A story in the Houston Chronicle (AP) discusses the possibility:

Five years before the massacre at Virginia Tech, a deeply disturbed student went on a murderous rampage at the Appalachian School of Law, killing three and wounding three others.

Some victims and family members sued the law school and eventually settled for $1 million. Similar lawsuits are virtually certain after the Virginia Tech shootings, but legal experts say it could be very difficult to win damages.

And another one by at FindLaw by Anthony Sebok:

But once an investigation is complete, what will it tell us? If it turns out that there was negligence, or worse, on the part of the university or others, can the wounded victims or the families of the deceased victims of the attack sue Virginia Tech for damages?

The answer is not very reassuring for the families or the surviving victims, and it raises important questions about whether we want to insulate the state from accountability in court for its mistakes.

One thing I can say with some level of certainty, that even if such suits are successful, they will be cold comfort for those in mourning.

Certainly one of the more unusual lawsuits I’ve seen, from New Rochelle, NY:

The city’s largest park, Ward Acres, had long been the domain of dog owners who allowed their pets to run around unleashed, to the detriment of others who wished to use the park. So when the city put in new regulations — and fees for the dog owners, with larger fees for non-residents — a local uproar was created.

Now comes a lawsuit challenging the new regulations, and this one looks more than a bit odd. From The Journal News:

Three dog owners unleashed a lawsuit against the city over new dog-walking regulations at Ward Acres Park.

The suit is a response to an ordinance effective April 1 stipulating hours when dogs must wear leashes and requiring dog-walking permits.

The plaintiffs, a city couple and a Mount Vernon resident, seek a suspension of the ordinance on the grounds that it discriminates against nonresidents, charges a fee to use a public park, violates state dog licensing rules and subjects dog owners to unreasonable searches and seizures by police.

“The word ‘unprecedented’ is very helpful,” said Jeffrey P. Wiegand, one of the lawyers representing Dennis C. During of Mount Vernon and Michael S. Friscia and Marci Malone of New Rochelle. “(The new ordinance) charges ordinary citizens almost an admission fee to Ward Acres Park, which is open parkland.”

I’ve seen plenty of local parks with user fees and/or restrictions to the taxpayers for that municipality, so this suit certainly seems to be unusual.

Woof.

Over at Concurring Opinions, Alfred Yen speculates about the oncoming litigation against pet food maker Menu Foods, with the food apparently tainted by rat poison.

While appreciating his thoughts on possible res ipsa or strict liability potentials in what may be uncharted waters for a mass pet case, there are issues aplenty to prevent easy resolution. Proving negligence will likely be the easiest part (especially with gov’t investigations), but that isn’t enough for the average owner facing this problem. Here are the big three that I see:

• The evidence is probably gone. The contents were consumed by the pet and the packaging was likely tossed away when empty (especially if they were single serving sizes); [Addendum: If the food was scanned at check-out at a major market and some type of store discount card was used, it might be possible to track the tainted food from store to home]
• The pet may be gone, or the evidence of injuries not well documented, making causation very difficult to prove. Pets, after all, get sick without tainted food; and
• The cost to prove causation may well exceed the value of the case. In New York, at least, the emotional distress of the owner is not compensable, meaning that even if one can prove a pet consumed the tainted food and that it was this food that made the animal sick, the recovery is likely limited to the vet fees and/or the cost of the pet. How much will the veterinary expert set you back as compared to what you may recover?

This may be one high profile case where the efforts of creating new law and proving damages vastly exceed that which may be recovered. While I certainly see aggrieved owners insisting on suit — as this may be their only means of justice for the loss of a beloved pet — I think any attorney taking such a case must appreciate it will likely be similar to pro bono work.

[Addendum: A class action simply for the cost of the food is an altogether different issue, but one that is likely to leave very unhappy clients due to the emotional attachment to their pets and the minimal amounts likely to be recovered by any given owner.]

And if the eye is on punitive damages, the road ahead is completely uncharted in light of Philip Morris v. Williams, and the court’s admonition that harm to others cannot be considered as part of a jury’s determination.

(Eric Turkewitz is a personal injury attorney in New York)