Possible attack on the Feres Doctrine before the US Supreme Court?

Alan Crede of the Boston Personal Injury Blog is reporting (here) that the US Supreme Court may hear yet another case attacking the Feres Doctrine in a new case in which an Air Force officer was killed as a result of medical malpractice in a military hospital. For more information on this case go here for a report by the Associated Press. For my previous posts on the Feres doctrine, including some news videos, go here, here, here, here and here. For all my previous posts on torts issues related to members of the military go here.

This week's top stories

Go here for the TortsProf Blog's list of this week's top stories and here for the Abnormal Use blog's "Friday links." Go here for a list of top stories by the Boston Personal Injury blog. Finally, go here and scroll down for my own selection of top news stories.

Assumption of the risk at the ballpark?

I have commented before on the fact that defendants usually can use the defense of assumption of the risk to avoid liability for injuries suffered by spectators in baseball games. The typical cases invlove injuries caused by foul balls and bats flying into the stands (see here), but also, more recently, by flying hot dogs (see here, here and here). I have also commented on cases against aluminum bat manufacturers for injuries caused by batted balls based on claims that those bats generate much higher ball speeds than wood bats (see here and here). I am writing about this now because the Wall Street Journal law blog just published a comment on a case in New York that, as is typical in these types of cases, has dismissed a complaint against the New York Mets. As the article notes, "In an “ordinary” situation, there’s nothing all that surprising about the dismissal of such a case." But the article goes on to point out that not all cases about injuries caused by bats are alike precisely because not all bats are alike. The difference is that "[o]nce upon a time, nearly all major leaguers used bats made from Northern Ash. But in recent years, they’ve started using maple bats, which are much more prone to breaking (and sometimes shattering) than are ash bats." Is it time to start reconsidering the use of the assumption of the risk defense? Should cases be decided on a case by case basis now?

New England Journal of Medicine on Tort Reform

Here is a link to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine on medical malpractice tort reform. It concludes, among other things, that the evidence reveals that, with few exceptions, traditional tort reforms have not proved to provide many improvements in as it relates to liability costs. On the other hand, the study also found that caps on noneconomic damages, which limit the amounts that juries may award for pain and suffering, constitute the main exception to the rule. The article claims that other studies have nearly uniformly found that caps are an effective means of reducing the size of indemnity payments. This second finding seems to me to be obvious. I don't think we needed a study for that! If there is a cap, payments will be lower and some cases will not be brought, so, obviously, the size of payments will be lower. The question we should be asking is not whether tort reform reduces how much defendants have to pay. The questions we should be asking is whether it is fair, whether it results in better care, whether it is better for patients and consumers, whether it reduces the overall costs of healthcare and so on. For different views on these and other questions, go to my sections on medical malpractice or tort reform and scroll down to find plenty of articles on the issue.

Pit bulls kill innocent bystander

Prof. Jonathan Turley is reporting today on a tragic event in New Mexico, where a 48 year old woman, was mauled to death by four pit bulls. The woman was just walking down the street when the dogs escaped their yard. Go here to read his comment in which he discusses the possible civil liability of the dogs owners.

This week's top stories

Go here for the TortsProf Blog's list of this week's top stories and here for the Abnormal Use blog's "Friday links." In addition, go here and scroll down for my own selection of top news stories.

More on the recent legal actions regarding the BP oil spill

A couple of daya ago, I posted links to stories on claims against BP for damages caused by the Gulf oil spill. Today, Law.com, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal law blog are reporting that BP itself is now suing the maker of the device that failed to stop last year's Gulf oil spill and the owner of the rig that exploded, alleging that negligence by both helped cause the disaster. For more on the story go here, here and here.

Oil spill, one year later - Updated

It's been a year since the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and oil spill, so here are a couple of links on interesting news: The TortsProf blog is reporting that Terrebonne Parrish, located on the Gulf Coast in Louisiana, is filing suit against BP and other companies for damages related to the Deepwater Horizon spill. Go here for more details by The Tri-Parish Times. The New York Times has the story (here) of Gulf Coast residents trying to navigate the claims process following the BP oil spill. A number of families say the involvement of different law firms and attorneys has made the process even more complicated and confusing. (Thanks to the Blog of the Legal Times for the link.) Meanwhile, the PopTort blog has links to several articles on the current situation in the Gulf here. UPDATE (4/20/11): Here is a story from the Wall Street Journal law blog.

Medical errors may be more prevalent than previously thought

According to new research published in the medical journal Health Affairs, medical mistakes may be 10 times more common than previously believed, which could mean that one out of every three hospital patients have been the victim of an error. AboutLawsuits has the full story here.

Comment on the recent jury verdict in favor of Toyota

The Abnormal Use Blog has posted a short comment on the recently reported jury verdict in favor of Toyota in the first case to go to trial related to the company's recalls from a couple of years ago (Sitafalwalla v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.SA., Inc., No. 08-CV-3001 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)). According to the jury forewoman, after weighing all of the evidence, the jury "came to the conclusion that there was not a defect with the automobile." Go here for more on the story.