New York Personal Injury Law Blog: Robert Bork Brings Trip/Fall Suit for Over $1M, Plus Punitive Damages And Legal Fees

Eric Turkewitz, The Turkewitz Law Firm, New York, NY  

Friday, June 8, 2007

 

Robert Bork Brings Trip/Fall Suit for Over $1M, Plus Punitive Damages And Legal Fees


Former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork has sued the Yale Club for an amount "in excess of $1,000,000," plus punitive damages, as a result of a trip and fall accident on June 6, 2006. The Complaint is here via the WSJ. The accident happened while he was climbing to the dais for a speech, and there were no steps or handrail for the 79-year old Bork to hold on to.

The main injury he claims to have suffered were a hematoma in the leg that required surgery and months of rehabilitation. The New York Times notes that he proceeded to deliver the speech after he had fallen.

My thoughts on the Complaint:
  1. This is a routine New York personal injury case. There is nothing particularly exceptional about it from the Complaint other than the plaintiff, a noted conservative jurist who has been part of the American Enterprise Institute, which engages in tort "reform" activities.
  2. Since no hospitalization is mentioned, I assume that the surgery for the hematoma was out-patient and may have been a simple drainage of some kind. Perhaps the med-bloggers who visit here can offer up a bit more on what kind of surgery was likely;
  3. The Complaint doesn't even come close to explaining why punitive damages would be warranted in such a routine negligence matter. My gut reaction is that it is frivolous.
  4. The Complaint asked for attorneys fees. Why? You can't get them in New York for a standard personal injury claim.
  5. The Complaint asks for pre-judgment interest. Why? You can't get that here either. Sad, but true. Interest runs from the date of the judgment not from the date of the accident, thereby giving insurance companies a reason to delay litigation as long as possible. Perhaps Judge Bork wants to come with me the next time I lobby the legislature to amend the law to include pre-judgment interest?
  6. The Complaint asks for an amount "in excess of $1,000,000" (not merely $1M, but in excess of). Where are the damages for making such a huge demand?
Ted Frank at Overlawyered has already jumped on this case and called it "embarrassingly silly," noting the defenses of assumption of risk and a condition that was "open and obvious." He adds in the comments, interestingly, that "it's conceivable that there might be an [Americans with Disabilities Act] claim of some sort."

A quote from Bork, from Bloomberg news:
In a 1995 opinion piece published in the Washington Times, Bork and Theodore Olson, who later became a top Justice Department official, criticized what they called the ``expensive, capricious and unpredictable'' civil justice system in the U.S.

``Today's merchant enters the marketplace with trepidation -- anticipating from the civil justice system the treatment that his ancestors experienced with the Barbary pirates,'' they wrote.
I suspect that the folks at TortDeform will now add Bork to their roster of "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrites of tort reform that suddenly changed their minds when it was no longer someone else's injuries at stake.

Finally, the Complaint is signed by Bork's counsel Randy Mastro, of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. Mastro's bio asserts that he "is a litigation partner who handles both civil and white collar criminal cases." Also listed is Brian Lutz, who does "securities litigation, corporate control contests, antitrust matters (both civil and criminal), insurance/reinsurance coverage disputes, and white collar defense." This is a white shoe firm with a dozen offices around the world. They apparently have lots of BigLaw experience. There is no personal injury law experience noted for either.

The case is Bork v. Yale Club, 07-cv-4826, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan)

Addendum:
  • More thoughts on choosing the right counsel from Carolyn Elefant: What Judge Bork's Choice of PI Counsel Says About Lawyer Rankings like Avvo and Marketing;
  • Robert Bork, Jr. defends his father's suit at Overlawyered;
  • This post now appears at Volokh, where I added the following comments in response to another:
    This was not a standard complaint. If it were, his counsel would have explicitly alleged that the Yale Club owned, operated and controlled the premises. (It can still be inferred, but it was poor drafting.)

    The complaint is filled with specifics about the incident (usually not done locally, it is usually very general), also meaning it is not boilerplate.

    They make multiple, unrelated , allegations in a single paragraph, making it impossible to admit or deny any of the facts in the answer (thereby destroying any benefit to putting in specifics) . And while not fatal, it is against the rules.

    It is certainly not boilerplate to allege punitive damages in a trip and fall case unless there is something particularly outrageous. And it isn't a separate cause of action for punitives as they have alleged.

    And it is certainly not boilerplate to ask for things such as pre-judgment interest and attorneys' fees in such an action, when they are clearly not allowed.

    Claiming something is boilerplate only works for a rookie lawyer who didn't know better. Not for a former SCOTUS nominee with counsel from a BigLaw firm. (What would Bork say if he were on the bench and presented with such an excuse?)

    The reality is that there are thousands of solo and small firm practitioners who know this stuff cold, and Bork picked counsel with a lack of experience. That's what I glean from the Complaint, and is the most likely reason frivolous claims appear.
A sampling of some other commentary:
Addendum 6/11/07 - I have a new post on the subject: What Should Bork Do Now?

Addendum 6/13/07 - I searched TownHall, a site with dozens of conservative commentators, to add additional viewpoints to this collection, but could find no reference whatsoever to the lawsuit.

Addendum 6/14/07 - New comments after New York Times weighs in with editorial: Bork's New York Personal Injury Case and The New York Times

Addendum 6/29/07 -- Bork Amends Lawsuit, Keeps Claim for Over $1,000,000 Plus Punitive Damages

Addendum 7/17/07 -- Bork Attorney Randy Mastro is picked by Rudy Giuliani to be on Justice Advisory Committee


(Eric Turkewitz is a personal injury attorney in New York)

Labels: , , , ,


Comments:
The Complaint asked for attorneys fees. Why? You can't get them in New York for a standard personal
injury claim.
The Complaint asks for pre-judgment interest. Why? You can't get that here either.

If those damages are unavailable under NYS law, how does asking for them in the complaint make them recoverable? Why were they plead?
 
If those damages are unavailable under NYS law, how does asking for them in the complaint make them recoverable? Why were they plead?

My guess is that, out of the thousands of lawyers in New York who practice personal injury law, Bork picked someone at a Big Law firm that doesn't do this stuff and is unfamiliar with the law. Just my guess.

Given that Bork was a Court of Appeals judge, it certainly would be interesting to see him cross-examined on his claims.

--ET
 
Why do you think they filed in federal court-- isn't state court more plaintiff-friendly?
 
Why do you think they filed in federal court-- isn't state court more plaintiff-friendly?

Probably because they knew it would be removed to federal court anyway based on diversity. I would guess there had been negotiations that failed, so the filing of the suit wasn't a surprise, and defense counsel would have promptly done just that.

NYS doesn't have expert depositions, which is one of the big differences (and big expenses) between state and federal courts here.

--ET
 
The action would NOT have been removable if it had been filed in NY state court -- the defendant's place of business is in NY. If the defendant's domiciled in the state in which the case is filed, the defendant can't remove on the basis of diversity.

My guess is they filed in federal court because Big Law Firms have a kneejerk preference for federal court.
 
The action would NOT have been removable if it had been filed in NY state court -- the defendant's place of business is in NY. If the defendant's domiciled in the state in which the case is filed, the defendant can't remove on the basis of diversity.

Now that's why I have a disclaimer about legal advice at the bottom of this blog.

--ET
 
de nada. I've carved a little niche out for myself at my firm (which does plaintiffs work) combating improvident attempts at removal -- otherwise I wouldn't know that factoid.
 
Randy Mastro was Rudy Giuliani's Deputy Mayor for Operations until 1998.
 
ET-- sorry if this is getting far afield but when you say NY doesn't have expert depositions- . . . ? Does that mean each side can't depose each other's experts? What about treating doctors?
 
ET-- sorry if this is getting far afield but when you say NY doesn't have expert depositions- . . . ? Does that mean each side can't depose each other's experts? What about treating doctors?

Not far afield at all.
You read correctly, you do not depose the other side's experts. As to treating docs, depositions are permissible but very rarely done in practice.

--ET
 
I have a question. The report seems to be that Bork gave the speach after the fall, rather than seek medical attention immediately.

I presume (with no basis other than a non-medical common sense opinion) that standing in one position for an extended period of time is going to make such an injury worse. That if he had immediatly tended to it, by reclining, elevating the injured limb, and applying ice, or perhaps even pressure to prevent bleeding, that the outcome would not have been as severe.

If the bleeding had been limited, the hematoma wouldn't have swelled so large, and wouldn't have burst. It was the bursting of the hematoma that caused the downstream injuries and complications.

I don't know the circumstances of the event, but presumably if he was significantly injured he should have sought immediate medical attention. For all I know, there may have been physicians in attendance who were ready and willing to give immediate emergency aid that would have completely prevented the complications and injuries.

How much does a decision to delay treatment that exacerbates (or even causes) the injury affect the outcome?
 
How much does a decision to delay treatment that exacerbates (or even causes) the injury affect the outcome?

I would expect a defense to be that his own negligence in delaying treatment made it worse and damages should therefore be reduced based on his own negligence, or alternatively, that the injury was so small that his current complaints are exaggerated.

It is the type of alternative pleading, by the way, that a tort "reformer" would have a field day with if made by a plaintiff. But that is what one would expect, since defendants will want to cover all possible bases at this juncture. Ultimately, after discovery, they would have to pick one or the other.

--ET
 
Post a Comment



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

 


The New York Personal Injury Law Blog does not accept advertising banners, pop up ads or other distractions from its content. But since The Turkewitz Law Firm is the sole sponsor, it may be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.)

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.

 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?