« Mild-Mannered Blawger Gets Savage |
Main
| Even Biglaw Attorneys May Be Entirely Self-Made »
The Dawn of an Urban Legend?
Could this be the next spilled-coffee case, one where the facts are conveniently ignored in furtherance of a great urban legend? Eric Turkewitz wonders about this at his New York Personal Injury Law Blog, as he compares the facts about a recent punitive damages award against retailer Target with the version presented by Ted Frank at the blog Overlawyered.
The story involves a South Carolina woman, Rita Cantrell, who sued Target after it falsely accused her of using a counterfeit $100 bill. The bill was legitimate, but Target refused to accept it and circulated an e-mail showing a security-camera image of Cantrell together with a warning that she "attempted to use a counterfeit 100 dollar bill today." The e-mail went to more than 60 businesses in the Greenville area, including Cantrell's place of employment. A jury awarded her $100,000 in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages.
Turkewitz accuses Frank, an outspoken advocate of tort "reform," of bending the facts to fit his theme. "Ted Frank at Overlawyered decided this would be a good fit for that site, but the facts he used didn't seem to fit the story," Turkewitz writes. "If you want to see how some lawsuits get turned into urban legends, this might be a good example to follow." Whereas Target's e-mail was unequivocal in calling the bill counterfeit, Frank says the e-mail described it as a "possible counterfeit." Whereas Target's own brief described Cantrell as walking out of the store after it declined her payment, Frank writes that she "fled the store." Whereas Cantrell alleged mental anguish and humiliation, Frank describes her damages as only $200 in medical bills. Says Turkewitz:
There are plenty of frivolous claims around to keep law bloggers busy if they want to write about them. With a nation of 300 million people this will happen. I write about them from time to time, as do others, because there are lessons to be learned in doing so. But there is no evidence this suit falls into that category. So long as one sticks to the actual facts.
Frank has not responded to Turkewitz. His post describes this as a case in which the jury "happily proposed that Cantrell be made a millionaire for the inconvenience." Is his characterization of the case unfair, as Turkewitz believes? You can decide for yourself after reading Target's motion for summary judgment and the court's memorandum denying the motion.
Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on November 3, 2008 at 11:47 AM | Permalink
| Comments (3)