Mississippi Injury Lawyer Blog

A recent proposal made by Arizona State Representative Ted Vogt, of Tucson, has several trial lawyers in the state very concerned. Representative Vogt has proposed a piece of state legislation that would allow trial judges to order someone who lost a lawsuit to pay all the costs and legal fees of the winner. These types of laws are typically referred to as loser pays laws. Most American courts follow what is known as the "American rule," where each party bears their own litigation expense. However, loser pay laws follow what is known as the "English Rule," which require the non-victorious party in a lawsuit to bear the burden of not only their legal expenses, but the expenses of opposing parties as well.

According to Representative Vogt, the implementation of a law like this "is only fair." Vogt believes that a measure such as this would decrease the number of frivolous lawsuits brought in the state. It not surprising that Rep. Vogt has this opinion, because it is not his first time championing such a piece of legislation. Just last year, Vogt proposed a stricter version of the law that he is currently championing. Vogt first proposed a laws that would automatically require the loser of a lawsuit to bear the burden of their opponents court costs. Fortunately, that proposition received enough opposition that it was unsuccessful. It was this opposition, according to Vogt, that caused him to fine tune his proposal. Although the detail of the new proposed law are not ironed out completely, this new version would leave the final decision on who should pay costs and legal fees to the judge who heard the case.

Despite Vogt's statement that "I absolutely don't want to do anything to affect anybody's ability to go into court," it is likely that a measure such as this, if successful, would do just that. As would be expected, members of Arizona's Trial Lawyers Association, who represent those who go to court with cases of personal injury, property damage, medical malpractice and wrongful death, are adamantly opposed to any measure such as this. According to the organization's president, Janice Goldstein, in response to the contention that this type of law would cut down on frivolous suits, "Just because you lose a lawsuit doesn't mean it was a frivolous case. Ms. Goldstein is correct, because of the several variables that go into presenting an issue at trial, the failure to receive a favorable jury verdict is not indicative of the merits of a particular case.

Ms. Goldstein was also very correct in her statement that: "You need to be careful you don't have a chilling impact on people who have been harmed feeling that they cannot bring a case against a large corporation. Because, if they lose and the jury decides against them, they would have to pay for all of those fees." It is true that if a measure like this were to be implemented, it would have a the effect of virtually robbing people of their ability to be heard in the judicial system. As a Mississippi trial attorney, attempts to implement measure such of this cause me great concern, because of large detriment they would have to those who have been the victim of another's negligence. If laws like this are passed, it would hamper deserving individual's ability to receive the compensation they deserve as a result of injuries they have sustained, and that is not right. So, it is my hope that the legislative body of Arizona once again rejects this legislation, and it is also my hope that no other states see consider such measures.

Many of us remember the stance Former Mississippi Attorney General, Mike Moore, took against America's Tobacco Companies when he initiated a suit, on behalf of the State of Mississippi, against 13 tobacco companies, as well as wholesalers, trade associations and industry public relations consultants. This suit was styled: Mike Moore, Attorney General, ex. rel. State of Mississippi v. The American Tobacco Company et al., Chancery Court of Jackson County, Mississippi, Cause Number 94-1429. In this products liability suit, Moore alleged that America's tobacco companies knowingly concealed the dangers of cigarettes from the American public, and because of this they should pay the healthcare costs for those they harmed in the form of legal damages. At the time, Moore declared: "This lawsuit is premised on a simple notion: you caused the health crisis; you pay for it. The free ride is over. It's time these billionaire tobacco companies start paying what they rightfully owe to Mississippi taxpayers. It's time they quit hooking our young people on nicotine delivered through the dirty needle of cigarettes and other tobacco products."

In the lawsuit, Attorney General Moore, on behalf of the State of Mississippi, asked that the defendants be required to reimburse the state for money paid out for smoking-related illnesses like lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease through insurance claims, Medicaid and medical assistance programs for the elderly and indigent. Mississippi was eventually successful in its suit, reaching a settlement agreement with Philip Morris Incorporated, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and 19 other tobacco companies.

However, almost ten years later, the fight to ensure that tobacco companies are honest with the American people about the consequences of smoking and the fight to ensure that tobacco companies pay for the damage and loss of life they have caused continues. Earlier this month, president Obama, in a White House wed video, criticized tobacco companies for opposing the implementation of new cigarette warning labels. According to The President, "Tobacco remains the leading cause of preventable early deaths in this country. We also know that the best way to prevent the health problems that come with smoking is to keep young people from starting in the first place."

In order to accomplish this aim, the Food and Drug Administration, in June, approved new warning labels that tobacco companies would have to place on the top half of cigarette packs. Some of the labels are graphic, including images of a man exhaling cigarette smoke through a tracheotomy hole in his throat, the corpse of a dead smoker, diseased lungs and a smoker wearing an oxygen mask.

Continue reading "New News regarding the Cases against American Tobacco Companies " »

April 20, 2010 is a day that changed the lives of many of the residents of Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Florida. April 20, 2010 is the date of the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion. According to the LA Times, this rig explosion, which caused the death of 11 rig workers and gushed more than 155 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf Coast, was the worst oil spill in United States history. This explosion not only lead to the wrongful death of several rig workers, but, as reported by the Associated Press, it also caused severe economic damage to every individual and entity effected, not to mention the negative environmental impact on all the states effected. Three months, and 200 million gallons of oil later, the oil well was capped, but the devastation that it caused will be felt for years to come.

It is this devastation that is the crux of the lawsuit, which involves over 120,000 claimants or plaintiffs, that has been filed against BP (otherwise know as British Petroleum), which leased the rig that exploded, Transocean, the owner of the rig, Halliburton, the company responsible for the casing cement; and other companies involved in the rig's operations. The main claim against these defendants is that they were negligent or grossly negligent, which lead to teh occurnace of the oil spill. The claimants in this case include those who chose not to take final claims payments through the $20 billion dollar compensation fund set up by BP. Many of the claimants that chose to apply for payouts rather than risk a drawn out legal battle include condominium owners, oyster fishermen, hoteliers and beach towns, among others. These claimants chose likely chose this route because of the early concerns that the lawyers for BP and the other defendant companies would drag out litigation for years. Despite these early concerns, it seems as if legal action for the spill is speeding through courts at an unprecedented pace.

According to USA Today, unlike the proceedings related to the Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska in 1989, the proceedings associated with this tragic oil spill are moving through the courts relatively quickly. United States District Judge Carl Barbier, the New Orleans federal judge overseeing the case, has set February 27, 2012 as the date of trial for the first issue relating to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The purpose of this February trial will be to assign shares of fault to the defendant companies involved and determine whether Transocean can limit what it pays those making claims under maritime law. According to the Associated Press, the ruling could impact the lawsuits that the defendant companies have filed against each other. For example, in one of those lawsuits, BP has sued Transocean for at least $40 billion in damages, accusing it of causing the deadly explosion.

Just recently, Judge Barbier ruled that BP is not entitled to coverage for the oil spill under insurance policies held by Transocean Ltd., owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig that BP was leasing at the time of last year's Gulf of Mexico disaster. The policies totaled $750 million dollars. In his opinion, Judge Barbier wrote: "Because Transocean did not assume the oil pollution risks pertaining to the Deepwater Horizon incident -- BP did -- Transocean was not required to name BP as an additional insured as to those risks. Because there is no insurance obligation as to those risks, BP is not an 'insured' ... for those risks. Therefore, BP is not entitled to the declarations of coverage it seeks." In addition to ruling that BP is not entitled to coverage under Transoceans insurance policies, Judge Barbier also ruled that Alabama and Louisiana could pursue punitive damages against BP and other companies.

Continue reading "Trial Date for Issues Related to BP Oil Spill set for February 27, 2012" »