Commuters Could Sue Governor Chris Christie Over Bridge Sabotage

WASHINGTON - Jan. 9, 2014 - PRLog -- WASHINGTON, D.C. (Jan. 9,  2013):  In addition to the political fallout, and any punishments for the aides who deliberately sabotaged traffic at the GW Bridge, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and his aides could be sued by commuters for massive damages under a variety of legal theories - a tactic which, even if it doesn't succeed in inflicting severe financial harm upon those responsible would, as least, help undercover more still-secret evidence about how the fiasco was organized, and any role Christie played in it.

        An elderly woman whose death was allegedly caused by the unnecessary traffic delays, and others whose conditions were probably exacerbated by slowed ambulance response, would have the strongest and most legally viable tort actions, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who has taught the law in this area for more than 40 years.

        In addition, those who willfully caused the massive tie-ups could be sued for "false imprisonment."  Deliberately engaging in an unlawful act for the purpose of forcing people to remain in one place for any significant period of time constitutes the civil tort of "false imprisonment."

        Indeed, many courts have held that intentionally preventing a car from moving can make the defendants liable not only for the actual damages suffered by a person detained (e.g. time lost from work, missed appointments or classes, etc.), but also for massive amounts of punitive damages designed to prevent a repetition of the unlawful conduct.  They might also be sued for the tort of civil conspiracy or even prima facie tort, argues Banzhaf.

        "Tort actions, and especially class action law suits, permit those who have been harmed by the wrongful actions taken by those acting in concert - a civil conspiracy - to sue everyone responsible, even if the wrongful deeds do not necessarily meet the more exactly standards of a criminal conspiracy," says Banzhaf, who helped develop novel legal theories to successfully sue cigarette manufacturers, fast food companies, soda bottlers, Spriro T. Agnew, and many others.

        Banzhaf, who has been called "a Driving Force Behind the Lawsuits That Have Cost Tobacco Companies Billions of Dollars," and "The Law Professor Who Masterminded Litigation Against the Tobacco Industry," says that even if the suits are not ultimately successful, the pre-trial discovery - under which lawyers for the plaintiffs can demand access to secret emails and other documents, and force all involved to answer their questions under oath - is likely to help assure that public that the full truth has emerged.  "Aggressive private attorneys, who are paid only if their clients win, are much more likely to relentlessly uncover the entire truth than governmental or politically motivated investigations, says Banzhaf.

        “Every member of a jury could well imagine himself helplessly stuck in such a massive and totally unnecessary traffic jam, maybe missing an important appointment, or possibly not being able to receive medical treatment in case of emergency,” says Banzhaf, and thus could easily be persuaded to award high damages to deter any such conduct in the future.

JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D.
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School,
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,
Fellow, World Technology Network,
Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2000 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052, USA
(202) 994-7229 // (703) 527-8418
http://banzhaf.net/ @profbanzhaf