Tort reformer Robert Bork sues Yale Club.
Claiming the Yale Club of New York City “wantonly, willfully, and recklessly” failed to provide easy to climb staging, conservative uber-activist Judge Robert Bork is suing the club for $1,000,000 in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages from a fall Bork sustained while mounting the dais at the club for a scheduled speech. Bork, an infamous tort reform advocate, hasn’t always been such a fan of suing for punitive damages, at least when other people do it.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
75 Responses to “Tort reformer Robert Bork sues Yale Club.”
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Site
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Dobbs
Drudge
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Gore
Guantanamo
Hagee
Health Care
Immigration
Impeachment
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Terrorism
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
IOKIYAR. Don’t you people know that?
June 8th, 2007 at 1:11 pmThe usual elitist… Do as I say, not as I do.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:12 pmHypocrite. Sue because you are a clod.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:14 pmMaybe he should not be so fat — those steps would be much easier to navigate.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:17 pmHe’s playing by the law. Kind of sound like John Kerry and John Edwards whining about tax cuts for the “rich” while taking advantage of them with their own returns.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:17 pmThere are some very interesting comments at the linked site, including a great reference to hypocrite DeLay, but also a link to a hypocrite website. It’s well worth looking at:
http://www.kraftlaw.com/Articles/Hypocrites.htm
June 8th, 2007 at 1:18 pmthere is nothing like giving them a taste of their own medicine
June 8th, 2007 at 1:19 pmTort cases are not the same as suing for punitive damages. Tort cases only make the lawyers money, by getting as many plaintiffs as possible the judgement must be spread amongst 100s or 1000s of plaintiffs and the lawyer gets 1/3 off the total. I think it is stupid to sue here, but he is not hypocritical because he is against tort cases.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:21 pmHey, it’s on a frivilous lawsuit when someone else files it.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:23 pmHe hasn’t dropped dead yet?
June 8th, 2007 at 1:24 pmBork is still alive? I thought he passed away already.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:24 pmNoMoreBush there are no shortages of fat sloppy liberal democrats you see them everyday at McDonalds and Walmart .
June 8th, 2007 at 1:25 pmWhy does he need stairs? Can’t he lift himself up by the bootstraps?
June 8th, 2007 at 1:25 pmThe Yale Club should have safe stairs, and they should pay all of Bork’s medical costs incurred by this fall.
Asking for $1 million in punitive damages is ridiculous and hypocritical of Mr Bork.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:27 pmJPV what ever happened to the ” If You Can’t Beat Them Join Them .
June 8th, 2007 at 1:29 pmGumadickmitch your fine group of Socialist have no shortage of hypocrites in your ranks try to keep that in mind .
Typical Republican hypocrit. This jacka$$ thinks punitive damages shouldn’t be available to other plaintiffs, but when it’s he who feels wronged the sky’s the limit.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:29 pmComment by m12 — June 8, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Idiot. What Bork is doing is hypocritical. If Kerry and Edwards are successful in removing tax cuts for the rich, they will have to pay more in taxes at that point. THAT is altruistic. Altruistic is good. Hypocritical is bad. You are a fool and an idiot to boot - back to your cave.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:30 pmCounter sue for his offensive facial hair, which is likely what he tripped over to begin with.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:30 pmJustice will be served if Borl loses his case and is made to pay the Yale Club for defamation
June 8th, 2007 at 1:34 pmtimmy — punitive damages are an additional claim for compensation in some tort cases (and therefore a favorite target of tort “reformers”): they are not a separate form of litigation. Lawyers generally receive 1/3 of payment in contingent fee cases, where the plaintiff lacks the money to pay for litigation expenses upfront. Bork can presumably afford to hire a lawyer on a non-contingent fee-basis. Claiming punitive damages makes him MORE, not less, of a hypocrite.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:35 pmI think only Repub millionaires who earned every penny of their vast personal fortune through Repub Government Welfare, like Bork, should be able to file Frivilous Lawsuits and retain ambulance chasing Trial Lawyers.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:39 pmTimmy,
What? Torts do not necessarily equal class actions but many class actions are torts. Is that what you’re trying to argue? Wait, what are you trying to argue? Try again.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:42 pmm12,
You are such a stupid c*nt. There is nothing you would ever criticize about a Repugnicunt, and nothing you would ever say good about a Democrat. Your partisanship is ridiculous.
You are living, typing proof that a troll can live on a diet of Bush’s smag and KKKarl’s dingleberries.
FYITA.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:42 pmtimmy — punitive damages are an additional claim for compensation in some tort cases (and therefore a favorite target of tort “reformersâ€): they are not a separate form of litigation. Lawyers generally receive 1/3 of payment in contingent fee cases, where the plaintiff lacks the money to pay for litigation expenses upfront. Bork can presumably afford to hire a lawyer on a non-contingent fee-basis. Claiming punitive damages makes him MORE, not less, of a hypocrite.
Comment by springtime
I disagree, the reason tort cases have been such a problem is the class action side of it that awards crazy high judgements. I am talking about the mass torts that don’t benefit anybody. Bork suing for punitive damages in this case is not hypocritical as it is for 1 million not something like 500 million like the mass torts tend to be.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:44 pmApparently the trolls are awake.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:46 pmMaybe he just needs to sit further away from the dinner table.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:48 pmHe’s playing by the law. Kind of sound like John Kerry and John Edwards whining about tax cuts for the “rich†while taking advantage of them with their own returns.
Comment by m12 — June 8, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
So, You’re12, you’re saying that John Kerry and John Edwards should pay MORE than the law requires in order to not be hypocrites?
Their complaints are about the law and the way it is written, not about people “taking advantage of the law”.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:48 pm#23 - “Bork suing for punitive damages in this case is not hypocritical as it is for 1 million not something like 500 million like the mass torts tend to be.” Comment by timmy — June 8, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
One person, 1 million.
Mass torts, 500 people, 500 million.
Could your logic be any more flawed than it already is?
June 8th, 2007 at 1:48 pmI would respond the a suit involving 500 people all suing for $1M in punitive damages for one similar series of wrongs perpetrated by a company found liable and doing so wantonly deserves punitive damages, whereas the single incident involving just a few people probably doesn’t warrant punitive damages. Yet, Bork still shoots for the moon, despite previous assertions on his part. Mass tort damages are big b/c a lot of people are involved. Duh.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:49 pmyou’re getting pretty good at dis-torts, timmy….
June 8th, 2007 at 1:49 pmTimmy,
What? Torts do not necessarily equal class actions but many class actions are torts. Is that what you’re trying to argue? Wait, what are you trying to argue? Try again.
Comment by John
I am speaking of mass tort cases, which are the ones that Bork felt needed caps. So yes that does include class action cases.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:50 pm#6 - gummitch
Thanks for that link. That’s a great list of greedy hypocrites.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:53 pmOne person, 1 million.
Mass torts, 500 people, 500 million.
Could your logic be any more flawed than it already is?
Comment by Democrat Soldier
In mass torts and class action suits the payouts to plaintiffs are very small because of the large number of plaintiffs, sometimes just coupons or future services is all they receive while the lawyers make millions.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:59 pmtimmy: you have a valid argument that class action damages may be more egregious than punitive damages in individual tort cases. However, Robert Bork and many, many other conservatives have long argued for caps on all punitive damages in all cases, including caps on pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases. So, while you are taking a different tact, most of your fellow conservatives would extend your logic to all tort cases.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:59 pmyou’re getting pretty good at dis-torts, timmy….
Comment by heyzeus
Do you have any evidence of your claims from our discussion yesterday yet?
June 8th, 2007 at 2:02 pmtimmy: you have a valid argument that class action damages may be more egregious than punitive damages in individual tort cases. However, Robert Bork and many, many other conservatives have long argued for caps on all punitive damages in all cases, including caps on pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases. So, while you are taking a different tact, most of your fellow conservatives would extend your logic to all tort cases.
Comment by Oversight is a Bitch.
I think there should be a cap based on a number of factors for any tort case. For example punitive damages on medical malpractice cases. Do you have any idea how much insurance for malpractice is for on OBGYN? Up to $100,000 or more in premium a year. Who do you think pays for this? We do, doctors have to charge more to make up the costs. I think that people should be able to sue of course, but there needs to be limits.
http://www.nhregister.com/ site/ news.cfm?newsid=12644481&BRD=1281&PAG=461
June 8th, 2007 at 2:11 pmCons make me so sick, sometime I just want to smash my computer screen. So let me get this striaght, the average person has restricted ability to sue, but conservive judges against our right to use the court system to seek justice can sue?
I guess the new tort reform is only rich cons can sue
when are we going to rise up and violently remove these people from America? im talking each and every con
June 8th, 2007 at 2:13 pmMore on Tom Delay’s lawsuit:
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.
See, personal injury lawsuits are okay for me, but not for thee. Are these guys a piece of work, or what?
June 8th, 2007 at 2:22 pmI think the Yale Club deserves it. And they shouldn’t win a suit for defamation, since they’re already defamed enough by having the Yale name. No self-respecting Yale graduate would be so proud of his or her university to join the Yale club; if I’d gone to Yale, that would have been an experience I’d try to forget.
Even Bill Clinton has repented of his years at Yale and become an honorary member of the Harvard College Class of 2007.
::end over-the-top fake elitism::
June 8th, 2007 at 2:23 pmDo you have any evidence of your claims from our discussion yesterday yet?
Comment by timmy
I’m unaware of any actual claims I made in our banter yesterday, can you refresh my memory?
June 8th, 2007 at 2:46 pmtimmy?
June 8th, 2007 at 3:03 pmWhat qualifies you to make that statement?
June 8th, 2007 at 3:17 pmYou went to what law school?
You didn’t get one single fact correct in your post.
June 8th, 2007 at 3:19 pmSorry Bork, because of Tort reform you’re only entitled to $25,000 max.
Don’t like it? Tough shite, deal with it.
June 8th, 2007 at 3:19 pmName two. Or even one.
You seem to be saying the more people who are injured by a defective product, the less the manufacturer should be held liable.
Do you realize that for less than $10.00 per Pinto, those cars could have been made so they wouldn’t blow up in a rear-end collision? Several people burned to death, for the lack of ten dollars’ worth of modifications.
June 8th, 2007 at 3:24 pm>timmy: you have a valid argument that class action damages
>may be more egregious than punitive damages in
> individual tort cases.
no he doesnt. if you try to put caps on class actions, your going to create an entire sub-section of the market who deliberately rips off individual consumers knowing that the amounts they are stealing from them make the chances of them hiring a lawyer to get the money back almost nil because the cost of the lawyer would outweigh the amount they would get back. if a business knows no one is going to pay a lawyer 5 grand to get 1 grand back , i can promise you that there are plenty of businesses who are going to exploit this to rip people off.
class actions deal with this problem by allowing lawyer fees per victim to be cost effective. yes, there is a potential for the lawyer to make big $$, but class actions are tough work, involve MANY lawyers, and are very expensive and time consuming. without a big incentive, no one is going to go after the companies that are ripping people off, no one is going to try to fight their army of lawyers…
as a general rule, without class actions, i can tell you that if a business has ripped you off anything less than 5 figures, its almost certainly probably going to cost you more than you lost to even try to get your money back
June 8th, 2007 at 4:09 pmRobert Bork = CUA!!
No human has ever resembled the look of a pig more than him!!!
And he’s a pig!!
June 8th, 2007 at 4:15 pmName two. Or even one.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Just look at the legal fees on the verdicts for tobacco and asbestos cases.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:26 pmComment by White Chocolate Jesus Mousse
You have no problem with lawyers making all the money and the plaintiffs getting very little?
http://www.triallawyersinc.com/html/part03.html
“More than $8 billion will go to a handful of firms that pioneered the first tobacco lawsuits in Mississippi, Florida, and Texas.27 The Florida teams will take home $3.4 billion, or $233 million per lawyer.[28] That’s $7,716 an hour—assuming they each worked 24 hours a day, seven days a week for three and a half years.[29]”
“For example, in one Florida class action, lawyers for flight attendants suing the airlines for health problems resulting from secondhand smoke pocketed $49 million of the $349 million settlement.[39] The flight attendants who brought the suit got nothing unless they filed individual suits and demonstrated that secondhand smoke actually made them sick. ”
“Class members in a lawsuit against Toshiba for defective laptop computers did little better, collecting between $100 and $443 in cash and coupons. The take for Trial Lawyers, Inc.: $148 million.[40]”
“For the lawsuit industry as a whole, less than half of all dollars actually go to plaintiffs, and less than a quarter of all dollars actually go to compensate plaintiffs’ economic damages. As the above examples indicate, in mass tort and class action claims, plaintiffs’ awards are typically di-vided among so many individuals that the only people who meaningfully profit are the plaintiffs’ lawyers themselves. And in capturing 19% of a $200 billion pie, Trial Lawyers, Inc. does handsomely indeed.[41]”
June 8th, 2007 at 4:35 pmFailure to cite even one case. GRADE FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT: F
(by the way, I am a teacher and an attorney, so don’t think you can try to bullsh!t you way past me.)
June 8th, 2007 at 4:36 pmI’m unaware of any actual claims I made in our banter yesterday, can you refresh my memory?
Comment by heyzeus
Feel free to look back at the thread, I asked for some evidence many times.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:42 pmFailure to cite even one case. GRADE FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT: F
(by the way, I am a teacher and an attorney, so don’t think you can try to bullsh!t you way past me.)
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Read a little farther on my posts.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:42 pmCons make me so sick, sometime I just want to smash my computer screen. So let me get this striaght, the average person has restricted ability to sue, but conservive judges against our right to use the court system to seek justice can sue?
Thanks to you guys, Bork hasn’t been a judge for 20 years, so this is untrue.
June 8th, 2007 at 5:36 pmBork is also known for liking his martinis tall, dry and plentiful. I know from personal experience, having served him quite a few before a speech he gave when I was in collage back in the 80s… and that was just to supplement the flask he brought with him to the event. I would not be surprised vodka was responsible for his fall and not the steps. I wonder how that would go down in court. Unfortunately, I doubt he submitted to a breathalyser test when he got to the hospital. Oh well…one more hypocritical wingnut.
June 8th, 2007 at 5:38 pmHarry Truman at #12 — non sequiter much? My point about Bork had nothing to do with his political leanings but his sizeable girth, which probably contributed to his difficulty navigating steep steps (typical of steps to a dais). You interjected the Rep./Dem. into my comment. Project much? I have no doubt that there are fat progressives, but that WAS NOT MY POINT.
June 8th, 2007 at 6:04 pmI was hoping…
…Bork was DEAD…
…there’s ALWAYS hope…
June 8th, 2007 at 6:13 pm#54
http://www.mediaresearch.org/ stillshots/ 2003/ dishonor/ event/ judgebork.jpg
Robert Bork doesn’t look fat.
June 8th, 2007 at 6:15 pmhe’s just butt ugly
June 8th, 2007 at 7:17 pmThe Laws of RW Conservatism
1. Only conservatives have the right to sue.
June 8th, 2007 at 7:37 pmBush is another HYPOCRITE:
He complains of people filing FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS (even though Courts toss those out at multiple stages), after he stole the White House with one (Bush v. Gore), after LOSING an election. [2000]
File under:
June 8th, 2007 at 7:50 pm“Hypocrite Republicans,”
“Supreme Court Five,”
“Election 2000,”
“Borky Pig.”
Madhatter writer: Bork is also known for liking his martinis tall, dry and plentiful. I know from personal experience, having served him quite a few before a speech he gave when I was in collage back in the 80s… and that was just to supplement the flask he brought with him to the event.
Yes, I was wondering about this. Should make for interesting testimony, as the defense establishes “martini frequency.” One doesn’t give up all of one’s rights when one drinks, of course, but as I say, it’ll make for interesting reading.
To the folks going on about navigating steps leading to the dias, be aware that there were none. Bork’s claim is that it the height of the dias should have necessitated them but there were none, causing him to fall backward and screw up his leg and strike his head in his failed attempt to mount the dias.
His claim, incidentally, neglects to name the height of the dias. Huh. Again, should make for interesting testimony as experts quibble over exactly what height a dias should be in order to mandate steps with handrail.
All in all, sounds like more embarassment for Bork than it’s worth.
June 8th, 2007 at 8:01 pmThere are a few other things Bork doesn’t believe exist in this world as well. Fat Bastard doesn’t believe he actually has feet, because he hasn’t been able to see his feet since he was a teen. He also doesn’t believe in tipping and so failed to see the “tip” of his waiter’s shoe making the tripping move after being stiffed by the fat bastard:)
June 8th, 2007 at 8:16 pmOh, this is priceless! The only thing that could make it better if the ACLU gets involved on Bork’s behalf!
June 8th, 2007 at 8:17 pmWhat nobody understands is that this injury may keep him from the National Review cruise to Alaska with all his old Neo-Con friends. That must really hurt: http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/ 2007/ 06/ neo-con-love-boat-back-to-future.html
June 8th, 2007 at 9:09 pmBORKED AGAIN!!! heh, heh.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:16 pmThe republican rep.Smith voted against people suing business’s but when his wife slipped and fell in an airport he sued the airport owners.He was a politician frm new hamoshire i think.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:03 pm“TTTTThat’s all folks” - Borkey Pig
June 8th, 2007 at 11:34 pm“Kind of sound like John Kerry and John Edwards whining about tax cuts for the “rich†while taking advantage of them with their own returns.
Comment by m12″
Did it ever dawn on you m12 that people like Kerry and Edwards favor legislation that will cost THEM money. They both voted AGAINST tax laws that saved THEM large amounts of money.
How is that somehow terrible when Bush, McCain, Romney, Mayor Phony and the rest of the GOP crowd have implemented tax laws that save them massive amounts of money.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:11 amTimmy,
Glad springtime straightened you out. I would add that tort “reformers” like Bork want to eliminate contingent fee cases. This means that only rich people, who can stand the costs up front, can sue. Middle and lowwer income people simply would not be able to bring suit for damages.
That’s how disgustingly evil these people are.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:17 amhappy to get my Law 101 class here… thank you all
as for bork… a true conservative, who will hopefully understand when his lawsuit results in $200 for his bruised ego
June 9th, 2007 at 2:02 am>You have no problem with lawyers making all the money and the >plaintiffs getting very little?
Did you read anything I said?
Whats the better option? Plaintiffs get nothing because no lawyer wants to take their case? In most class action cases, the plaintiffs are at least made whole for thier injury (not all, but most).
Anyone who thinks filing a class action lawsuit is easy or inexpensive is seriously deluded. Its immensely more complicated than a simple single plaintiff claim. One of my law professors was working with one of the first firms to successfully take on big tabacco, and he told me that when they asked for discovery, several trucks showed up, with literally millions of documents to wade through..anyone who thinks class actions are “easy money” for lawyers is incredibly naive.
The biggest selling point of class actions is that it deters future conduct by businesses that might lead to another class action. I would argue that the biggest benfit of class actions lawsuits is their function as a deterrant to corporate fraud.
Like I said previously, if you eliminate class actions, a whole cottage -industry of business if going to spring up, their business model being wholly reliant on the fact that the amounts they are ripping people off arent large enough to make it worth hiring a lawyer over.
And companies that currently exist will have no qulams about scr3wing over the “little guy” because they know that 99.99 percent
June 9th, 2007 at 2:22 amof the people won’t do anything about it.
Bork is a right wing sack of garbage.
June 9th, 2007 at 11:50 amhe’s a pig and a hypocrite. screw him.
June 9th, 2007 at 4:28 pmHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
I guess all those frivolous lawsuits are filed by OTHER people.
June 10th, 2007 at 12:48 pmThe comments above reflect little knowledge about a personal-injury claim seeking compensatory damages. A tort is committed when one’s conduct falls below his duty of care. And what is his duty? To act as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. If Bork can credibly show that the Yale Club breached its duty of care owed to him, an invitee, then he may collect the damages he has incurred, i.e., medical costs, suffering and pain, in whatever amount the jury deems just. Only if Bork can show either of the following may he collect punitive damages (to punish YC in order to deter similar conduct in the future): 1) that Yale Club’s desire to cause him injury was the motivating factor in its failure to have steps installed, or 2) that the YC intentionally followed a course of conduct, knowing that it created a substantial risk of severe injury.
June 16th, 2007 at 3:09 pm