tort reform lobbyists have
litigious history,” Austin
American-Statesman, April 13, 1995.
[21] Id.
[22] “Ambulance Chase Neely’s
Cash Quest,” Charleston Daily Gazette,
December 29, 1995; Baker, Gerald,
“‘America’s Dumbest Judge’ Argues for
Tort Reform,” New Jersey Law Journal,
February 7, 1994; Bleemer, Russ, “Senate
Weighs Tort Reform, And Angers the Trial
Bar,” New Jersey Law Journal, January
31, 1994.
[23] Showalter, Kathy, “Time
limits, payout caps major tort reform
issues,” Business First-Columbus,
Vol. 12, No. 36, May 3, 1996; O’Malley,
Christine, “Tort revisers find liability
nagging issue,” Business First-Columbus,
Vol. 12, No. 31, March 29, 1996; Miller, Tim,
“Push On For `Tort Reform’ Action,” Dayton
Daily News, January 19, 1996.
[24] Hershey, William and Kristen
Convery, “Teamsters Rally For Resnick, Other
Labor-Backed Candidates,” Dayton Daily
News, November 1, 2000.
[25] Hallett, Joe, “Biggest Money
In Court Races Still Secret,” Columbus
Dispatch, December 16, 2000.
[26] Dummit, Ralph, “Couple Wins
County Council’s Approval To Run Winery At
Farm Along Highway 94,” St. Louis
Post-Dispatch, December 13, 1999.
[27] “Japan-America patent war,”
Business Line, April 14, 1998; “Kodak
Sues Sony Over Patent,” The Record,
April 1, 1993.
[28] “Antibiotic: Italian
Settlement,” Pharmaceutical Executive,
May 1, 2000; “Biochimica Opos and Eli Lilly
Settle Lawsuits Involving Cefaclor,” PR
Newswire, January 25, 2000.
[29] Raymond, Jeffrey, “Dueling
Pick-Up Lines: Md.-Based Car Rental Defends
Its Ad Rights,” Daily Record, May 12,
1998; “Federal Judge Rules in
Rent-A-Wreck’s Favor in Trademark Dispute
with Enterprise Rent-A-Car,” Business
Wire, September 26, 2000.
[30] Asher, Ed, “Federal judge
permanently enjoins Mobil from infringing on
Exxon,” Houston Chronicle, September
11, 1998; Sit-DuVall, Mary, “Jury orders
Mobil Oil to pay in patent lawsuit,” Houston
Chronicle, August 12, 1998.
[31] Sommer, Constance, “Auto
Companies Gear Up to Take on Cyberpirates,” Corporate
Legal Times, August 2000; Truby, Mark,
“Automakers fight cyberpirates,” Detroit
News, May 30, 2000.
[32] “Johnson & Johnson/Merck
Announces Favorable Ruling In SmithKline
Beecham Lawsuits,” PR Newswire,
October 13, 1995; “Johnson &
Johnson/Merck Files Suit Against SmithKline
Beecham For False Advertising,” PR
Newswire, September 6, 1995.
[33] Galewitz, Phil, “J&J Sues
Bausch & Lomb Over Lenses,” Seattle
Post-Intelligencer, March 20, 1999.
[34] “Pfizer files second suit in
takeover fight,” National Law Journal,
December 6, 1999; “Warner-Lambert Sues
Pfizer Over Drug,” New York Times,
November 30, 1999.
[35] Koberstein, Wayne, “Standing
on Scale: Chairman Bill Steere Likes
Pfizer’s New Size,” Pharmaceutical
Executive, Vol. 20, No. 8, August 1, 2000;
“Peer Pressure; Warner-Lambert will explore
Pfizer’s merger offer,” Med Ad News,
Vol. 19, No. 2, February 1, 2000.
[36] Testimony of David Mauer before
the Senate Subcommittee on Administrative
Oversight and the Courts, “Cost Of The Legal
System,” May 2, 1995.
[37] Testimony of Julie Nemens,
“Product Liability Law Revision,” Hearing
of the Senate Commerce, Science and
Transportation Committee,” March 4, 1997.
[38] Cornelius, Frank, “Crushed by
My Own Reform,” New York Times,
October 7, 1994.
The Center for Justice &
Democracy is a non-profit, non-partisan
public interest organization that works to
educate the public about the importance of
the civil justice system, and fights to
protect the right to trial by jury and an
independent judiciary for all Americans.
CJ&D is funded by individual
contributions and foundations, including the
Deer Creek Foundation, the Nathan Cummings
Foundation and the Stern Family Fund. It is
not connected to any business or trial
lawyer organization.
Back to Top
|
