November 2008 :: New York Injury Attorney Blog

Supreme Court of Florida: US v. Maureen Stevens

Robert Stevens worked for American Media Inc., publishers of the National Enquirer. In 2001, letters containing anthrax were sent to a number of recipients, including American Media in Florida. Mr. Stevens died from inhaling the anthrax. His wife sued the United States (it was their anthrax) and Battelle Memorial Institute, a private facility that produced Bacillus Anthracis for the government.

Both cases ended up in Federal Court. The suit by the widow Stevens alleged that the anthrax that killed her husband could be traced to the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases, that the Feds knew it was “ultra hazardous,” that samples had been missing since 1992 and that there was a failure to provided adequate security for handling and shipping such materials, which were somehow intercepted and ended up in an envelope addressed to American Media’s Florida offices, killing her husband when he unknowingly inhaled its contents. The suit against Batelle made similar claims about lack of security, failure to monitor employees and negligence in the handling and transport of Anthrax causing it to end up in the wrong hands.

Both defendants moved to dismiss claiming they could not be responsible if their Anthrax was stolen and that such intervening criminal acts relieved them from responsibility for the death of Robert Stevens.
The Federal District Court denied defendants’ motions after looking to Florida law to see whether Mrs. Stevens’ anthrax theory of negligence was recognized in the Sunshine State. It concluded that Florida law supported the widow’s claim under the state’s “foreseeable zone of risk” theory. The government moved for reconsideration, which was denied, but it was granted leave to have this question answered by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals: What duties exist under Florida law to protect members of the public where an organization creates a significant risk by using anthrax or another ultra-hazardous material.” The Eleventh Circuit then sent that question to the Florida High Court to answer.

Obviously this sort of question affects everyone. If the Government wants to make anthrax, well, fine. If it has to get it from a lab, well, where else can it shop for the stuff. But if it’s going to have it delivered by messenger, or FedEx or UPS or its own private couriers, shouldn’t there be some awareness that it could kill unsuspecting and uninvolved people who come in contact with it, and some meaningful precautions to prevent that from happening? And shouldn’t those who make, handle and ship anthrax to wherever anthrax gets shipped, make sure that they have an inventory system that at least rivals Wal-Mart and a security system as advanced as Blockbuster’s. Or do the government and its labs get a pass because their anthrax work is so vital that the best we can hope for is that none of us end up on the wrong mailing list.

Not quite.

You’ll be happy to know that the Florida Supreme Court found that widow Stevens has a right to sue. Whether the anthrax was misplaced, pocketed, or fell off the truck (or out of the Petri dish), the court concluded that the greater the risk of harm to others, the greater the duty to avoid injury to others:

In coping with the heightened duty that comes with this risk, the government and Battelle are required to contemplate a countless variety of situations in which a reasonable laboratory in their position must anticipate and guard against the unauthorized interception and dissemination of the dangerous substance. Given the allegations of negligent security of the ultrahazardous material and the virtual impossibility of potential victims to protect themselves once this substance is at large, this is obviously one of those cases...where the risk of injury is great and the corresponding duty of the lab is heightened. In a very real sense, it is this inability to measure the extent of this risk that merits giving the claimants an opportunity to go forward.

So for Mrs. Stevens, it’s back to the Federal Court with her golden ticket in hand. Now that she has the right to proceed, it remains to be seen if she has the right evidence to prevail.

We should all applaud her persistence since what happened to Robert could have happened to any one of us. If the Government and its labs don’t know how to keep track of their toxins and plagues or properly monitor the scientists and employees who make and transport powdered death, they shouldn’t be allowed to play with it.

One hates to think that the only powder they can be trusted with is Tang.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Anthrax , Damages , Government Negligence , Injuries , Other State Courts , Terrorism , War on Terror , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Digg Anthrax%20Exposure%3A%20Inquiring%20Minds%20Want%20to%20Know%20Who%E2%80%99s%20Responsible%3F at Digg.com

Bookmark Anthrax%20Exposure%3A%20Inquiring%20Minds%20Want%20to%20Know%20Who%E2%80%99s%20Responsible%3F at Spurl.net

Bookmark Anthrax%20Exposure%3A%20Inquiring%20Minds%20Want%20to%20Know%20Who%E2%80%99s%20Responsible%3F at Simpy.com

Bookmark Anthrax%20Exposure%3A%20Inquiring%20Minds%20Want%20to%20Know%20Who%E2%80%99s%20Responsible%3F at NewsVine

Blink this Anthrax%20Exposure%3A%20Inquiring%20Minds%20Want%20to%20Know%20Who%E2%80%99s%20Responsible%3F at blinklist.com

Bookmark Anthrax%20Exposure%3A%20Inquiring%20Minds%20Want%20to%20Know%20Who%E2%80%99s%20Responsible%3F at Furl.net

Bookmark Anthrax%20Exposure%3A%20Inquiring%20Minds%20Want%20to%20Know%20Who%E2%80%99s%20Responsible%3F at reddit.com

Fark Anthrax%20Exposure%3A%20Inquiring%20Minds%20Want%20to%20Know%20Who%E2%80%99s%20Responsible%3F at Fark.com

Bookmark Anthrax%20Exposure%3A%20Inquiring%20Minds%20Want%20to%20Know%20Who%E2%80%99s%20Responsible%3F at Yahoo! MyWeb

Supreme Court of Florida: Jews for Jesus v. Edith Rapp

There’s a fine, not always so-clear line, between church and state which seems too often to turn on whose ox is being gored or ignored. There’s a different line that can be crossed between individuals when religion is an issue: It’s called defamation. And it’s about as hazy a line as the church-state line. This is a perfect case in point.

Here are the facts: Bruce Rapp is Jewish. He also believes in Jesus and worked for Jews for Jesus, an outreach group which shares the Gospel of Christ with other Jews. His Jewish father Marty and step-mother Edith lived in Florida. Bruce’s father was dying and Bruce spent months sharing his faith with dad, believing that acceptance of Jesus, even for Jews, is the way to salvation. The court quoted Bruce’s account of events from the Jews for Jesus newsletter:

“I had a chance to visit with my father in Southern Florida before my Passover tour. He has been ill for sometime and I was afraid that I may not have another chance to be with him. I had been witnessing to him on the telephone for the past few months. He would listen and allow me to pray for him, but that was about all. On this visit, whenever I talked to my father, my stepmother, Edie (also Jewish), was always close by, listening quietly. Finally, one morning Edie began to ask me questions about Jesus. I explained how G-d [sic] gave us Y’Shua (Jesus) as the final sacrifice for our atonement, and showed her the parallels with the Passover Lamb. She began to cry, and when I asked her if she would like to ask G-d for forgiveness for her sins and receive Y’Shua she said yes! My stepmother repeated the sinner’s prayer with me-praise G-d! Pray for Edie’s faith to grow and be strengthened. And please pray for my father Marty’s salvation.”

This newsletter was published on the internet. It was seen by one of Edith’s relatives (why was she looking at the Jews for Jesus website?). As any Jewish believer in Jesus knows, such news is frequently not well received by Jewish relatives and friends. Whatever Edith did or didn’t do in private, when Bruce’s account of her salvation experience hit cyberspace and became family news, Edith sued.

Edith’s complaint was that Jews for Jesus defamed her by claiming, without her permission, that she had “joined Jews for Jesus, and/or [become] a believer in the tenets, the actions, and the philosophy of Jews for Jesus.” Her complaint alleged “(1) false light invasion of privacy; (2) defamation; and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

Jews for Jesus moved to dismiss. After considerable battles over whether Edith’s suit even stated a cause of action, after she re-filed new and improved claims and after further motions, the lower court dismissed all of Edith’s claims. Edith appealed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the defamation claim concluding “the ‘common mind’ reading the newsletter would not have found Edith to be an object of ‘hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt or disgrace.’” In doing so, it also rejected this generally accepted standard for defining defamation: “a communication is defamatory if it ‘prejudiced’ the plaintiff in the eyes of a ‘substantial and respectable minority of the community.’” As for the tort of false light, the court was uncertain such a claim existed in Florida. That question was certified to the Florida Supremes to answer and was taken up by Jews for Jesus.

Essentially, the high court found that defamation and false light claims have many of the same elements: “[F]alse light has the following six elements: (1) publicity; (2) falsity; (3) actor must act with knowledge or reckless disregard as to the falsity; (4) actual damages; (5) publicity must be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and (6) publicity must be about the plaintiff.” “Defamation has the following five elements: (1) publication; (2) falsity; (3) actor must act with knowledge or reckless disregard as to the falsity on a matter concerning a public official, or at least negligently on a matter concerning a private person; (4) actual damages; and (5) statement must be defamatory.”

After reviewing the history of false light claims in Florida and elsewhere, the high court concluded that false light is based on a subjective standard, i.e.,“publicity [which] must be highly offensive to a reasonable person” and thus creates a “moving target whose definition depends on the specific locale in which the conduct occurs or the particular sensitivities of the day.” Accordingly, it dismissed the false light claim. Score one for Jews for Jesus.

But given the sensitivities that surround Jewishness and Jesusness, perhaps more so in Florida than in many other states, the court also scored one for Edith: It found that “the Fourth District failed to embrace the standard that a communication is defamatory if it prejudices the plaintiff in the eyes of a ‘substantial and respectable minority of the community.’” So it reinstated the defamation claim and left it to the lower court to figure out if Edith was prejudiced in front of a “substantial and respectable minority of the community,” namely her Jewish friends and family.

While the District Court found that the “the ‘common mind’ reading the newsletter would not have found Edith to be an object of ‘hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt or disgrace’" for believing in Jesus, the Supreme Court recognized that there is a potential cost to a Jewish person to profess faith in Jesus or to be spoken about as if they did. A “substantial and respectable minority” may disapprove and cause one to suffer real damages.

Since Jesus walked the earth there has always been a personal cost to Jews who profess faith in Jesus and the issue for the individual has always been the same: Is it worth the cost?

For Bruce Rapp it was. For Edith Rapp, the jury’s still out. As for whether it's defamation to say someone believes in Jesus, it depends which side of the line you're on and what you believe about crossing it.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Damages , Other State Courts , Religion , The Internet

Bookmark: