Powered by Blogger.
amazon | BUY NOW | BUY NOW

Showing posts with label Pennsylvania. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pennsylvania. Show all posts

Pennsylvania State Legislator Contemplates Statewide Law Against "Distracted Walking"

Tuesday

A recent editorial from TN Online reports:

State Rep. Karen Boback, a Republican whose district includes parts of Luzerne and Lackawanna counties, says she is going to introduce legislation that provides penalties for walkers who are inattentive while crossing a street or highway.

In a memo to legislative colleagues seeking co-sponsors for her bill, Boback said that distracting walking is a “very real and serious issue.”

Boback is most concerned with pedestrians who are inattentive because they are engrossed in conversations on their cellphones or are listening to music or other programming.

“Technology has invaded our life, and, as a result, people have stopped paying attention to their surroundings,” Boback wrote.

More reporting on this is available at Patch. It isn't clear why Boback is choosing to take a stand against "distracted walking." The TN Online writer notes that fewer pedestrians were killed by drivers in 2020 than in 2019. Of those 145 deaths, there is no indication how many of them, if any, were due to pedestrians who were distracted. 

Seeking to do Boback's job of justifying her proposed policy, the article cites a Governors Highway Safety Association Report which purportedly shows that "texting while walking has taken on a key role in pedestrian death in recent years as communication devices have become more mobile, compact, and numerous." The article fails to link to the report, or provide a year for when it was written. It may be citing this 2016 report which speculates that pedestrian distractions are contributing to pedestrian deaths and injuries, although it explicitly states that it "remains unknown" how many pedestrians killed in crashes with distracted drivers were themselves distracted. The report cites instances and studies suggesting that pedestrian distractions are on the rise, but does not draw a link between such distractions and traffic deaths. Indeed, a New York study specifically investigating whether distracted walking contributed to pedestrian fatalities and injuries found "little concrete evidence" of a connection.

The Pennsylvania law appears to be in its early stages, as it does not appear that a statute has been drafted yet. Hopefully Boback will give the bill some more thought and conclude that it isn't worth it. Indeed, her basis for contemplating the bill appears to be anecdotal notions of technology "invading" people's lives. Reports on her proposal have to do the work themselves to dig up evidence supporting measures restricting texting while walking, and these reports often fail to confirm a link between instances of distracted walking and increased pedestrian deaths. As I have noted before, legislators seeking to prevent traffic deaths, and particularly pedestrian deaths, would do better to focus on infrastructure by making cities and towns safer for pedestrians. This includes increasing the number of crosswalks, ensuring adequate lighting, lowering speed limits, and reducing the width of streets, among other measures. Boback herself appears to have been involved in such infrastructure measures in the recent past, which makes it all the more surprising that she is seeking to put the onus on pedestrians--who are most at risk of death or serious injury. A statewide restriction on distracted walking is a blunt instrument that targets the wrong actors and ignores factors that lead to greater risks of pedestrian death and injury.

In addition to being misguided from a public safety perspective, laws against distracted walking criminalize ubiquitous behavior, which promotes selective enforcement. Many people check their phones while walking, including while crossing the street. As a result, police officers tasked with the enforcing the law will use their discretion to determine who to stop and ticket for these violations, meaning that the brunt of any law will likely fall more heavily on people in poorer neighborhoods and racial minorities.

A few cities and municipalities in the United States and other countries have banned various forms of walking while on the phone or while using other electronic devices. All of these measures target a phenomenon that most have likely observed or experienced, but which has little ultimate impact on pedestrian safety--at least when compared with other measures that legislatures can take to reduce traffic deaths and injuries. This story is notable because it suggests that a statewide ban may be possible. One can only hope that the bill, if it is ever written, will fail to gain the support necessary to become law.

READ MORE - Pennsylvania State Legislator Contemplates Statewide Law Against "Distracted Walking"

Labels:

How Many Times Can a Complaint Be Amended?

Thursday

This post aims to answer a simple question: what is the highest number of amendments to a complaint that has ever been allowed by a court in the United States?

A bit of background first. This post concerns civil litigation, where plaintiffs typically file a complaint setting forth various causes of action against defendants who have allegedly wronged them. These complaints are often amended. Sometimes plaintiffs add or remove parties. Plaintiffs may also add or remove causes of action or factual allegations in support of their causes of action. A defendant may move to dismiss a complaint, and if they succeed, the court may grant the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Granting leave to amend at least once is common--unless a defendant has clearly demonstrated that a plaintiff's case is completely futile, a court will likely give the plaintiff another shot.

While many cases I've litigated have involved amended, second amended, or even fourth amended complaints, I was curious about the maximum number of amendments courts have allowed. A first amended complaint isn't too hard for a plaintiff to get. But when a court is confronted with a complaint that has been drafted and redrafted multiple times, the probability that the court will give a plaintiff yet another chance decreases.

From my exhaustive research (searching for "tenth amended complaint" and increasing the numbers until I could find no further results), it appears that the most amended complaint on record was amended twenty-two times.  The case is Mirarchi v. Boockvar, and it's a recent one--with the original complaint filed on January 12, 2021 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (case no. 5:21-CV-00126). A publicly-accessible link to the docket is here.

I've answered the question I set out to investigate, but I dug into the case itself, as I was curious about what would give rise to so many amendments. For those of you brave enough to dive into that nonsense, read on:

The original complaint can be viewed here. It's one of the numerous lawsuits filed in the wake of the 2020 presidential election that alleged the election had been stolen as a result of massive voter fraud. Mirarchi's allegations start off as readable, but quickly veer off on a tangent in which he claims that the total number of votes that Biden received was "interconnected" with "the Golden Ratio Squared, 2.61803399, and a Reconstruction Cost Value, 601118," which had allegedly been used against Mirarchi in a separate litigation matter involving building appraisal numbers (which appears to be this case). From there, things only get more complicated, as Mirarchi claims that calculations using these numbers end up equaling Biden's total number of votes, thereby revealing fraud.

For example, here's one of the paragraphs:

Here's another:


Mirarchi wraps up these mathematical allegations with a reference to widely and repeatedly discredited allegations by Sidney Powell which she now argues no reasonable person would believe as she tries to escape liability in a defamation suit filed by Dominion Voting Systems. Mirarchi's causes of action include election fraud, treason, RICO, and a 42 USC § 1983 claim for violation of his constitutional rights.

The circumstances behind the amendments to this complaint are unclear. For several weeks in January and February 2021, Mirarchi filed further amended versions of his complaint on a near-daily basis, culminating in a Twenty-First Amended Complaint that was filed on February 12, 2021. At that point the court ordered Mirarchi to combine his allegations into a Final Amended Complaint, after which no further amendments would be permitted. The Plaintiff filed that Final Amended Complaint (the twenty-second amended complaint, and the twenty-third iteration of the document) on March 3, 2021.

A motion to dismiss was filed by several of the county defendants on April 26, 2021. The Court has ordered other defendants to respond by May 26 and has granted leave for federal defendants to respond by July 16, 2021. Accordingly, it may be some time before we see whether a Twenty-Third Amended Complaint ends up getting filed.

READ MORE - How Many Times Can a Complaint Be Amended?

Labels:

Blogger Theme By:GosuBlogger and Araba Modelleri .