A North Texas Tesla owner has filed a civil lawsuit against Rafael Hernandez, arrested and charged with keying the plaintiff’s Model X earlier in March while it was parked at Dallas Fort Worth Airport.
The suit seeks $1 million in damages for property damage, lost wages and “emotional distress.” So far, the Tesla owner has been identified only with his initials. “It’s a fine line between civility and anarchy,” said Majed Nachawati, managing partner with the Nachawati Legal Group in Dallas. That’s the firm that represents the keyed car’s distressed owner. “This matter has nothing to do with his political persuasions or affiliations. He happens to believe that Tesla, his Model X, is one of the best cars he’s ever owned. And he enjoys driving it, plain and simple.”
Oh, well..if the attack on his car lessened his enjoyment, I’m going to sue Major League Baseball for inflicting the “zombie baserunner” on the game.
The Rules of Professional Conduct governing the legal profession declare “frivolous lawsuits” unethical and ground for a lawyer’s discipline. Rule 3.1 states,
“A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.”
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day….
Is the $1,000,000 civil suit against the asshole who keyed the Tesla ethical?
Attorneys for the Tesla owner acknowledged that the vehicle itself is not worth $1 million. Their client, they explain, also wants to send a message with the lawsuit to discourage other acts of violence.
(The criminal case is supposed to do that, I’m pretty sure. Did the lawyers explain this detail?)
Vandalism is also not an “act of violence” or a violent crime. This horrendous act can be repaired with a paint job, hardly the magnitude that justifies punitive damages.
“We don’t allow people to act out based on what they believe their political affiliations are and what upsets them and who they are upset with, and allow them to take things into their own hands and become essentially a vigilante… What does that say about our country?” Nachawati said. “Whether you’re a Republican, whether you’re a Democrat, I believe anyone who sees the video and who sees what happened would believe that deterrence would be the biggest part of this case.”
Nothing in the ethics rules mentions an exception to the frivolous case prohibition for “sending a message.”
Perhaps you have discerned that I am inclined to conclude that this lawsuit is a rare example of a truly frivolous action. It is not supported by the facts, and I rank the chances of the suit obtaining any more than the cost of repairs to be approximately the chances of a snowball’s in Hell. The “lost wages” claim alone is worthy of sanctions, unless one of the features of a Tesla is that it can’t driven with a damaged paint job.
But I am open to arguments to the contrary…
Ethics Alarms 
Speaking of Tesla’s and their owners…
As I was walking into a local gun shop/range a couple of hours ago, I noticed a Tesla truck sitting by the door with the license plate “DUMPSTR”. I walked into the shop and, as usual, one of the employee’s said “Hi Steve, how’s it goin’?”, yes I know everyone that works there on a first name basis and I’ve known the owner (although in a different context) since 1988. I replied, “SSDD [they all know what that means] but my day just got better. The owner of the Tesla truck outside just made my day with his sense of humor. His license plate says dumpster, that’s an awesome in your face kind of sarcastic humor!” Then the Tesla owner identified himself by saying, “thank you”. I knew the guy from previous times I’ve met him there but I hadn’t seen this Tesla truck, he drives another Tesla, a Model S, which is a really nice car! This guy will give anyone a tour of his Tesla’s, he loves them and doesn’t give a damn if anyone else like them or not. The guy also has a couple of stuffed racoons that he traps between the truck tail gate and the bed cover.
That’s the kind of sense of humor we need around to lighten up life a little bit.
I’d guess that lost wages is the real stretch, unless he uses the car for business purposes. I can see a hypothetical argument for emotional distress. Imagine buying yourself a state of the art car for purely non-political reasons, and then suddenly finding yourself the target of wrath, ire, and vigilantism for purely political reasons. It would be extremely disconcerting to suddenly find yourself in a political firefight, particularly if you were not inclined to such things yourself.
Maybe not a million dollars worth, but that’s my best shot!
Jack: “But I am open to arguments to the contrary…”
Not from me. When I saw that they want to “send a message,” my mind was made up. The purpose of the judicial system is not to send messages. It is to resolve disputes.
I have had a couple of clients who have had all sorts of ideas about suing people in order to make money. I have to explain to them, “YOU do not make money suing people; I(!) make money suing people.”
If you want to send a message, go to the Post Office.
-Jut
My response to the pre-banned commenter who copied the AI description of punitive damages, said you didn’t know the law and said you would feel differently if it was your car…
1. Jut knows the law rather well.
2. Keying a car or the equivalent has never been the impetus for punitive damages, and never will be.
3. “If it happened to you” is one of the least favored arguments here. You’re essentially saying “you reason better if you share the biases of the other individual.” In fact, one reasons better from an objective viewpoint.
Just so you know, a snotty asshole who thinks he knows the law but doesn’t initially wrote three insulting comments to you and me, arguing that keying a car is a valid reason for punitive damages. Come to think of it, the guy might have been the fool lawyer who filed this lawsuit. Banned before a comment saw the light of day. Then he posted nine more nasty comments using different screen names and two different email addresses, and is really, really sure this case is worth a million dollars. (He also thinks posting essentially the same comment using different screen names will fool me. And that vandalism is a “violent crime.”)
well, in defense of the snotty commenter, I had considered punitive damages but, at least in Minnesota, they are WAY outside the norm.
with certain exceptions, by rule, you cannot request them in your complaint. You need to ask permission from the Court to add them as a claim and you have to pass a high bar to get them. Keying a car might qualify, but I doubt it; destroying one with a Molotov cocktail probably would.
the exceptions to the pleadings rule is when punitive damages are authorized by statute. But, those cases involve small numbers. For example, if a landlord withholds your security deposit improperly, you can recover twice the amount as punitive damages
-Jut
No defense: that’s essentially the punitive damages rule in every jurisdiction I’m aware of.
“I have to explain to them, ‘YOU do not make money suing people; I(!) make money suing people.'”
I’m using this. Do you want attribution?
77Zoomie: the only attribution requested is, “As Wise Counsel once observed….”
-Jut
I don’t think this case will get the Tesla owner much more than enough to cover the damage to the vehicle.
Right or wrong, maybe they could present their case as a case against domestic political terrorism thus somehow “justifying” the steep million dollar price to intentionally over compensate the victim in an effort to combat similar acts of domestic terrorism.
Frivolous or nuisance lawsuits generally don’t send a message, because I think they tend to go nowhere. What they do succeed at is making the plaintiff the butt of jokes and/or ridicule while simultaneously increasing the level of hatred toward the trials lawyers that file them. This million-dollar lawsuit falls into that category.
More and more, I’m coming around to “eye for an eye” consequences for crimes involving vandalism. Those convicted of burning store fronts, looting, and keying or setting fire to Teslas should have their possessions removed from their homes, put in a pile, and torched in the middle of the street for everyone to see.
Wait. Don’t plaintiff’s lawyers talk all the time about “sending a message” to their favorite defendants: corporate managers, board members and owners and investors? Does “punitive damages” ring a bell? Anyone? Beuhler?
The left should be all over this! Aren’t they forever claiming to be in fear of something or another that has disturbed them?
This owner might have a better than usual chance, considering the string of violent attacks on Teslas and people accosting the owners, of convincing jury that this attack has been unusually stressful, as there is real evidence of an elevated likelihood of being the victim of potentially worse.
Apparently this attorney is unfamiliar with the case of Kyle Rittenhouse.
“We don’t allow people to act out based on what they believe their political affiliations are and what upsets them and who they are upset with, and allow them to take things into their own hands and become essentially a vigilante”
Apparently you’re unfamiliar with the case of Kyle Rittenhouse!
Unclear. Are you saying that conflicts with Rittenhouse’s actions or the people who physically attacked him? Rittenhouse’s attackers found out the hard way that this attorney’s statement was true in their cases.
I’m pretty sure Mike is implying that Rittenhouse got away with vigilantism. Which is nonsense.