Suitably Flip

A Step Back for Tort Reform

The Supreme Court has handed down a 7-1 decision that allows Philadelphia woman Barbara Dolan to sue the U.S. Postal Service for injuries sustained when she tripped over packages left on her porch.

Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter.

[T]he Federal Tort Claims Act, waives the government's sovereign immunity from suits in circumstances under which a private individual would face liability.
...
The outcome turned on the phrase "negligent transmission," or, more specifically, on the single word "transmission." If transmitting mail meant the same as delivering mail, as the government argued and the lower courts held, then negligent mail delivery would be covered by the exemption and could not give rise to a lawsuit.
...
Consequently, Justice Kennedy said, "we think it more likely" that Congress meant to immunize the Postal Service only for injuries caused when mail arrives late, damaged or at the wrong address, or does not arrive at all.

This one came down to the interpretation of the particulars of package remittal, but it should nonetheless prove titillating to trial lawyers everywhere.

John E'wards was just resurrected a little inside.

Speaking of lawyers, lobbyists, and Democrats (oh my), let's not forget the political dynamic at play in the big money game of slippin' and fallin' for dollars:

Lawyers & Lobbyists: Long-Term Contribution Trends

Comments

A Step Back for Tort Reform

The Supreme Court has handed down a 7-1 decision that allows Philadelphia woman Barbara Dolan to sue the U.S. Postal Service for injuries sustained when she tripped over packages left on her porch.

Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter.

[T]he Federal Tort Claims Act, waives the government's sovereign immunity from suits in circumstances under which a private individual would face liability.
...
The outcome turned on the phrase "negligent transmission," or, more specifically, on the single word "transmission." If transmitting mail meant the same as delivering mail, as the government argued and the lower courts held, then negligent mail delivery would be covered by the exemption and could not give rise to a lawsuit.
...
Consequently, Justice Kennedy said, "we think it more likely" that Congress meant to immunize the Postal Service only for injuries caused when mail arrives late, damaged or at the wrong address, or does not arrive at all.

This one came down to the interpretation of the particulars of package remittal, but it should nonetheless prove titillating to trial lawyers everywhere.

John E'wards was just resurrected a little inside.

Speaking of lawyers, lobbyists, and Democrats (oh my), let's not forget the political dynamic at play in the big money game of slippin' and fallin' for dollars:

Lawyers & Lobbyists: Long-Term Contribution Trends