We've previously covered the ridiculous lengths to which people who believe they suffer from nut allergies, in particular peanut allergies, will go. People like Dr. Tehmina Haque of Long Island, who sued American Airlines when her son was not hurt, and her lawyer Kenneth Mollins, who evidently makes his living suing on behalf of people who were not injured, but could have been.

Today's nut allergy story, however, concerns a tragedy. An important person was not seriously hurt, but could have been. That's right. I'm talking about David Lee Roth of Van Halen. Evidently Roth isn't suing anyone, but he should and we'll cover it as soon as he does.

You've heard those stories about Van Halen? No not the ones about the gerbil, or the stomach pump. I think that's Rod Stewart. I mean the stories about Van Halen and their stringent requirements concerning M&M candy products served backstage: No brown M&Ms; no peanut M&Ms. But M&Ms must be present. Now the mystery is solved.

Van Halen lead singer David Lee Roth was pulled over by two Canadian police officers, who approached and quickly realized the rock star was in anaphylactic shock due to a nut allergy.

That's right. There's a reason for those nutty contract provisions rock stars insist upon. Every time David Lee Roth dipped into a bowl of M&Ms, he was taking his life into his own hands and mouth. Because that's the rock and roll way.

I once represented a country singer, whose music I dislike but who is a pretty nice guy, in a civil suit based on frivolous allegations that his bus had run over some insignificant person's head or something. I forget, but anyway, after his deposition, I asked him about the meticulous provisions contained within his venue contract concerning the number, color, thread weave, and dimensions of the towels that must be present backstage. He replied that it was there for two reasons: that he always had to know where his towel was;

Yes!

and that it was just to make sure they were paying attention, because if they met the towel requirements, they'd probably meet others he didn't have time to check.

Let's all be thankful that the Ontario police took the time to check on David Lee Roth. A star was almost added to heaven's firmament.

Patrick posted yesterday about Dr. Tehmina Haque's lawsuit complaining that she and her son faced the post-Shrodinger's-cat horror of having been exposed to the theoretical possibility — though not the reality — of a peanut allergy attack on an American Airlines flight. People in the comments wanted to know — what about the lawyer? Who files such cases?

Ted Frank at Overlawyered is glad you asked. The attorney for Dr. Haque, she who wants compensation for what could have been, is one Kenneth Mollins. Mollins other recent career highlights: representing Francine Dorf:

Mollins appeared on CNN in July 2007 after filing a suit on behalf of a woman, Francine Dorf, who sued Con Ed over the steam pipe eruption in Manhattan that month. Dorf wasn’t injured: she just complained that the loud sound reminded her of September 11, entitling her to damages, in part because she could not “focus enough to read the romance novels that she checked out from the library.”

Personally I think one should be thankful for being spared from reading romance novels, but that's just me. (Here, I'll spoil the plot: they're gonna hump. There, I just spared you four hours, $7.50, and the hassle of hiding it inside The Economist..)

So once again, Kenneth Mollins shows himself to be a master of what-might-have-beens. But he remembers to look out for number one:

Mollins leased an Infiniti, but was dissatisfied with the quality of the Bluetooth system and the GPS. After five months of haggling and attempts to fix the supposed problems, Mollins still wasn’t satisfied, the dealer took the car back and refunded Mollins’s money, including the deposit and all the monthly payments made to date. In other words, Mollins got five months’ use of an Infiniti for free. Not good enough for Mollins: he sued, seeking additional damages for the damage the alleged inability to use a cell phone did to his business.

Actually I rather credit that; there are probably endless people who would like to call Mollins to complain that they want money for something that didn't happen.

Now, the auto dealership prevailed against Mollins. The defendants in the other cases will probably prevail if they choose to fight. But fighting will be expensive in the individual instances and ruinously expensive in the aggregate. If you want good and aggressive lawyering, it's going to run in the tens of thousands, and quite possibly in the six figures if you have to go through discovery. You can hire someone on the cheap, but their chance of getting rid of it is much lower. So most companies make the rational economic decision that they'd make if they were being shaken down by thugs in a country with unreliable law enforcement — they pay they thugs off. The problem is, of course, that the thugs come back, and more thugs want Infinitis with Bluetooth and get into the business.

Why, exactly, should the defendants in these cases have to eat their legal fees? Why, exactly, should the plaintiff — and/or the plaintiff's attorney — not have to pay fees, perhaps at least upon a finding that the suit lacked substantial legal or factual merit?

Why shouldn't Kenneth Mollins be forced to find honest work?

Long Island ophthalmologist Dr. Tehmina Haque claims she's been traumatized. Maybe so, but no doubt her four-year-old Ryahn will be equally traumatized when he's older. That's because his loving mother has made him the subject of a most shameful civil rights lawsuit against American Airlines.

AA's offense? Failing to keep its flights free of peanuts. Ryahn's injury? None, but he could have been hurt. Perhaps, in the parallel bizarro-universe, he was hurt.

Continue Reading »