NY Times article on the BP oil spill settlement and compensation fund

A few days ago I posted a couple of comments on the fact that GM has hired Kenneth Feinberg to consider the possibility of creating a compensation fund for victims of injuries caused by GM cars.  In those comments I pointed out that Feinberg had been hired by BP to handle a compensation fund for the victims of the BP oil spill.  Coincidentally, today the New York Times has published a long article on the state of the different approaches to compensation for the victims of that oil spill.  It criticizes the compensation fund handled by Feinberg for being too restrictive, but also questions an alternative approach which has resulted in compensation for people who probably did not deserve it.  What is interesting is that having agreed to the alternative, BP now criticizes it.  You can read the article here.

Once again, wolf-dogs in the news

Back in 2009 I first heard of so called "wolf-dogs" a hybrid dog breed that had apparently gained some popularity in some parts of the country.  See here.  I wondered whether a wolf-dog would be considered a "wild" or "domesticated" for purposes of strict liability in tort law.  More recently, the issue came back when I first heard of domesticated foxes (here).

Now, just days before I am due to start discussing strict liability for injuries caused by animals in my Torts class, I see that wolf-dogs are back in the news.  A short article in Smithsonian magazine reports that "a surplus of unwanted wolf-dogs—hybrids that are more domesticated than wild wolves but less tame than dogs—is overwhelming authorities in New Hampshire."  Apparently, owning a wolf-dog is illegal in the state, but no one seems to be making sure that law is upheld. (Interestingly, the subtitle of the article is "Are they domesticated pets or wild animals?", the very question I have asked in  2009 when I first hear of them).

I have not seen any reported cases of injuries caused by these types of dogs, so please e-mail me if you know of any.

The Smithsonian article links to a longer article on New Hampshire Public Radio. 

Animal rights

A few days ago I posted a note about a proposal in France to change the Civil Code to recognize that animals are living beings capable of feelings.  Today, the New York Times.com has a short video on attorney Steven Wise’s effort to have courts recognize that animals have rights equivalent to those of persons under the law.   If you can't see the video below you can watch it by going here.

More on GM's hiring of Ken Feinberg

Yesterday I posted a short comment (with some links) on the fact that GM has announced it has hired Ken Feinberg to discuss the possibility of setting up a claims fund for victims of injuries caused by GM defective cars. I also posted some links to comments criticizing Feinberg's work with other similar funds.  Here is another comment on the subject I forgot to include.  It describes and criticizes Feinberg's work on the BP oil spill case.

GM has hired Kenneth Feinberg to discuss possibility of handling a compensation fund for victims of injuries due to defective cars

GM has retained Kenneth Feinberg, the lawyer who has overseen compensation funds for victims of many high-profile cases to explore the possibility of establishing a fund to compensate victims of injuries due to defective cars. The Chicago Tribune has more.

Not too long ago, Feinberg was severely criticized for his handling of the BP oil spill fund.  In fact, at one point a federal judge ruled that it was misleading for Feinberg to call himself "neutral" or "independent" in administering BP's oil spill victim compensation fund.  Go here, here, here and here for comments and links to the debate on Feinberg's work.    

It is, of course, not surprising that GM is contemplating creating a compensation fund.  This type of arrangement is very advantageous for companies that cause mass injuries.  By creating a fund and providing an aggressive policy to distribute compensation the company can get claimants to waive their right to sue and give up the chance to pursue punitive damages, thus minimizing its exposure.

The move to create a compensation fund, however, is only one part of GM's "one-two punch" approach to the crisis.  The other punch is its attempt to be declared immune from liability for injuries that happened before some time in 2009, when the current GM came out of bankruptcy.

Fatal dog attacks on the rise so far this year

DogsBite.org is reporting today that 16 Americans have been killed by dogs so far this year. On average, that is a fatal attack inflicted by a canine every 6.3 days since January 1. According to the report, pit bulls and their mixes are responsible for 69% (11) of these deaths. Pit bulls alone have an average kill rate of every 9.2 days during this period.  The only other dog breed to inflict more than one death so far in 2014 is the bullmastiff, which has caused two deaths.  Three other dog breeds have inflicted one death. If this rate continues, there will be 58 human fatalities inflicted by dogs by the end of 2014, nearly double the national annual average of 31.5.  Go here for the full story.

France moves to recognize rights of pets and owners

The majority of jurisdictions in the United States do not recognize a cause of action for pain and suffering or emotional distress due to injuries to pets.  In most jurisdictions animals are considered chattels and, as such, claims for their injuries are limited to the value of "repairs" or, at best, their market value.  (See Texas, for example; but also see Colorado for the opposite view.) 

In contrast, there is news today that in France, the General Assembly is moving to change the Civil Code to recognize that animals are living beings capable of feelings.  Presumably this would allow owners to recover for injuries to their pets, but it is not clear to me whether the claims would be for injuries suffered by the pet or for injuries suffered by the owners due to injuries suffered by the pet.  Go here for a discussion of the issue.

Comment on the GM scandal over defective cars

Professor Jonathan Turley wrote a column for the Los Angeles Times on the growing scandal over GM car defects and then expanded on it here.

GM seeking protection from lawsuits

Now that there is a real possibility that GM will be sued for damages related to defective cars, GM is seeking a declaratory judgment from a bankruptcy court in New York that it is shielded from products liability suits concerning defects and crashes prior to July 2009, when GM exited bankruptcy. The New York Times has more on the story.

This is not surprising.  Back in 2009, I reported on the developing story regarding the company's bankruptcy and the debate over whether GM should be protected from litigation for injuries suffered prior to the bankruptcy proceeding.  Go here, scroll down for the posts and links to the story.  Note the posts are in reverse chronological order - the older ones are at the bottom).

Originally, GM wanted to be protected from all possible litigation, but after much debate, it agreed to assume responsibility for all future liability claims filed after the automaker emerges from bankruptcy.  However, it continued to claim it should be protected from claims for injuries that happened before 2009.  That's the protection it is now claiming.

Interestingly, back in 2009 during the debate on this issue, Chrysler initially wanted the same kind of protection but eventually it reversed course and agreed to accept product liability claims on vehicles built before the company exited bankruptcy.  GM evidently did not do this.

Professor Jonathan Turley has a comment on the issue here.

SNL take on the Congressional hearings regarding the recall of GM cars