Bork Settles Slip and Fall Lawsuit
Here at the Law Blog, we only bring you the most important legal news of the day. Which is why today we’re reporting that almost-Supreme Court justice Robert Bork has settled the $1 million lawsuit that he filed against the Yale Club after he fell stepping onto a platform to speak, according to the Associated Press.
How did this come down? Bork was at the club last June to speak at an event sponsored by the New Criterion, a monthly review of the arts and intellectual life. According to the suit, filed in federal court in Manhattan, the club failed to provide steps and a handrail to climb onto the dais. Bork fell backward as he was attempting to climb the dais, striking his leg on the stage and hitting his head on a heat register.
Bork suffered a large hematoma, or swelling of blood, in his lower left leg as a result of the fall and the hematoma eventually burst, according to the lawsuit. The injury required surgery and months of physical therapy, according to the complaint. He claims to have suffered “excruciating pain” as a result of the injury and continues to walk with a limp. Lawyers for the defendant blamed Bork, saying any injuries he sustained were at least partially his fault for not recognizing potential risks, according to the AP.
Here’s a copy of the complaint.
The AP said Bork’s lawyer, Randy Mastro, said terms of the deal are confidential.
Bork (Chicago, Chicago Law) taught at Yale Law School in the 1960s and 70s. He was acting Attorney General under President Nixon and a D.C. Circuit judge from 1982 to 1988. Last year, when we were first writing about this lawsuit, he was a professor at the Ave Maria School of Law in Michigan — but given all that’s gone on there we need to double check that for you. (Web site indicates he’s still there.)
Meanwhile, “to bork” has also become a verb — according to this story, it can be defined as “to destroy a judicial nominee through a concerted attack on his character, background and philosophy.”
Tort Reform, come on, tell us how this member of the ultra right wing is just another example of frivolous lawsuits. And make sure you email your comments directly to Bork, so he knows the Chamber of Whor . . . I mean Commerce could care less about his well being and considers him part of whats wrong with this country.
This is actually not a frivolous lawsuit. This man was seriously injured by the negligence of the defendants. This is not the missing pants case. There was actual injury and negligence here. I am in favor of real law suits, regardless of whether the plaintiff is a an honorable man like Bork or some liberal pinko.
Tort law 101: Duty, breach, causation, damages. Nice bald-faced assertions of negligence and causation. There were no findings of fact made. One person’s frivolous lawsuit is another man’s legitimate grievance.
The missing pants case, Tort Reform? Was this the (crazy and dishonorable) judge in D.C. suing the dry cleaners for $50 million or so? He lost that case, didn’t he? The justice system worked, didn’t it? Why are using that to attack the justice system? Surely you could find another case to use.
***************
But, alas, I can’t help feeling that there’s a double standard at work here because it was Bork who got hurt, and I’m one who can understand the conseratives’s anger over the shifting definition of negligence in the U.S. (though I’m waiting for someone to come up with something better than “failure to exercise ordinary care”).
***************
BTW, if we had universal health care, I can’t help but thinking that damages would never be as much as Bork demanded, since no one would have medical bills to pay, leaving emotional and punitive damages to worry about.
Tort Reform, this confirms something I’ve observed over 30 years of practicing law: the most conservative, lawsuit-hating clients are the quickest to insist that some b.s. suit be filed on their behalf. Yours is the same thought process that “tort reformers” (lower-case) always condemn, i.e., if you’re hurt, you must have a case, even if your injuries are your own damn fault. Please tell me what the proven negligence here was.
If Bork has trouble with stairs, than Bork should have asked for a hand onto the dais (just like my Grandma would have done, God bless her soul.) The only person negligent here was Bork. And, yes, many conservatives are hypocrites who hide behind idealogy to further their own interests when it suits them.
The negligence in this case was that (1) the club KNEW that an elderly person would be climbing onto the dais; (2) the club KNEW that he was prone to injury given his known health condition; (3) the club failed to provide a handrail or an assistant to help Judge Bork climb into the dias while knowingly putting his health and well being at risk. Would any of you with elderly parents put your family members at risk? Clear negligence, in my opinion.
I am a true conservative and I hate frivilous lawsuits–of which there are far too many. This lawsuit clearly falls in the category of ’something bad happenned to me so I must sue someone for it’. It’s actually quite shameful of Judge Bork to have filed such a lawsuit. I am sure no one at the university wanted this to happen and even if there had been a handrail he could have still fallen. I also agree that a LOT of ‘conservatives’ are hypocrites–but that’s because they are not really conservatives at all.
I can’t believe people here are still falling for Tort Reform. Clearly you all should be disbarred for being mentally unfit to practice law since you don’t get what she’s doing.
tort reformers are total hypocrites. what happened to Bork’s “personal responsibility.” What happened to self-sufficiency? What, Bork couldn’t simply ask someone to help him up? No, he thought he could do it on his own and he was wrong. Bad personal decision, take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your actions. Isn’t that what the republicans and tort reformers always scream about? Hey Tort Reform, if this is not a frivolous case, then why are people like you trying to completely do away with medical malpractice cases? You think falling off a 2 foot platform deserves a lawsuit but not when some drunk doctor accidentily sews up a scalpel in someone’s body, or accidentily puntures a spleen? You want to cap those types of damages, but a million bucks for a slip and fall is somehow legitimate. You just lost all credibility on the WSJ law blog, my friend. That is, if you even had any cred left.
Conservatives have hardly cornered the market on hypocrisy - ask Al Gore about his gas-heated swimming pool.
That being said, Bork should be ashamed of himself.
Bork. Borkbork. bork. borkBorkbork. Borkbork bork, borkBork. bork. bork. BorkBork bork–Bork, bork, bork borkBork–borkbork Bork. Bork.
Are you the Swedish Chef?
I’ve been borking since I was about 15. The chicks looooove it.
Dear Please Bork and True Conservative.
How can you be so certain this was a frivolous lawsuit? You don’t know the facts, but you just assume some to justify your position. Why can’t you trust the system to work? The attorneys for the defendant were able to protect their client and they worked out a settlement (and we can only guess what it is) they felt was satisfactory, while Bork’s attorneys advised him accordingly. It is only your presumptions that make this a frivolous suit. You just do not know, yet your bias means you will use this case (based on your bias and ignorance about the case) to support your position.
The critics of Judge Bork who comment above have intellects that could be inscribed on a head of a pin while leaving most of it bare, open for 40-50 more of their kind to join in.
Unlike many persons who get injured due to someone else’s negligence, Judge Bork knew where to go to hire the best “slip and fall” law firm. Other people in a similar situation go to an attorney whose ad they saw or to an attorney recommended by a friend or neighbor. The attorney hired will file suit and then wait for the insurance company to settle after the attorney makes phone calls every few months to get a fast settlement, to avoid going to court and doing real work.
That hematoma Judge Bork suffered through is serious business, there is a chance the wound can get infected (one 750 mg Levaquin pill nightly, which can cause insomnia), and with any hospital stay now you run the chance of acquiring a drug resistant C. Difficile infection.
Whatever the settlement amount, I am sure Bork regrets the day he went to the Yale Club to make that speech. Good thing he was a judge, his head is rock hard from thinking too much so the bang there did no damage.
I wonder whether we could have more first year law students commenting. Oh wait, see above.
Even though any claim that this completely undermines Bork’s conservative views is clearly extremely exaggerated, the lawsuit does seem rather frivolous.
I don’t know what the reasonability standard is for the duty of the club in this case to provide steps but it sure doesn’t seem that clear and obvious.
Must suck for the club as the person in charge of dais was probably not a big-man in the organization and now has caused them big bucks.
LawBlog, thanks for posting this so we could prove once and for all that our friend Tort Reform doesn’t have a clue what he actually believes in.
All you knuckleheads are a riot. This Bork case is but a small example, an insignificant example really, of someone taking advantage of our legal system. This guy probably got hurt because he did not watch where he was going. But please, do not use this blip as a reason to digress from my larger points and the big picture. The Tort Reform Movement has made such tremendous progress over the past decade or so that we can legitimately claim victory on many fronts. The coordinated efforts of the United States Chamber of Commerce and the state tort reform groups has paid off big. Legislatures across the nation have passed laws to keep lawsuit filings down. Oregon is about to pass a law capping contingent fees in ALL cases at 10%!! Capping fees in states across the nation is the very best way for us to prevent lawyers from taking personal injury cases on a contingency fee. The fact is that our movement has ground you and your bleeding liberal hearts into the ground. The Supreme Court will deliver what I like to refer to as the ultimate money shot when it hands downs it smackdown ruling the the Exxon Valdez punitive damages case. Epic smackdown comin down the pike!
So when all you liberal types get all excited when some conservative files a lawsuit,please keep on keeping your focus on the trees. We have the forest. You people are the worst organized, worst at keeping on message, worst at selling your position, worst at public relations and are terrible at most everything you’ve tried to do to counter our movement. In ten years no one will know what you are referring to when you say “plaintiff’s lawyer”. Extinction of that species is a certainty. Your’re all just rearranging chairs on the deck of your Titantic.
tort reform is a troll who posts here with a schtick to get a rise out of people.
pretty entertaining. carry on.
Gibson Dunn is the “best slip-and-fall law firm?” Hilarious!
And the white-shoe lawyers filed their suit in federal court, too!
so one of the poster boys for the so-called conservative “take responsibility for your own actions” crowd can bitch & moan and assume the mantle of victimhood just like everyone else.
The injury is unfortunate, but those of Bork’s ilk would almost surely agree that he takes personal responsibility for his own actions and if he could see he’d have trouble getting up on that stage, he should have said or done something about it!
He’s not shy about spreading his pompous bloviations, he should at least be responsible for looking out for his own bad self.
The passengers on the Titantic were “entertained” as the string quartet performed. In case you’ve forgotten your history, during the performance, while being “entertained”, the passengers were sinking to a certain death. Just like plaintiffs.
Gibson Dunn is the “best slip-and-fall law firm?” Hilarious!
And the white-shoe lawyers filed their suit in federal court, too!
Idiot at 1:29 pm
—
Where else would you expect Gibson Dunn to file their lawsuit, Bork is a former Federal judge. Your posting seems to indicate that Bork could have chosen a better law firm. Who, Jacoby & Meyers? In under a year, Bork got a lawsuit settlement from a non-profit corporation. Find someone else who has had similar fast payment for a lawsuit from amy non-profit, organizations that are notorious for being slow payers. There are some lawyers who know the law, others who know the judge. In this case, former Federal judge Bork was well known to the Federal judges at Foley Square and environs.
1:29 pm, you are so lame you cannot even identify yourself with a screen name. You are just pathetic!
In response to the comment by “Tort Reform, 9:54am”:
Tort Reform, I am a fellow believer in capping the amount of damages in personal injury and malpractice suits. However, I would be hard-pressed to agree with your assertion that plaintiff’s lawyers will someday be extinct. If a lightbulb made by some shoddy company exploded in your eye, you would hire a lawyer to bring a suit for you. Any reasonable person would. And since there will never cease to be crappy manufacturing, medical slip-ups, and unforseen accidents, there will always be a legitmate need for the Plaintiff’s bar. I would suggest toning down your rhetoric so as not to lose credibility.
WHO SAID THIS?
HE IS A FAMOUS EX JUDGE SOON TO BE RETIRED….
“”It is clear to every trial and Appellate Judge in the nation: protecting a constitutional right of an accused or decide the “wrong way,” in a civil case and depending on the politics of the day, you may put on your hat and coat, drive home and inform your spouse that you have just signed your political death warrant.”
“March 20, 2008,
“Libby Disbarred; Court Cites ‘Moral Turpitude’
Evan Perez reports on the Justice Department.”
“I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff who was convicted last year in the Central Intelligence Agency leak investigation, was stripped of his license to practice law in the District of Columbia under a court order issued today.”
“The disbarment order, in effect for five years, is standard procedure given that Libby was convicted of federal perjury and obstruction of justice charges in a case that stems from the leaking of the identity of former CIA official Valerie Plame.”
“In its order, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals wrote, “When a member of the Bar is convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude, disbarment is mandatory.” Libby didn’t oppose the order.”
“D. PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH ATTORNEYS, OTHER JUDGES, AND ORGANIZATIONS”
“A judge’s attitude toward an attorney practicing in the judge’s court may raise concerns about the appearance of partiality,140 especially when the attorney has held a position of trust with the court. In two Alabama cases,141 active members of the bar who served as guardians and conservators for their counties were charged in highly publicized cases with embezzlement and theft from those conservatorships and estates. Because reasonable persons would question the impartiality of the judges, whose trust the defendants were charged with breaching, the appellate court granted petitions for recusal of all the judges in the respective circuits”…..
To Ms. Defenselaw101, you pretend to be a defense lawyer yet you don’t believe in your clients core values. The “plaintiff’s bar” should not exist. Companies that make products should be shielded from liability and the federal government should pick up the tab for injured people. That economic reality will drive down the amount of money spent on “injured” people, share prices will soar and American investors will realize larger profits. Get with the program. To learn more about how to think about concepts that will lead to true reform, please go to the Institute for Legal Reform or go to one of the many fine information seminars at the United States Chamber of Commerce. They will help you think correctly about how to see your role in our legal “system” as it exists today and as it will come to exist in the years to come. Good luck.
Bork is a Dork. And a bitter Dork–thank the Good Lord he never made it to the Supreme Court. Imagine the lawsuits he would have filed for slipping there!
Mr. or Ms. Tort Reform says: “Companies that make products should be shielded from liability and the federal government should pick up the tab for injured people.”
Leaping lizards, Batman! That sounds like a recipe for Big G overnment bureaucracy overseeing payouts on every tort filing around … Methinks that “Tort Reform” has a serious identity crisis and cannot decide what(s)he favors: a somewhat bloated dysfunctional judicial system, or a thoroughly dysfunctional appendage to the federal bureaucracy!
So the Chamber of Commerce favors establishing a federal Dept. of Tort Payouts!? Who woulda thunk it. I bet you’d get at least $1.49 for that exploding shoddy lightbulb.
fenderweed’s post is a perfect example of the kind of rambling, unfocused argument on behalf of the liberal trial bar. Incomprehensible, inarticulate and generally flailing. Just like a boxer who is about to lose a fight. Swinging wildly without a focus. You people make this so easy. Stay tuned for the epic smackdown from your Supreme Court. The opinion is due out very, very soon. Don’t say I didn’t tell you so.
WOW! I can’t believe Tort Reform has begun to insult people and is waiting for the Supreme Court to lay the “smackdown” on the entire “liberal trial bar.” Instead of insulting people and trying his best Miss Cleo impersonation, Tort Reform would be better served to actually put a warrant behind his inflammatory claims. Here’s an example. Claim: the tort reform Tort reform is arguing for would not be a step in the right direction for our legal system. Warrant: fully shielding companies that injure people give them no financial incentive to take precautions and generally act safer. Tort suits serve this function by making it too expensive to ignore the claims for those injured by these companies; therefore, in order to avoid these expensive suits, companies will spend money to reduce hazards and expose people to less risk. See how that works Tort Reform? You should try making an intelligent claim with an intelligent warrant. By the way, when are you applying for law school?
There is nothing inflammatory about my “claims”. The “claims” you reference are “facts” to the world outside your brain. We have passed legislation in many states capping damages (fact). The Chamber of Commerce has successfully changed the way Americans think about lawsuits(fact). Your Supreme Court consistently rules against plaintiffs (fact). We are making progress in capping contingent fees (fact). There are fewer lawsuits being filed (fact). The federal courts are about to completely shield manufacturers from state court lawsuits (fact). Which of these facts do you oppose?
Quite a few of them actually. Is it a fact that you serve in multiple state legislatures? I just ask because you said “we have passed legislation in many states…” Are you sure that’s a fact? What about your statement saying, “Your Supreme Court…?” Is it not your Supreme Court too? Are you a foreign citizen and yet serve as a state congressman in multiple states? Is that a fact? I just ask because you like making statements of fact and I wonder if you know the difference between a fact and something else (say a prediction, perhaps?). How about your last “fact”? “The federal courts are about to completely shield manufacturers from state court lawsuits.” Are you sure this isn’t a prediction? Sounds an awful lot like one to me. Here’s the thing about predictions… they can be wrong. A prediction only becomes fact when it is proven correct. Until then, claims like yours are only predictions and not “facts.”
Who said shmuck Bork is not plaintiff friendly?
And see where he ended up! Ave Maria “school”.
Denial of reality. That is the primary reason we are winning and you are losing.
Oh yes! I forgot. I should have evaded the issues and claimed victory first. Mission Accomplished Tort Reform!
Faustus,
(1) Gibson Dunn is a great firm but they are NOT personal injury lawyers, they should at least have associated counsel with someone who knows the game.
(2) state court is where the suit should have been filed, better discovery rules and better damages.
(3) reaching a settlement agreement within a year is not hard to do at all against nonprofits, you just may not get immediately PAID as they tend to put you on a schedule. That is assuming they don’t have INSURANCE, which many of them do carry.
To Anonymous: What about mental anguish, pain and suffering?
To Please Bork: Doesn’t your jurisdiction require apportionment of damages?
Even if Bork mught have been partly negligent, so may have been Yale Club. The ol’ boy was invited to speak. The conditions of delivery and its location and facility accoutrements were under Yale Club control. It was a good case to settle, for both sides!
How grateful I am to live in a country that at least purports to believe in free speech. And isn’t it great to see all the different opinions out there–and everyone is so serious. You all crack me up.
A tort reformer is just someone who has not yet been injured by someone else’s negligence. Tort Reform proves my point.
Bork immediately decried the settlement as evidence of a tort system run amok. Then he purchased a Bently.
Almost all personal injury cases settle. Would be interesting to know if Mastro took on contingency, like any other personal injury attorney. Insurance company determined the settlement amount based on lots of history of settlements and verdicts for this kind of injury in this venue.
There was a lot of posting when the complaint was first filed about how diversity jurisdiction did not exist because it’s an unincorporated association and therefore has the citizenship of each of its members (Carden v. Arkoma Associates). I then lost interest in the case. Did anyone ever figure out whether this case was properly in federal court, and, if so, on what basis? I would have just loved a 12(b)(6) dismissal against Randy Mastro and Gibson Dunn, purely for the schadenfreude of watching such a white shoe firm fall flat on its face.
Typical conservative: against legal redress for anything until they are injured.
