Recently Robert Bork, once a vocal proponent of tort reform, filed a large lawsuit seeking in excess $1,000,000 as well as punitive damages as a result of a fall at the Yale Club. Apparently Mr. Bork was climbing onto the stage when he fell and alleges that the Yale Club provided improper access. It is apparent that Mr. Bork must have changed is ideology in his older years as he was once quoted as saying that “juries dispense lottery like windfalls.” However, I guess Mr. Bork is now attempting to win the lottery.
In addition, from a legal perspective I do not believe the lawsuit to have validity on many points most importantly punitive damages as in New York such damages are quite limited and would clearly not apply to his fall.
Recently, the New York Times ran an editorial on the issue that was quite informative that states:
We can imagine what Mr. Bork the legal scholar would ask if he had a chance to question Mr. Bork the plaintiff. If it was “reasonably foreseeable” that without stairs and a handrail, “a guest such as Mr. Bork” would be injured, why did Mr. Bork try to climb up to the dais? Where does personal responsibility enter in? And wouldn’t $1 million-plus punitive damages amount to a “lottery-like windfall”?
Thus, I would ask everyone to evaluate the validity of a lawsuit as if it was your mother or father that was injured and to fairly evaluate a case without pre-established bias. Apparently, Mr. Bork thinks a lawsuit on behalf of himself has much more validity than that of someone else.