Leading Conservative Activist Seeks Punitive Damages

Judge Robert Bork, one of the fathers of the modern judicial conservative movement whose nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by the Senate, is seeking $1,000,000 in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages, after he slipped and fell at the Yale Club of New York City.  Judge Bork was scheduled to give a speech at the club, but he fell when mounting the dais, and injured his head and left leg.  He alleges that the Yale Club is liable for the $1m plus punitive damages because they "wantonly, willfully, and recklessly" failed to provide staging which he could climb safely.

Judge Bork has been a leading advocate of restricting plaintiffs' ability to recover through tort law.  In a 2002 article published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy--the official journal of the Federalist Society--Bork argued that frivolous claims and excessive punitive damage awards have caused the Constitution to evolve into a document which would allow Congress to enact tort reforms that would have been unconstitutional at the framing:

State tort law today is different in kind from the state tort law known to the generation of the Framers. The present tort system poses dangers to interstate commerce not unlike those faced under the Articles of Confederation. Even if Congress would not, in 1789, have had the power to displace state tort law, the nature of the problem has changed so dramatically as to bring the problem within the scope of the power granted to Congress. Accordingly, proposals, such as placing limits or caps on punitive damages, or eliminating joint or strict liability, which may once have been clearly understood as beyond Congress's power, may now be constitutionally appropriate.

Ted Frank, another leading proponent of tort reform, questions the merits of Judge Bork's claims:

I sympathize with Judge Bork's serious injuries, but it's beyond me what his lawyers are thinking in asking for punitive damages. And if any danger is open and obvious such that there is an assumption of the risk, surely the absence of stairs to reach a lectern on a dais is—especially if the dais is of the "unreasonable" height that the complaint alleges it to be.

ACSBlog wishes Judge Bork a swift recovery from his injuries.


Written By:Deadeye Dick Cheney On June 8, 2007 11:58 AM

Bork was a tool when he was rejected for a Supreme Court seat and he's a bigger tool now. I'd like to see a summary judgement against him and his punitive damages. What a hypocrite.

Written By:tom On June 8, 2007 12:00 PM

Doesn't the old hypocritical fart's fall fall under "assumption of risk"? And what about John Lott's frivolous lawsuit? Don't these bozos read what they write?

Written By:John Emerson On June 8, 2007 12:04 PM

Is Bork auditioning for "The Onion"? I can hardly believe this.

It isn't the first time that this has happened with one of the tort-reform maniacs. Conservatives want to make the rules, but only for other people. There are no rules for them.

Written By:Glenn On June 8, 2007 12:06 PM

I think the fact that this happened at the Yale Club is pertinent here. Bork's been pissed off at Yale ever since the YLS faculty -- his former colleagues -- opposed his nomination. I'm sure he's relishing the possibility of (in his view) hoisting Yale on its own petard.

Written By:Deadeye Dick Cheney On June 8, 2007 12:07 PM

I changed my mind. No summary judgement. Instead, I hope that he is awarded punitive damages of 1 cent. There's his tort reform.

Written By:Zane On June 8, 2007 12:10 PM

Supreme Court Justice? Computer says, no. But would you settle for Poetic Justice?

Written By:pdq On June 8, 2007 12:14 PM

Honestly, someone ought to keep a little ongoing list of there right-wingers who are all for limiting tort actions until they themselves slip on a banana peel.

It seems to me Delay was another one- talked a big game about limiting lawsuits but had previously sued a company that made an elevator of some sort that had misfunctioned and injured a family member. Am I remembering this right?

Written By:pdq On June 8, 2007 12:14 PM

Honestly, someone ought to keep a little ongoing list of these right-wingers who are all for limiting tort actions until they themselves slip on a banana peel.

It seems to me Delay was another one- talked a big game about limiting lawsuits but had previously sued a company that made an elevator of some sort that had misfunctioned and injured a family member. Am I remembering this right?

Written By:Peter Principle On June 8, 2007 12:25 PM

"The present tort system poses dangers to interstate commerce not unlike those faced under the Articles of Confederation."

Ah, yes -- the interstate commerce clause. The last refuge of those out-of-control liberal judges. All that's missing is the phrase "living Constitution."

Bork's legal reasoning is even more hypocritical than his tort litigation.

Written By:pdq On June 8, 2007 12:27 PM

I found the Delay lawsuit reference:

http://www.ewg.org/reports/oilandwater/delay_lawsuit.php

Summary: Delay's father was grievously injured in a "trolley" that his father and uncle built themselves. They blamed the malfunction on one part of the trolley, and sued the company that made this coupler for ~$15 million in 1990 (including $350,000 per family member (Delay included) for "past and future emotional suffering").

Aparrently the suit was considered so strong (not!) that the company settled for $250,000 (total) with the family to make it go away.

Are these guys a piece of work, or what?

Written By:PaminBB On June 8, 2007 1:00 PM

In trying to find a cite related to the suing Santorums, I came across the following compilation of hypocrisy:

http://www.kraftlaw.com/Articles/Hypocrites.htm

Lots of info

Written By:Daphne Chyprious On June 8, 2007 1:52 PM

Is there such an award as Hypocrite of the Year? Maybe establish a ceremony just for him?

Written By:Daphne Chyprious On June 8, 2007 1:52 PM

Is there such an award as Hypocrite of the Year? Maybe establish a ceremony just for him?

Written By:D.R.Marvel On June 8, 2007 2:39 PM

I don't think Bork has earned "Hypocrite of the Year" just yet...

It's a crowded field...Very crowded...

Ought'a get him a W.D. degree, though...

(Doctor of Wankery...)

Written By:D.R.Marvel On June 8, 2007 2:40 PM

I don't think Bork has earned "Hypocrite of the Year" just yet...

It's a crowded field...Very crowded...

Ought'a get him a W.D. degree, though...

(Doctor of Wankery...)

Written By:D.R.Marvel On June 8, 2007 2:42 PM

Oops...

Written By:ron On June 8, 2007 3:13 PM

funny how often the theories of conservatism fail when applied to the real world, kinda like communism.

Written By:Democrates On June 8, 2007 3:16 PM

Maybe he can get John Edwards to represent him. Oh, the hubris, irony,
and hypocrisy make my day. Hell hath no fury like a judge borked.

Written By:nikto On June 8, 2007 4:17 PM

He has no right to sue.

I mean, that's not actually allowable under the law, is it?

Oh, it IS?

It is ONLY because this country is NOT the way Bork and his filthy ilk would like to make it.

F'n hypocrite.

Typical slimy, scummy GOP Wingnut.

They're all like that, aren't they?

Yes.
No exceptions.

Written By:nikto On June 8, 2007 4:18 PM

He has no right to sue.

I mean, that's not actually allowable under the law, is it?

Oh, it IS?

It is ONLY because this country is NOT the way Bork and his filthy ilk would like to make it.

F'n hypocrite.

Typical slimy, scummy GOP Wingnut.

They're all like that, aren't they?

Yes.
No exceptions.

Written By:Kenneth Fair On June 8, 2007 4:19 PM

Greg Abbott, Texas' attorney general, is one such hypocrite.

Written By:Mooser On June 8, 2007 5:23 PM

I for one, applaud Mr. Borks magnificent enviournmental commitment, which he demonsrated with almost unbelievable bravery by climbing to the dias freehand, instead of roping off.
Those pitons are damaging to the rocks, and Borks willingness to expose himself to a cataclysmic fall rather than damage the cliff-face speaks very well of him.

Written By:Mooser On June 8, 2007 5:23 PM

I for one, applaud Mr. Borks magnificent enviournmental commitment, which he demonsrated with almost unbelievable bravery by climbing to the dias freehand, instead of roping off.
Those pitons are damaging to the rocks, and Borks willingness to expose himself to a cataclysmic fall rather than damage the cliff-face speaks very well of him.

Written By:StealthBadger On June 8, 2007 6:43 PM

Wait a minute...

So that dias was *puts on the Carl Sagan voice* one meeeleeon dollars worth of messed up.

Now I could see maybe $50-100 worth of pooched getting by Mr. Bork's cursory visual inspection, but for it to be one million dollars worth of dangerous, there would have to be a Malay mantrap under the podium or pungee sticks hidden under false, unsupported, rubber sheets where the stair steps would be, or something.

Now those two examples would be wanton, willful, and reckless, and I understand that part of that is punitive, but shouldn't he be tarred and feathered for climbing around on a stage that was in such bad shape?

*is no longer able to keep a straight face*

My apologies, I just can't take his claim seriously at all.

Written By:John Cobarruvias On June 8, 2007 9:53 PM

Calling him a hypocrite is an insult to the true hypocrites of the world.

Written By:Jim Lane On June 9, 2007 12:00 AM

He doesn't need to hire John Edwards. His complaint was signed by Randy Mastro, who was a Deputy Mayor under Giuliani. Mastro is now with the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, a big corporate firm not known for its expertise in personal injury.

The complaint doesn't specify how high this dangerous dais was. Also, I agree with the comments above that there's a big "assumption of the risk" problem.

Fortunately for Bork, though, it's very unlikely that he'll be made to pay the Yale Club's legal fees, even if (as is probable) he loses. Requiring such payments by unsuccessful plaintiffs has been part of the right-wing "tort reform" agenda. Perhaps, to rebut the charge of hypocrisy, Bork will agree to make the payment even if it's not legally required.

Written By:Mr.Murder On June 9, 2007 2:16 AM

If he was making a paid speaking engagement that constitutes a contractual agreement, if he did not speak then he's liable to be countersued for breach of contract,

if he spoke and got paid anyways it can be concluded he already has been awarded compensation...

Written By:Yehuda On June 11, 2007 2:55 PM

Clearly, Judge Bork's head injuries resulted in temporary amnesia, and he has forgotten his prior writings on tort reform. That alone should justify the relief requested :=)

Written By:biltud On June 11, 2007 4:10 PM

Both sides are wrong -- the promoters were damn stupid not to have stairs leading up to the dais for an 80-year old man.

And Bork should have refused to speak until stairs, or someone, assisted him to the dais.

"Pride goeth before a fall."

Written By:K. Michael Eastburn On June 11, 2007 4:30 PM

It must be an Attorney thing. "No you cant have it, But I can !!". Just another parasite at work. Obvisly the "parasite" that took the case is not famillar with the clietns past work !.He's just as bad as the leaker judge that is suieing the dry cleaner for loseing his pants. They should BOTH be disbared and never allowed to practice again !!. Parasites !!.Give 'em a fair trial, and then, hang 'em !!.

Written By:John Klepetka On June 11, 2007 5:26 PM

This is just so classic. "It's different when it is me."
It is just human nature but, when the individual purports to be so superior, it is distasteful.
If he would only admit that we are all human, and subject to frailty. But, NO!
Oh well.

Written By:eyeball On June 11, 2007 5:36 PM

i hope he takes it all the way to the supreme court! then he could get borked a 2d time.


Post A Comment / Question






Remember personal info?