Yankee fans root for a first-place team and usually watch their heroes win when they visit the new Yankee Stadium in New York. But fans of the Bronx Bombers have recently lost something too, something many sports fans around the country will probably lose soon: the right to sue the team for damages if there's a terrorist attack. Meanwhile, another team can claim victory every time the Yankees take the field -- tort reform advocates.

In July, Yankee Stadium became the first sports facility to earn the coveted federal "Safety Act" designation. That means the facility has passed a battery of tests and won approval from the Department of Homeland Security, so the Yankees have been granted a wide-ranging immunity from future lawsuits that might stem from terrorist attacks.

---

Dozens of defense companies have been named to the Safety Act approved list since DHS started handing out the designation in 2004. But Yankees Stadium is the first of what is expected to be many sports venues whose operators will then be immune from standard lawsuits that might be filed by future victims of terrorist attacks. (The National Football League was placed on the Safety Act list in 2008, but the designation was vague and probably only applies to the Super Bowl, experts say.)

 

Supporters say the Safety Act gives strong incentives for firms to raise their security standards, and encourages innovation. Opponents say it unfairly terminates a basic consumer right, makes people less safe and serves as an under-the-radar version of tort reform. As evidence, opponents point out that the Safety Act framework is being copied for many other legislative initiatives, including the failed effort to pass a comprehensive Cybersecurity Bill this year.

It's the mother of all liability waivers, says George Washington University law Professor Ellen Zavian, an expert in sports law. But the question is, do fans know about it?

"There's waivers on ticket stubs … but I haven't seen any waivers that state, 'Oh by the way  … we can waive (liability) for terrorism attacks.'" Zavian said. "How did this get under the radar? Are people really supportive of that? I think attendees should know what they are waiving when they enter a facility, and I don't think they do."

The Safety Act (SAFETY is actually an acronym for "Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies") was passed as part of the legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security in 2002. And that's part of the problem, argues John Bowman, director of federal relations for the American Association for Justice.

"Clearly this was done in haste after 9/11," he said. "It was a fear-driven time. There was dramatic tort reform. It's fair to say these tort reformers took advantage of that moment. ...We disagree with the way the law is structured. We think it's not very helpful for fans if something happened."

The law would clearly be helpful to the Yankees if something happened. A report by the European Organisation for Security, which is helping the European Union consider similar terrorism-related tort reform, says that $40 billion in private claims was paid out by insurers in the wake of 9/11, with billions more in claims still unsettled. The Safety Act would prevent many such lawsuits after a future 9/11-style attack.

'A marketing edge'
But the law does much more than offer the civil equivalent of a get-out-of-jail-free card, supporters argue. Bob Karl, who operates SafetyActConsultants.com and has helped dozens of companies achieve certification, says liability protection is absolutely essential for companies deploying newfangled anti-terrorism technologies. Companies are concerned that with each new gadget they deploy, they incur new liability, he said.

Karl gave the example of a company that had invented a new radioactivity detector for cargo containers on ships. Selling the detectors would be, initially, a tiny $10 million annual business for the multibillion-dollar company, but the firm feared that if something went wrong with its product, victims could sue for the entirety of the firm's value. It makes no sense for companies to take on risk like that, and the firm didn't start selling its detectors until it achieved Safety Act designation, he said. He declined to name the firm.

"It's very real concern, and Congress had that concern when it passed the law," he said.

With Safety Act protection, companies can afford to deploy unproven or newer technologies, knowing their risks are lower, he said. That makes everyone safer.

Also, he insisted, the Office of Safety Act Implementation, which grants the certification, has very high standards, and firms become safer merely by taking on the process.

"The fear is there would be some kind of double-secret handshake and they would just hand these things out. … Well, that's not how it happens," he said. Many applications take years before they achieve final approvals. "I had one application recently that was 5,000 pages long," Karl said.

Meanwhile, Safety Act designation can give smaller companies, "a marketing edge," he said. "It's kind of like a Good Housekeeping seal of approval."

But even Karl agrees that the Safety Act was "tort reform at a very high level." Safety Act designation makes it impossible to sue a company after a terrorist attack for standard negligence – a ticket-holder bringing in an explosive device in a purse that wasn’t detected during standard bag inspection by entrance guards, for instance. But it also grants a host of other legal rights. Victims who wish to pursue legal action after a terrorist attack can only do so in federal court; joint and several liability (in which any involved party can be liable for an entire disaster) is eliminated, which reduces firms' exposure; and there is a ban on punitive damages on interest accumulation related to any potential judgment. Victims cannot sue for negligence; the only way to pierce Safety Act immunity is to prove fraud during the application process, or actual malice by the company.

Another concern expressed by opponents is that the definition of a terrorist attack is left vague by the law – essentially, a terrorist attack is anything the Department of Homeland Security calls a terrorist attack, which could include domestic terrorism, such as the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 or even the recent Aurora, Colo., mass shooting.

One likely outcome of Safety Act protections could be lower insurance premiums for companies involved, thanks to caps on costs that could arise from a terrorist attack.

Bradley Shear, a civil litigation attorney and opponent of the Safety Act, said he didn't understand what was in it for fans.

"I think this is well intentioned, but can it equally protect businesses and the average consumer?" he said. "In return for the liability shield, what is the public getting? Are Yankees tickets going to be cheaper because they've been able to obtain Safety Act (designation)? Will the cost of a hot dog or a beer be any less?"

Or, as another opponent of the legislation said, has it just created a new consulting industry that earns millions helping companies navigate the Safety Act application process? A quick search of Google shows there is indeed a thriving industry in Safety Act consulting.

David McWhorter, a consultant at Catalyst Partners in Washington D.C., which helped the Yankees with its Safety Act application, said critics have a misunderstanding of the approval process. Most companies are forced to raise their insurance coverage by the Office of Safety Act implementation, he said, adding that he couldn’t think of a single case where firms were allowed to reduce their coverage. And insurance firms aren't yet offering security firms the equivalent of a "good driver discount," either.

In other words, they're not getting Safety Act coverage to save money today, he says. They do it because they become safer through the process, and because they want cost certainty.

"It's important for a facility to get a pre-emptive cap on liability," he said. "For any venue that has met the Safety Act standards, patrons can feel assured they are among the best of the best when comes to security. It’s a win-win for the public and for that venue."

McWhorter said when companies approach him for help with their application, he generally spends a lot of time consulting on how to improve the firm's security guard hiring and training processes. He also helps companies set up "red team" exercises -- mock attacks  -- to prepare them for the rigorous Homeland Security evaluation. 

"It's not inexpensive to provide security to a venue that holds 10,000 to 60,000 people," he said. "You have to consider hiring, training, exercises, cameras, alarms, mass notification systems, definition of the command structure, metal detectors, the auditing process, and so on." 

Sticking out like a sore thumb
Browsing the list of Safety Act designated technologies on the Department of Homeland Security's website, visitors see a list of both familiar and unfamiliar names: ADT Security, Unisys and Securitas are listed alongside Massachusetts-based Ahura Scientific, for example. Many of the approved technologies are what you might expect: In March, American Science & Engineering got approval for X-Ray inspection systems; the aforementioned Ahura – which recently changed its name to Thermo Scientific -- lists handheld devices that identify chemicals using "Raman spectroscopy."

On such a list, the Yankees stick out a bit like a sore thumb.

"New York Yankees d/b/a The New York Yankees Baseball Club provides The New York Yankees Security Program," the Safety Act office announcement says. "The Technology is a comprehensive integrated security system, which is comprised of physical and electronic security measures, tools and procedures designed to detect, deter, prevent, respond to and mitigate Acts of Terrorism at Yankee Stadium during Game Day, Non-Game Day (In-Season), Non-Season and Special Events."

One of these things is not like the other, complains Bowman.

“When you look at the law -- it's for makers and suppliers of technology," he said. "That was their intent, not to protect ballparks and give them a get-out-of-jail-free card, as long as they didn't lie ... during the approval process.”

The Yankees did not respond to a request for comment.

McWhorter says that sports venues are good candidates for Safety Act protection because they host major events that attract attention, and need incentives to go "above and beyond" standard levels of security.

"Yankee Stadium is not unlike the Cincinnati airport, the Stock Exchange, the NFL, or Super Bowl venues, all of which have received Safety Act protection," he said. "The regulations for the Safety Act are very clear that the (Department of Homeland Security) secretary has great flexibility in approving applications. Nevertheless, one criterion is, to paraphrase, 'To get Safety Act protection, you must demonstrate the need for Safety Act protection.'… The Safety Act incentivizes activities like vulnerability assessments and security upgrades, whereas without it some people might simply ignore threats in order to avoid any culpability."

Bowman said he didn't have a fundamental disagreement with the notion of encouraging invention of terrorism-fighting technologies, but feared that the Yankees designation proves the Safety Act is now casting a far wider net than originally intended. That's not a mistake, he thinks: Tort reformers try to gain more ground each time Congress takes up an industry issues or security issues, he said.

"We see this over and over in what we do. The first thing industry asks for are liability protections," he said, citing this year's cybersecurity bill as an example. "But if they are not accountable, they aren't responsible and no one is ultimately safe."

Karl, the Safety Act consultant, said he believes the Safety Act does make America safer, as all manner of security improvements are a standard part of the application process. He expects many more sports teams to apply -- and to receive -- Safety Act designation in the coming months and years, and he plans to pitch sports teams and facilities with his consulting services.

"The law is definitely working the way it's intended to," he said. "The Safety Act protects technologies that deter or respond to or mitigate a terrorist attack. … That makes us all safer."

* Follow Bob Sullivan on Facebook.
* Follow Bob Sullivan on Twitter. 

 

Could you be blamed for a car crash because you sent a text message? 

A New Jersey judge will decide later this week if the sender of a text message might be partially liable for a horrific auto accident that occurred because the driver was reading that message on his cell phone and drifted into oncoming traffic.

With nearly half a million U.S. drivers injured in distracted driving-related accidents every year, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the judge’s decision could have wide-ranging impact in both the legal and digital realms.

While it might seem absurd to blame someone who isn't even in the car -- or anywhere near it -- for causing an accident, some legal experts say the plaintiff is on firmer ground than you might think.

---

Skippy Weinstein, a Morristown-based lawyer, is using similar logic to press the case he filed on behalf of David and Linda Kuber. Both Kubers lost their legs during a 2009 crash in Mine Hill, N.J., after 19-year-old Kyle Best sideswiped their car when driving while texting. Weinstein said Shannon Colonna, who was texting with Best, should also be held responsible for the Kubers’ injuries.

"She was not physically in the vehicle but she was electronically present," Weinstein told msnbc.com. "She and he were assisting each other in a violation of the law."

That word "assisting" is at the crux of Weinstein's novel legal argument. 

Most readers will be familiar with the notion of "aiding and abetting" a criminal act and the guilt it brings: the man who knowingly holds the door for the gang is just likely to be convicted of bank robbery as the safe cracker.

More recently, this notion of aiding and abetting has been extended to civil liability cases, too, creating a basis for what's sometimes called "secondary" or "vicarious" liability. For the past two decades, most civil aiding and abetting cases have been limited to investment and securities fraud: An aggrieved investor might not only sue Bernie Madoff for stealing his money, for example, but also go after a third-party broker who repeatedly executed trades for Madoff. Even if the trader wasn't profiting from the scheme or part of a "joint enterprise,“ a court might find the trader provided assistance to Madoff, and should have known that someone was likely be injured by his actions.

The aiding and abetting argument in injuries that give rise to lawsuits, known as "torts," is only beginning to find its way into other kinds of civil cases.

There's a simple three-pronged test to prove someone is partly to blame for causing an injury by aiding and abetting someone else. It is set out in the Restatement of Torts published by the American Law Institute, which guides most civil courtrooms:

1) The party the defendant assists must do a wrongful act;

2) The party must be generally aware of his or her role in the illegal or "tortuous" act;

3) The party must "substantially assist" in the principal violation.

Weinstein think his argument is easy to make. The driver violated the law by texting while driving. Colonna, the text sender, should have known that Best was driving home from work and had to know texting while driving was a violation, he said. Therefore, it's hard to argue that a text sender isn't substantially assisting in the creation of a text message conversation that violates New Jersey's driving laws.

"That very comfortably satisfies the third prong of the legal test," he said.

Colonna’s lawyer, Joseph McGlone, doesn't think the argument has any merit, and has asked Morris County Superior Court Judge David Rand to dismiss the case. Rand is scheduled to rule this week on McGlone’s motion to dismiss the case.

The sender of a text message has no way to control or predict when the recipient will read it, McGlone argues.

"The sender of the text has the right to assume the recipient will read it at a safe time,” McGlone told the local Daily Record  newspaper. “It’s not fair. It’s not reasonable. Shannon Colonna has no way to control when Kyle Best is going to read that message."

He added that there is no precedent for heaping liability on a person on the other side of a text message conversation that causes injury.

Of course, there's no precedent for a lot of legal areas in the Digital Age. In situations like this, judges usually turn to analogies. In driving injury cases, the judge has a bushel full to choose from.

For starters, it's hard to tag liability on anyone who isn't holding the steering wheel of the car while an accident occurs. Lawyers around the nation have repeatedly tried and failed to make passengers partly responsible for accidents caused by drunken drivers when passengers knowingly get into a car with an intoxicated driver.

There are exceptions, however. A South Carolina court has said a passenger could be judged a "proximate cause" of an injury if the driver and passenger were in some kind of "joint enterprise," such as the passenger steering the car while the driver presses the gas pedal.

Passengers who have directly encouraged drivers to break the law -- by urging them to speed excessively or to drive in the oncoming lane as part of a game, for example -- have also been found liable, Weinstein says.

But to find a passenger liable, the South Carolina court said, "The passenger must have an equal right to control the direction and management of the vehicle." It seems hard to argue that a text message sender has equal ability to control the vehicle as the driver does.

But there are plenty of other situations where someone other than the driver has to pay after an injury accident, an extension of liability called “imputed negligence.” The most common is when the driver is "an agent" of someone else -- when a pizza delivery man driving for work causes an accident, his employer is liable.  Parents are often liable for accidents their children cause if they kids are directly under their care. 

There's also concept called "negligent entrustment": if you knowingly let an unlicensed driver take your auto out for a spin, you will probably be liable for an accident he or she causes. 

Neither of those cases fit this situation well, however. So Weinstein has settled on a simpler analogy.

"If she was in the vehicle and put her hands over his eyes so he couldn't see, she would be liable," he said. "(Texting with him) is as if she put her hands over his eyes."

Is texting the digital equivalent of willfully rendering someone blind? To even make that argument, and to press on with the aiding and abetting claim, Weinstein has to persuade the judge that Colonna knew that Best was texting while driving. Colonna's lawyers are contesting that point, but Weinstein says the pattern of texts between boyfriend and girlfriend make clear that she must have known he was on his way home from work.

But even if he fails on that argument, it's easy to imagine other lawsuits where evidence of knowledge by the sender could be hard to deny. A driver might directly text, "Hey, I'm driving home," for example.

That would make a big difference in a case like this, said Robert Mitchell, a Utah-based lawyer and author of a recent article on aiding and abetting claims.

"If there is conclusive evidence that the person sending the text messages to the driver knew the driver was texting while driving, we see no reason why a claim for aiding and abetting the driver’s negligent or reckless conduct could not be made. The case is probably weaker if there is no evidence of actual knowledge, but only evidence of ‘constructive knowledge,’" said Mitchell, referring to a concept that the sender "should have known" the recipient was driving. "Courts disagree over whether constructive knowledge is sufficient to give rise to aiding and abetting liability."

Courts have found that the contribution by this third party in aiding and abetting cases can't be slight – it must be “significant.” For example, giving directions to the bank robber probably wouldn’t be substantial enough to get you prosecuted, but telling him what time security guard shifts change could be. And, as with most civil liability cases, the harm caused by the action doesn't have to be intentional.

Mitchell said this is the critical phrase in the American Law Institute's guidelines.

"If the encouragement or assistance is a substantial factor in causing the resulting tort, the one giving it is himself a tortfeasor and is responsible for the consequences of the other’s act. This is true both when the act done is (intentional) and when it is merely (negligent)," Mitchell wrote in his review, quoting the guidelines with added parenthesis. In fact, liability exists even if the third-party has no idea he or she is doing something illegal or negligent.

So in Mitchell’s view, it's a relatively easy to argue that the texter "substantially assisted" the driver in causing the accident. 

"The third prong, substantial assistance, would be an easier hurdle to clear (than knowledge) since sending somebody a text message while driving distracts the driver and that distraction may ultimately cause the accident," he said.  "Of course defenses may include superseding or intervening causes to the underlying tort (the first prong), like bad weather, poor road conditions or visibility, avoiding someone or something on the road."

Not all experts agree, however. Maryland-based lawyer Bradley Shear, an expert in digital law, openly fretted about how far liability might extend if Weinstein is successful in his novel legal argument.

"What if someone is hopping on a boat, and they look down at a text, slip and drown? What if a doctor gets a text before a surgery that upsets him and he makes a mistake? Is the sender responsible?" he said. "If you start going down that route where are you going to draw the line?"

Mark Rasch, for head of the Justice Department’s Computer Crimes Unit, said he thinks the case will boil down simply into this question: Can anyone really prove that the sender of the text, Colonna, knew that Best would read it while driving? Absent such proof, there is no case, he says.

But he was concerned with the larger issue of extending liability through digital means.

“The real question here is, do we as a society want to impose a duty on the non-driving texter for accidents that happen when a recipient is driving?” he said. “For now, it seems a reasonable place to draw the line at this: The person driving has a duty not to text. And the person on other end of line has no duty unless there are special circumstances.”

One special circumstance he envisioned: A boss or other person in a position of power who received a message from an employee saying, “I can’t text, I’m driving,” but continued to send demanding texts with an implied threat if they weren’t answered quickly.

“The person in the position of authority might have liability then,” said Rasch, now a cybersecurity consultant with Virginia-based CSC Inc.

Complicating matters, juries can apportion liability, and theoretically could find a driver 90 percent responsible and the sender of a text 10 percent responsible. Damages can be similarly apportioned, although the realities of collections means the party with the deepest pockets usually pays the most in damages.

It’s also possible that Congress or state legislatures might create a chain of liability, as states have done with dram shop laws, which make bars liable for injuries and damages caused by patron who are served after they’re drunk.

For his part, Weinstein demurs when asked if he's trying to set an important legal precedent or make law. He's just trying to win a case for his client, he said.

"The defense ... wants to make this into a cause celebre, but this is not complicated," he said. "A jury may find I'm wrong and thrown me out on my duff. ... All I'm saying is don't (text) while driving, and don't assist someone else in texting while driving."

*Follow Bob Sullivan on Facebook.
*Follow Bob Sullivan on Twitter. 

 

A 12-year-old Minnesota girl was reduced to tears while school officials and a police officer rummaged through her private Facebook postings after forcing her to surrender her password, an ACLU lawsuit alleges. 

The claims are the latest in a string of tales showing that even password-protected, private online activities might not be safe from curious government agencies and schools. (See last week’s story)

The girl, whose identity is withheld in the lawsuit, came home "crying, depressed, angry, scared and embarrassed" after she was intimidated into divulging her login information by a school counselor and a deputy sheriff, who arrived in uniform, armed with a Taser, the lawsuit alleges.

"(The student now) fears that the school could make her give up her passwords at a moment's notice, at any time, for any reason," the lawsuit claims.  It also alleges that password prying is standard practice at the Minnewaska Middle School, which the student still attends. "(Officials) have compelled other students to disclose their private information and have accessed students' online accounts on multiple occasions," it states.

---

Officials at the Minnewaska Area School District -- which is about 125 miles northwest of Minneapolis -- say the ACLU's version of events is "one-sided," and that the school acted to "prevent disruption," according to a statement e-mailed to msnbc.com by Superintendent Gregory Ohl. 

"The district is confident that once all the facts come to light, the district's conduct will be found to be reasonable and appropriate," it said.  

When asked if the district has obtained other students’ login information, he responded, “We feel this is not accurate.”

The lawsuit raises the complicated -- and quite unsettled -- legal quandary that balances students' constitutional rights with schools' needs to maintain order and a positive educational environment. For example, can schools punish students who publicly criticize school officials on their own time using social networks?

Federal district courts have handed down contradictory decisions on that issue. Facing a chance to settle the matter, the U.S. Supreme Court in January declined to hear three cases on the issue.

But private social media criticism, intended only for a limited audience behind a password or a privacy wall, raises a different legal issue, said Teresa Nelson, a lawyer for the ACLU in Minnesota.  

"The notion that it was a search of her private Facebook content ... the Fourth Amendment applies," she said.  "The government has to have a really good reason to do that kind of search," and would need a court order in most cases, she said.

Monitor 'was mean to me'
According to the ACLU's version of events, the girl had moved and entered a new school as a 6th-grade student in the fall of 2010. In early 2011, she felt targeted by a school monitor and posted an update to her friends-only Facebook wall saying she "hated" the monitor because "she was mean to me," using her own computer and while off campus.

Soon after, she was called into the principal's office -- he had obtained a screen shot of the post -- and given detention.

The student subsequently posted another update to her page related to the incident: "I want to know who the f%$# told on me," the complaint says. Again, she was called to the principal's office, and this time was suspended for "insubordination" and banned from a class ski trip.

In March, the student had a second run-in with school authorities.  The parent of another student had complained that the girl was talking about sex with that student.  The 12-year-old was called out of class by a school counselor and eventually brought into a room with several school officials and the sheriff's deputy, where the password demands began.

The ACLU claims that the school never asked the girl's parents for permission to examine her private Facebook space. The school district doesn't dispute that it obtained the girl's password, but does say it had parental permission.

"Any viewing of (the student's) Facebook account was done with the express consent of her parents," it said in the statement to msnbc.com.

In the First Amendment fight over online criticism related to school, districts and parents are relying on legal interpretations of an outdated 1969 Supreme Court decision knows as “Tinker,” which gives students wide latitude to criticize.  That decision famously gave us the phrase, "Students don't shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates."  The opinion offers little guidance about rights on the other side of a firewall or a Facebook password, however.

The Tinker case basically found that students can say what they want as long as the speech doesn't cause a disruption at school.  But can a school's ability to punish students extend to activity conducted entirely off school grounds?

Dozens of cases over the last decade have failed to hash out the online version of this debate.  In one, a Pennsylvania student who was suspended for making a MySpace page that mocked a principal was granted a reprieve because the U.S. Court of Appeals found it wasn't disruptive. In another, a West Virginia student's suspension was upheld after she created a MySpace page where students were encouraged to discuss if a fellow classmate had herpes. 

Legal confusion
Even though the National School Boards Association asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear appeals on these two cases in an attempt to break what seems like a legal tie, the nation's top court demurred, leaving behind a lot of legal confusion.

"Things are complicated," said the ACLU’s Nelson. "Kids have been criticizing school officials since there have been school officials. ... If kids had been venting about teachers at McDonald's no one would care."

One important distinction noted by Nelson: While she believes demands for a student's Facebook password were a clear Fourth Amendment violation, there's no constitutional issue raised by a school official learning about a private communication that's volunteered by another student. In other words, students' private Facebook chatter is only as private as the participants make it.

The ACLU of Minnesota offers a rights handbook to students who use social media. While it's specifically applicable only to Minnesota law, its principles are universal.

The pamphlet notes that while school officials in most cases cannot force students to reveal their Facebook login information, officials can search for evidence of violations "if they have reasonable individualized suspicion" about an ongoing violation of school rules. 

And while free speech rights may prevent schools from banning students from classes because of non-disruptive but critical Facebook posts, those legal protections do not extend to extracurricular activities. In other words, football players and math club members can be kicked off their squads for anything a school official deems against policy.

It's important to note that while Facebook's terms of service say members cannot give out their passwords or otherwise allow others to view private areas of their accounts. But those same terms say members must be 13 years old to join.

*Follow Bob Sullivan on Facebook     
*Follow Bob Sullivan on Twitter.