Attorney at Law
Practicing Law in Maryland, Washington, D.C., and Virginia
DEFENDING ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND FIREARMS
WHERE YOUR CAUSE IS OUR CAUSE:
- CRIMINAL DEFENSE (All Felonies, Misdemeanors & Drunk Driving)
- CONSTITUTIONAL & FIRST AMENDMENT DEFENSE
THE NEWS REPEATEDLY COVERS OUR LEGAL EXPERIENCE, INCLUDING:
NBC, COURT TV, FOX NEWS, BBC RADIO, USA TODAY, WASHINGTON POST & ASSOCIATED PRESS
DEVOTED TO WINNING ADVOCACY THROUGH EXPERIENCE, PASSION AND PREPARATION
- AV-RATED BY MARTINDALE-HUBBELL
- BAR REGISTER LAWYERS for Criminal Trial Practice, White Collar Crime and Immigration Law
- NATIONALLY-RECOGNIZED BY MAJOR MEDIA
By Jon Katz
ON THE TRIAL LAWYERS COLLEGE AND ITS FOCUS ON REPRESENTING INDIVIDUALS
NOTE: The Trial Lawyers College's listserve recently had a discussion about the wisdom, or lack thereof, of barring corporate and insurance defense lawyers from TLC programs. When I attended the Trial Lawyers College, I was a full-time public defender lawyer, with prior corporate litigation experience, which fit squarely with the TLC's general advisory that only lawyers for individuals need apply. I replied that our law firm includes representation of corporations, and that disputes between individuals and corporations don't automatically put the individual on the higher ground, and followed up with the following edited opinion:
This replies to the two
dissents from my message confirming that I'm willing to defend against tobacco
and handgun products liability actions, the McDonald's' hot coffee action (I'm too
late there), and actions against bars that serve drunk drivers. I also confirmed my
siding with the libel defense side over the libel plaintiff side.
I feel viscerally against allowing any of these causes of action (I expect, by the way, that
many people feel viscerally opposed to my view), as follows:
TOBACCO- Here's this plant that's been around longer than humans, and a bunch of people want to allow
product liability causes of action against companies that vend the plant, for reasons including lies to the public about the
plant's dangerousness, manipulation of nicotine amounts to get the consumers addicted, marketing the product to minors to create a new
market of tobacco addicts, secondhand smoke, huge cost to the healthcare system, and marketing it in less developed nations where the
restrictions on tobacco are looser. I'm puzzled about what made the users of tobacco think that smoking anything is safe; in this and certain other areas, caveat emptor also informs my opposition to tobacco
product liability litigation. Beyond that, for me to support tobacco litigation seems to fly in the face of my desire for widespread drug
decriminalization, and full legalization of marijuana; the same arguments for allowing tobacco litigation and suppression can easily be
used against other drugs, when I want them decriminalized.
HANDGUNS- I have no problem with suing the shooter who causes injury, and with suing the manufacturer if the gun causes injury for not doing
what it's supposed to do (e.g., a faulty safety latch; a gun that backfires). I think that suing the manufacturer
for strict product liability is a cause of action that's too attenuated from the injury. As with tobacco, the proponents
of such litigation will claim that handguns are unsafe at all times, no matter what; and might also say that the handgun
manufacturers/distributors/sellers push the product too much without watching out for safety locks, safety training and the like. I have an
even harder time with such litigation so long as we have a Second Amendment, which, in my view, provides strong protection to handgun use
and distribution. If the gun control advocates want the levels of gun control that we have now,
without being disingenuous to the Constitution, I think that the Second Amendment will need
amending first.
McDONALD'S HOT COFFEE- The victim's injuries were apparently horrendous. I've heard some of the arguments justifying the cause of action (e.g.,
McDonald's heating the coffee hotter than necessary, and failing to warn of the heat level). But how much of a plastic bubble are we going to
foist on American society? Coffee by definition is hot. The victim apparently placed the coffee between her legs in a car to add milk and
sugar, causing a spill. If the suit included an allegation of a defective cup, I might change my mind, depending on the cup's defect.
I know that the victim's lawyer is a fellow Trial
Lawyers College grad. I welcome talking to him on
this.
BARS- I have no problem suing the drunk driver. To allow suits against bars and other liquor sellers puts them in the business of assessing
sobriety, and is often too attenuated, I believe. To justify such suits against bars also provides ammo for arguments against drug
decriminalization, when I want such decriminalization.
LIBEL DEFENSE- I certainly regret how widespread is the support for allowing libel actions. To allow libel
actions is to ask to carve out deep exceptions to First Amendment
freedoms; I don't think it's possible to carve out any neat First Amendment exceptions, but that instead the carving creates a bloody and
very damaging mess.
My foregoing views do not arise from my product usage, because I don't smoke tobacco, no longer drink liquor or coffee, and my last joint is a distant memory; I haven't fired or possessed a gun in 25 years. I've advocated for many injury victims, and agree with many of the basics of personal injury law that protect victims. Nor am I a Libertarian (not with a capital "L", at least). They are my views, nonetheless.
Date: March 27, 2002
JON KATZ, P.C. - EXPERIENCED FIGHTERS FOR JUSTICE
Jon Katz, P.C. was founded by a couple of eternal idealists who continue to believe that justice is not just a dream, justice is not just an ideal, and justice is not to be relegated to dusty library stacks. We kept this ideal alive before, during, and after law school, when many around us thought we were being quixotic. This ideal drives our law firm and what we do for our clients every day. We put our clients ahead of money, focus on winning advocacy, and maintain strong passion for our clients and their causes. Our founding law partners Jay Marks and Jon Katz met in 1969, attended public school together, trust each other deeply, and work closely together. We opened in 1998 after working many years at other law offices. We are dedicated to justice, welcome tough cases, and never shy away from controversy.
READ OUR DAILY UNDERDOG
BLOG.
View
with Windows
Media Player. Rebroadcast courtesy Fox News. SEE
AND HEAR US ON THE AIR AND ONLINE:
Jon Katz, P.C. repeatedly gives legal
commentary on the airwaves and in print.
OUR ATTORNEYS/FOUNDING PARTNERS
JONATHAN L. KATZ (Admitted in MD/DC/VA
state and federal courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court) On parle francais.
HOME ABOUT US M&K IN THE NEWS DIRECTIONS JOBS KNOW YOUR RIGHTS CONTACT US
UNDERDOG BLOG LINKS ARTICLES CLIENT VIEWS SITE MAP FAQ DISCLAIMER OUR VICTORIES
Visit our homepage at www.katzjustice.com. Copyright 1999-200
7 JON KATZ, P.C..