|
|
|
Common Good's Second Annual Gatekeeper Awards December 16, 2004 Common Good has announced the winners of our second annual Gatekeeper Awards. The Awards highlight the appropriate role of judges in determining who can sue for what. They honor judges whose decisions restore public confidence that reasonable actions will be supported by the courts, even when they result in unintended consequences.
The judges being honored are:
Judge Michael P. Barnes of the Court of Appeals of Indiana --Indianapolis, IN
Judge Stephen Pfeffer of the First Judicial District Court, New Mexico -- Santa Fe, NM
Justice Peter G. Verniero, formerly of the New Jersey State Supreme Court -- Trenton, NJ
Justice Christine S. Vertefeuille of the Supreme Court of Connecticut -- Hartford, CT
They are being honored for writing the decisions in the following cases decided in 2004:
Terry L. Williams v. Cingular Wireless
Judge Michael P. Barnes, No. 82A01-0312-CV-476, Court of Appeals of Indiana, June 4, 2004
It's common sense that you can't sue the cell phone service provider because someone talking on a cell phone caused an accident. Good for Judge Michael P. Barnes who made this point clear. To impose a duty on Cingular and similar companies to prevent car accidents would "effectively require the companies to stop selling cellular phones." He continued, "Sound public policy dictates that the responsibility for negligent driving should fall on the driver." The case arose when Terry Williams was injured in a car accident. Kelly Meagher, the driver of the other car, was talking on her phone. Williams sued Cingular, arguing that it should have known that Meagher might use the phone while driving and cause an accident. The trial judge threw out the case against Cingular, even though Williams submitted "newly discovered evidence:" a cartoon in which Blondie causes a car accident while talking on her cell phone. We think Judge Barnes should have imposed costs on Williams for the appeal, especially given the Blondie cartoon, but he refused to.
(Download the opinion.)
Joann Martinez v. Roman Catholic Church Archdiocese of Santa Fe, et al.
Judge Stephen Pfeffer, Case No. D 0117 CV 2003 211, First Judicial District Court, County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico, January 23, 2004
Priests should not have to worry about being sued for reading from the Book of Revelations during a funeral, even if it offends the family of the deceased. We're glad Judge Stephen Pfeffer made this clear. Calling the case a "classic example of the constitutional privilege of separation of church and state," he dismissed the suit for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Martinez family claimed that Rev. Mansfield effectively condemned Mr. Martinez to hell during the mass, subjecting the family to humiliation and nightmares. They sued the priest and the Archdiocese of Santa Fe alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation and negligent supervision. Rev. Mansfield claimed his words were consistent with "the liturgical norms of the Roman Catholic Church," while the Martinez family alleged that they were "outside the confines of religious doctrine." Judge Pfeffer dismissed the case concluding that "[a]ll of these torts require an evaluation of church doctrine." The plaintiffs were disappointed. "It's sad that a priest can say whatever he wants," said a daughter-in-law of Mr. Martinez.
(Download the complaint, answer, and order.)
Buono v. Scalia
Justice Peter G. Verniero, No. A-101-02, New Jersey State Supreme Court, March 29, 2004
Parents appropriately supervising their children should not have to worry about being held liable for unfortunate accidents. We're glad Justice Peter G. Verniero drew the line in this case against parents whose son accidentally injured another child at a block party. Quoting from a previous decision, Justice Verniero recognized "[T]here are certain areas of activities within the family sphere involving parental discipline, care, and control that should and must remain free from judicial intrusion." Parents are not immune from liability for "willful or wanton" conduct, but should not be forced to defend against honest errors of judgment. Allowing such claims would "risk opening the floodgates of intrusive litigation" and would consume the resources of parents and society. The case arose when five-year-old Michael Scalia accidentally collided with sixteen-month-old Kathryn Buono at a block party. Michael's father was following a few feet behind and shouted to warn him about running into Kathryn, but Michael did not hear the warning. Kathryn, whose mother was standing an "arm's length" away and did not witness the accident, required stitches. Kathryn's parents sued Michael's parents for negligent supervision. A trial court granted summary judgment to the Scalias, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision.
(Download the opinion.)
Victor Cweklinsky v. Mobil Chemical Company
Justice Christine S. Vertefeuille, SC 16846, Supreme Court of Connecticut, January 6, 2004
If your boss says you are dishonest and fires you, you can't sue him for libel because you repeat his accusation "over and over" to new, potential employers. Many states now recognize the doctrine of "self-compelled publication." Thanks to an opinion by Justice Christine S. Vertefeuille, Connecticut is not among them. Reviewing an extensive literature, Justice Vertefeuille noted that allowing the claim would have real consequences, creating a "chilling effect on communication in the workplace" and would contradict "society's fundamental interest in encouraging the free flow of information." A "culture of silence" would replace "open and honest communication in the workplace" and deprive employees of "the benefit of constructive criticism." Victor Cweklinsky sued his former employer, claiming that accusations of dishonesty defamed him. He argued that his employer's statements were "published" to a third party when Cweklinksy repeated "over and over" to potential new employers the reason his old employer fired him. In throwing out the case, Justice Vertefeuille also noted that in states which recognize the theory, "many employers have adopted a policy of releasing only nominal information to terminated employees." We can't forget the deadly consequences of people's unwillingness to give an honest reference about Charles Cullen, the killer nurse, earlier this year.
(Download the opinion.)
Click here to download our press release.
Click here to read about the 2003 Gatekeeper Awards.
| |
