A mother is suing one of her sons, claiming he was negligent while watching a younger brother who was hit by a car.

Nancy Myers and Jeff Young filed suit July 20 in Kanawha Circuit Court against her son, Cory Jarrett. According to the complaint, Jarrett was charged with watching his younger stepbrother, 14-year-old Skyler Young, on July 22 and 23 of 2008 at their home on Eden’s Fork Road.

While Myers was out of town, according to the lawsuit, Jarrett invited between 10 and 15 friends over for a party in the late evening hours of July 22. Jarrett was under 21 at the time of the incident.

During the party, Jarrett’s friends “began hazing Skyler Young and eventually locked him in his room sometime after midnight.” Young escaped from his room and went outside to the driveway to talk on his phone.

When it was discovered the boy was not in his room and he was not found in the house, the partygoers began to search for him. According to the court document, Brandon Rinehart, 21, got into his Ford Explorer and backed out of the driveway and ran over Young.

Rinehart is also being sued.

The Myers say Jarrett breached his duty to supervise Young when those at the house hazed him and locked him up and later when he was in the driveway. Rinehart, they say, is also to blame for hitting him.

Police were called to the home about 1 a.m. that day, the Kanawha County Sheriff’s Department said at the time. Deputies said the victim was taken to Charleston Area Medical Center and his injuries were not life-threatening.

Rinehart was identified as the driver, but the sheriff’s department said no one was at fault and no charges would be filed.

The lawsuit says Skyler suffered “severe and extensive personal injuries” and has incurred medical, surgical and rehabilitation expenses.

t contends the younger boy suffered a severe and permanent head injury, scarring and disfigurement and has been unable to return to normal schooling. The suit says he requires “educational accommodations.”

They are asking for unspecified compensatory damages from the older brother and from Rinehart. They are also asking for punitive damages, calling their actions “reprehensible, willful, wanton and reckless.”

Full Story

Although attorney Ron Motley of Motley Rice received the Lifetime Achievement Award at the the annual American Association for Justice (AAJ) convention earlier this month, we choose not to congratulate him. His gain, alas, is our loss.

The AAJ is an association of plaintiff’s lawyers whose lifetime achievements for some include using lawsuits as a weapon to attack legitimate American businesses, to bleed corporate profits, to damage and destroy investments of shareholders, and to put workers out of work.

The nemesis of tobacco, lead paint and asbestos manufacturers, Motley over the years has expanded his South Carolina-based operations to several other states, including our own. His class action conquests in West Virginia have sullied the reputation of our court system and taken a toll on our struggling economy.

Unfortunately, Motley and his colleagues in the trial bar have the ear of the current administration in Washington — a clout they touted at the recent AAJ convention — and are trying to use that influence to secure a generous tax break for their business-bashing activities. According to trial lawyer lobbyists, they are close to convincing the U.S. Treasury department to issue an administrative ruling that lets plaintiff’s lawyers like Motley write-off the expenses they incur initially — but for which they later can be reimbursed — in pursuing asbestos and class action lawsuits.

The AAJ tried to slip the change through Congress last year, but demurred when word got out to the public. Passing a tax break for trial lawyers during a recession didn’t prove very popular. By now appealing to President Obama-appointed Treasury officials instead, the trial lawyers won’t need the people’s approval to be successful.

“This is another gift from the lawsuit-loving Obama administration to the already rich,” comments Steve Roberts, president of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce. “The Obama administration and their adherents in Congress tax, regulate, and penalize the businesses that hire Americans who need jobs and turn around and shovel money to their multi-millionaire political allies,” Roberts said. “A tax break for plaintiffs lawyers who sue people for a living is nothing short of welfare for the rich.”

Richie Heath, executive director of West Virginia Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, concurs. “Why on earth would we want to create additional incentives for filing job-killing lawsuits at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work?” he asks. “It’s simply ridiculous to force taxpayers to subsidize the lawsuits of wealthy personal injury lawyers.”

We agree with Roberts and Heath. The Motley crew doesn’t need our encouragement. They’ve done enough damage and do not deserve congratulations or subsidies.

WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) — California Attorney General Jerry Brown is the worst current state attorney general, according to a group that promotes free enterprise and limited government.

Brown topped a list of six attorneys general — all of them Democrats — who received criticism from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Hans Bader wrote in his report, released Thursday, that the office was designed to have limited power but that is not the case anymore.

West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw ranked fifth.

“In recent years, many state AGs have increasingly usurped the roles of state legislatures and Congress by using lawsuits to impose interstate and national regulations and extract money from out-of-state defendants who have little voice in a state’s political processes,” Bader wrote.

Bader also authored a similar report in 2007 that profiled who it felt were the 10 worst state attorneys general in recent history. That report named Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal the worst.

CEI ranked the AGs on what it felt were ethical braches, selective applications of the law, fabricating law, usurping legislative powers and predatory practices.

Full Story

Thinking of taking your children on an inexpensive and kid-friendly dinner outing sometime soon? Well, beware because a Washington, D.C., advocacy group is trying to undercut that plan.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest is embarking on its latest lawsuit crusade, an effort to take the toys out of McDonald’s “Happy Meals” and send a clear message to all you parents out there that lawyers know how best to raise your children.

While the center claims to be a protector of the consumer and the public good, it’s really just another form of lawsuit shakedowns.

CSPI and other like-minded organizations have made a habit of teaming with personal injury lawyers to sue or threaten suit of food and beverage providers for making what CSPI claims are misleading statements about their products. The lawsuits are typically filed in states with lower standards of proof and a reputation for high damages awards.

Though the cases are typically filed on your behalf, don’t expect to see a check coming in the mail anytime soon. That’s because consumers are hardly ever compensated from any settlement or damages awards.

Instead, most of the proceeds are split between the attorneys and the “consumer groups” that have filed suit on your behalf. Your children supposedly get the indirect benefit of a “healthier lifestyle” now that there is no toy in their Happy Meal. You’re welcome.

The CSPI defends its actions as an effort to prevent McDonald’s from undercutting parental authority. But the organization itself is undercutting your parental authority.

Full Story

With the recent passing of Sen. Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia lost not only the longest-serving Senator in U.S. history, but also its pipeline to billions of dollars in federal funding that has kept the state afloat for years. This underscores the fact that the Mountain State must now learn to fend for itself.

Our likelihood for future economic success, as a recent Herald-Dispatch editorial points out, will rest on our state’s ability to attract well-paying jobs back to the state.

The task of making West Virginia more business-friendly may be as daunting as replacing the billions in federal funds that Sen. Byrd funneled to our state. That’s because West Virginia is about as low as it gets when it comes to job growth. Recently, CNBC ranked our state in the bottom five of its 2010 “Top States for Business” rankings. For the fourth straight year, the respected business television network ranked West Virginia as having the worst legal and regulatory climate in the nation.

Frivolous asbestos filings flood our state courts thanks to a “No Proof? No Problem!” medical monitoring standard that allows lawsuits absent any proof of injury whatsoever, a standard which Justice Menis Ketchum correctly warns will “wreak enormous economic harm” on our state economy.

Recent efforts by the West Virginia Legislature to lessen lawsuit filings from out-of-state plaintiffs and curb abusive bad faith lawsuits have been undone in large part by an activist state Supreme Court. As home to three of the seven largest verdicts in the nation for 2007 and the only state in the nation with no right of full appeal, West Virginia has sent a stinging message to employers — enter at your own risk.

One area where we can make an immediate impact is reforming our state’s appeals process. The state Supreme Court is currently revising its appellate rules in an attempt to provide greater access to the court. However, it is unclear whether the proposed rule changes will result in a meaningful right of appeal for all West Virginians.

A better solution would be the creation of an intermediate appeals court.

Full Story

CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals introduced a plan last May to “comprehensively change” the way the court handle appeals.
The changes were supposed to remedy calls from several groups, including an independent judicial reform committee commissioned by Gov. Joe Manchin and a committee commissioned by the Supreme Court itself, recommending an intermediate court of appeals.

Instead, the court has received several criticisms during a recent public comment period which ended July 19. People most critical of the proposed changes say the state still needs an intermediate appellate courts, and the changes proposed do little to fix a system described by some as broken. The public comment period generated thoughts from people throughout the state.

Brenda Nichols Harper, general counsel for the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, wrote the Supreme Court’s effort is, “cosmetic at best.”

Her comments for the chamber said the memorandum decisions the court wants to issue would likely provide little clarification of the law and so offer “inadequate guidance for the circuit courts and litigants.”

“If these rules are adopted, litigants, in fact, will have no greater right to have adverse judgment by the lower courts reviewed on a substantive basis than currently exists,” Harper wrote.

West Virginia is one of only two states in the nation that do not offer an automatic right of appeal in cases. The state’s highest court also has been criticized for not having an intermediate appellate court despite having one of the heaviest caseloads in the country.

The chamber also pointed out the court staff will be additionally burdened trying to produce explanations on why certain cases were denied rather than heard at the appellate level.

“Further, the rules threaten to increase the workload of an already overburdened Supreme Court, while requiring only superficial appellate review of most cases,” Harper wrote.

Richie Heath, the executive director of West Virginia Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, said the court missed its mark in ensuring appellants are ensured review of their case based on the merits — or given proper explanation as to why or why not their case was denied.

Heath said the independent reform commission recommended the creation of an appellate court, and the Supreme Court is not heeding that advice.

Another key rule change is one several lawyers said will place additional burden of cost on those making the appeal.

Full Story

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Plans by the state Supreme Court to change how it handles appeals are drawing criticism from across the state’s legal community.

Public comments submitted by lawyers and interest groups say the proposed rules may make it harder for the poor to file appeals, all while doing little to help unburden the court, which is one of the busiest in the country.

When the Supreme Court released the rules for public comment in mid-May, Chief Justice Robin Jean Davis said they “comprehensively change” the appeals process.

Public comments on the rules are due today. Of the 17 comments available Sunday, there were few positive remarks aside from praise for the court’s attempts to change its ways.

Most comments, however, raised serious questions about the details of those attempts.

The most significant proposed change is how the court decides appeals.

Currently, the state’s highest court is also the state’s only appeals court. As a result, it handles a relatively high number of appeals. And, while the court issues an order in every appeal, two thirds of them are short refusal orders that do not address the merits of the case.

Under the Supreme Court’s proposed rules, the court would instead issue either a full opinion, as it does in cases it hears currently, or a short, memorandum decision.

But that’s not enough, say advocates of creating a so-called intermediate appeals court that would decide appeals of circuit court cases. Those rulings, in turn, could be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s effort is “at best cosmetic,” according to a public comment on the court’s proposal by the state Chamber of Commerce.

The chamber said that the memorandum decisions the court wants to issue would likely provide little clarification of the law and so offer “inadequate guidance for the circuit courts and litigants.”

“If these rules are adopted, litigants, in fact, will have no greater right to have adverse judgment by the lower courts reviewed on a substantive basis than currently exists,” the chamber’s general counsel Brenda Nichols Harper wrote.

Even though it dismisses the effectiveness of the decisions, the chamber also said the court staff will be additionally burdened trying to produce them.

“Further, the rules threaten to increase the workload of an already overburdened Supreme Court, while requiring only superficial appellate review of most cases,” Harper wrote.

Victor Schwartz, a lawyer at Shook, Hardy & Bacon in Washington, wrote that the court’s rule would, in many respects, provide a clearer and more streamlined approach to filing appeals, but that they did not go far enough.

He proposes several changes – including having the court amend the rule to make it clear justices will issue decisions that help give lower courts guidance – but he says anything short of an intermediate appeals court is not enough.

“As a result, my belief is that the revised rules can only hope to provide a temporary stopgap for the current lack of meaningful appellate review in all cases; the long-term solution remains the establishment of an intermediate appellate court system.” he said.

Richie Heath, the executive director of West Virginia Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, said in the group’s comment that the state should follow the recommendation of a judicial reform commission Gov. Joe Manchin assembled last year.

That panel called for the creation of an intermediate appellate court to unburden the state Supreme Court. The panel was led by former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and the state’s next U.S. Senator, Carte Goodwin.

Full Story

CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Chamber of Commerce on Friday says it believes changes proposed by the state Supreme Court in its Revised Rules of Appellate Procedure don’t go far enough in providing a fair appellate process in the state.

The Chamber planned to file its comments on the proposed revised rules Friday.

The proposed rules, the Chamber said, on first reading “appear to provide a right of appeal, albeit somewhat limited.

“A more careful reading makes clear that this ‘right’ is at best cosmetic, as opposed to substantive.”

West Virginia, the Chamber said, is the only state that doesn’t provide the right of a meaningful appeal from a final judgment in a lower court, in either civil or criminal cases.

“This significantly tarnishes our reputation for judicial fairness,” it said.

The proposed rules, it said, move the appellate process forward. But as proposed, the rules “will continue many archaic systems and tools that are considered outdated.”

The Chamber said if the rules are adopted, litigants will have “no greater right to have an adverse judgment from a lower court reviewed on a substantive basis than currently exists.”

They also will overburden an already busy Supreme Court of Appeals, the Chamber said.

The rules “will offer little stability and predictability with a guaranteed body of law” because the state’s Supreme Court of Appeals “will not allow its decisions to be taken as precedent setting under the new rules.”

The Chamber believes the proposed rules are “inadequate,” and instead supports the creation of an intermediate appellate court to provide a “full, fair and transparent review process.”

West Virginia Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse on Friday also called for the new rules to better ensure that future legal appeals will receive careful and substantive reviews.

The group points to the proposed Rule 21. They said the rule on memorandum decisions needs greater explanation to “ensure that a right of appeal is granted in all future cases that are properly filed.”

“While the Court has proposed releasing, at the very least, an abbreviated opinion in every properly filed appeal, it’s unclear just how substantial those opinions will be under the current version of the rules,” WV CALA Executive Director Richie Heath said in a statement.

“Without further explanation from the Court, it is difficult to determine whether a memorandum decision would be any more meaningful to potential litigants than the Court’s current process for denying a petition for appeal.

Full Story

The late U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd was often praised as West Virginia’s “Big Daddy” for the billions in federal funding that he earmarked for the state.

But as a columnist in The Wall Street Journal pointed out this week, all that funding did not translate into a better economy for West Virginia.

When Byrd joined the Senate in 1959, West Virginia ranked 39th in median family income, and today the state ranks 48th, the Journal reported. Writer Brian Bolduc details some of Byrd’s public projects, such as Route 50 between Clarksburg and Parkersburg, as doing little to stimulate development and ending up a “road to nowhere.”

Essentially, Bolduc asks the question, “Did Byrd’s work help create a ‘culture of dependency’ that contributed to the state’s decline?”

Many in West Virginia likely would say no, especially in areas such as Huntington where Byrd’s legacy is more linked to the medical school, university research and job training.

Yet, his point that the state failed to reinvent its economy during the Byrd years is well taken. Thousands of blue-collar coal mining and manufacturing jobs vanished, but West Virginia has struggled to grow the businesses that would replace those jobs.

And despite the “Open for Business” slogans, we are still wrestling with that problem.

This week CNBC released its 2010 “Top States For Business” Report, and just as in 2008 and 2009, West Virginia ranks in the bottom five.

The state scores well in only two categories — cost of doing business and cost of living. The low-scoring areas are familiar to most readers — workforce, quality of life, technology and innovation, transportation and infrastructure, access to capital and education. To top it off, West Virginia ranked 50th in “business friendliness,” which gauges the legal, regulatory and tax climates.

Full Story

WASHINGTON — While some are reacting to news that trial lawyers may soon receive a tax break, the U.S. Department of the Treasury is not commenting.

A Treasury spokesperson said Wednesday that the department did not have a comment on a member of the nation’s trial lawyer group, the American Association for Justice, revealing the Treasury’s plan to order a tax break for lawyers working on contingency fee lawsuits.

Sources at an AAJ convention in Vancouver, Canada, told Legal Newsline that John Bowman, the Director of Federal Relations for the AAJ, said in response to a question from a state delegate regarding recruiting new members that an administrative order from the Treasury Department could come soon.

A message with the AAJ was not returned.

“If so, it’s outrageous, using the taxpayers to subsidize speculative lawsuits to the tune of (an estimated) $1.6 billion,” said Carter Wood, of the National Association of Manufacturing.

The tax break could be similar to proposed legislation that didn’t make it through Congress last year. That proposal, sponsored by U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., would have allowed attorneys to deduct fees and expenses up-front for filing contingency fee lawsuits.

“A revenue ruling or new guidance from Treasury would also represent yet more of the current Executive Branch’s disregard for the policymaking branch of government, Congress,” Wood added.

The president of the American Tort Reform Association called a tax break for lawyers “baffling.”

“The Obama administration insists that it’s determined to create jobs and help the private sector economy expand. But by forcing taxpayers to subsidize still more litigation, it would do the just the opposite,” Sherman “Tiger” Joyce said Wednesday. “We can either create more jobs or more lawsuits.”

In West Virginia, the president of the state Chamber of Commerce went off on the AAJ and the Obama administration.

“This is another gift from the lawsuit loving Obama administration to the already rich,” Steve Roberts said. “This is Chicagoland politics at its worst and, if true, is just despicable. No wonder the public holds Obama in such low regard.

“Obama doesn’t even act like he wants to have reasonable policies. It’s time we called him and his supporters out.”

Roberts called the administration’s “hypocrisy” on this issue “astounding.”

“The Obama administration and their adherents in Congress tax, regulate and penalize the businesses that hire Americans who need jobs and turn around and shovel money to their multi-millionaire political allies,” he said. “A tax break for plaintiff’s lawyers who sue people for a living is nothing short of welfare for the rich.

“This is such a slap in the face to honest, hardworking people who don’t go to resorts in the Canadian Rockies to talk about getting tax breaks on their multi-million dollar incomes.”

Richie Heath, executive director of West Virginia Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, agreed.

“Why on earth would we want to create additional incentives for filing job-killing lawsuits at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work,” he said. “It’s simply ridiculous to force taxpayers to subsidize the lawsuits of wealthy personal injury lawyers.”

Full Story