
• Iowa judge says a sheriff denied the applications of a father and son for concealed weapons permits in retaliation for their political activism. "This is a great reminder that the First Amendment protects the sole individual who may be a gadfly, kook, weirdo, nut job, whacko, and spook, with the same force of protection as folks with more majoritarian and popular views." Dorr v. Weber
• 5th Circuit rules that a school district violated the religious freedom of a Native American boy by requiring him to wear his long hair in a bun on top of his head or in a braid tucked into his shirt. The boy "has a sincere religious belief in wearing his hair uncut and in plain view." A.A. v. Needville Ind. Sch. Dist.
• 11th Circuit denies a challenge to an ordinance restricting handouts of food to the homeless in Orlando parks. "[W]e are unpersuaded that the conduct of simply feeding people ... is expressive for First Amendment purposes." First Vagabonds Church v. City of Orlando
• Boston judge slashes a jury award in an illegal music downloading case from $675,000 to $67,500. "The award in this case ... lacks any rational foundation and smacks of arbitrariness." Sony v. Tenenbaum
• Iowa Supreme Court suspends a voyeuristic attorney indefinitely for peeping on women through windows. "[W]e cannot overlook the serious, egregious, and persistent nature of [Mark] Templeton’s misconduct and the effect it had on his victims." Disciplinary Board v. Templeton
• Pennsylvania judge strikes down the state's blasphemy law in a case brought by a film producer who wanted to name his company "I Choose Hell Productions." "'Choosing hell' may be an irreverent choice for a corporate name, but under the Constitution, this fact alone cannot be the basis for its suppression from the public debate." Kalman v. Cortes
• Cancer patient sues Wal-Mart for firing him after discovering that he uses medical marijuana for pain relief. "[N]o corporation doing business in Michigan should be permitted to flout state laws protecting patients who use medical marihuana in accordance with state law." Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores
• 11th Circuit rules that the operator of an Internet porn dorm was engaged in illegally operating a business in a residential zone. "Business objectives are the sole reason individuals are paid to live and engage in sexual activities at the 27th Street residence." Flava Works v. City of Miami

|
|
$185K Award More Than Peanuts for Restaurant |
|
A slip-and-fall case alleging a restaurant created an “extremely dangerous condition” by having customers and employees throw peanut shells on the floor has turned out to be worth a lot more than peanuts as a jury awarded $185,000 to a Texas woman and her husband.
Angela Bishoff appears to be the first plaintiff ever to win a slip-and-fall case involving a restaurant's peanut shell-throwing policy. She broke her kneecap after slipping on “peanuts and peanut debris” at the Temple, Texas, location of the Texas Roadhouse (Nasdaq: TXRH) chain.
The verdict includes $50,000 for Bishoff's pain and mental anguish and $58,000 for past and future medical expenses. The Bell County District Court Jury also awarded her husband $10,000 for loss of consortium.
“Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff by employing a dangerous practice of throwing, and encouraging others to throw, peanut shells and debris on the floor when they knew or should have known that such activity was likely to cause people to slip and fall,” Bishoff alleged in her complaint.
Texas Roadhouse argued during the trial that the peanut shells were an “open and obvious” condition and a plaintiff's verdict would mean circuses, carnivals and sports stadiums would have to stop selling peanuts.
But under Texas law, a condition is not open and obvious if a plaintiff does not have “knowledge and appreciation thereof.”
“Even though the shells may have been open and obvious, [Bishoff] did not have an appreciation that they could be dangerous,” Bishoff attorney Vic Feazell of Austin, Texas, tells On Point. “Also, the few shells that may still contain a peanut in them are not 'open and obvious' and are more dangerous.”
Bishoff fell in an area of the restaurant with a hardwood floor, which, unlike a concrete floor, would not absorb the oil from peanuts and peanut shells. “If this had happened on the concrete section of the restaurant, I don't think we would have won,” Feazell admits.
The plaintiff did not win a complete victory since the jury found her 50 percent to blame for her injuries, agreeing to some extent with the defense that Bishoff, who was wearing high heels, failed to exercise ordinary care when she walked across the restaurant floor.
The finding of comparative negligence reduces the jury's award to $92,500. In Texas, a plaintiff whose fault is more than 50 percent is not entitled to any damages.
Feazell doubts the verdict will deter peanut sales since he has “never seen a carnival or circus held on a hardwood floor and the seats in Texas Stadium certainly aren't on hardwood.” He does suggest that restaurants with a peanut shell-throwing policy “should post a warning sign or sweep more often or [not] use hardwood floors.”
A similar case against Texas Roadhouse in Texarkana is scheduled for trial in January. “Peanut shells, if any, on the floor ... would be an open, obvious and unconcealed condition, and therefore, Defendant did not owe Plaintiff a duty to warn,” the company argued in a motion for summary judgment.
|
UPDATE
Texas Roadhouse said in a statement that "we strongly disagree with the verdict ... We believe the law in Texas, as it pertains specifically to premises liability causes of action and 'open and obvious" conditions, is clear and supports our position that Texas Roadhouse had no duty to warn the plaintiff of this open and obvious condition. We are currently weighing our options regarding appeal and will make our decision in the very near future."
Texas Roadhouse settled the case in Texarkana rather than go to trial.
|
|
Other Bishoff v. Texas Roadhouse Sources
|
By Matthew Heller 10/27/08 
|
|
-
Sex Harassment Claims Hit Actor Affleck, 'Bones' Star
A producer of a film about actor Joaquin Phoenix, an extra on the set of the TV show “Bones,” an assistant property master, and a makeup artist are among the plaintiffs in a recent epidemic of lurid Hollywood lawsuits.
Read more...
-
Jury Goes 'Wild' in Woman's Privacy Case Over Video
A Missouri jury has gone wild in a case of involuntary nudity, finding that a woman consented to appearing topless in a “Girls Gone Wild” video by playing to the camera before another person pulled her top down.
Read more...
-
Actress Facing $750K Award to Therapist
Soap opera star Hunter Tylo may have to pay more than $750,000 in damages and attorney fees to a psychotherapist whom she sued more than four years ago for negligent treatment of her children, On Point has learned.
Read more...
-
Reporter Sues Hotels Over Peephole Videos
In an unusual premises liability case, ESPN reporter Erin Andrews has sued the operators of three hotels for allowing a stalker to surreptitiously videotape her naked through peepholes in the doors to her rooms.
Read more...
-
Students Challenge Rubber Fetus Ban
The suspensions of seven pro-life students at two Roswell, N.M., high schools for distributing rubber fetuses have given birth to a lawsuit that takes the First Amendment protections for student speech into uncharted territory.
Read more...
-
Distress Claim Barred in Hotel 'Ménâge à Trois' Case
A former employee of a luxury Miami Beach hotel who says her billionaire boss invited her to join him in a “ménâge à trois” cannot sue him for infliction of emotional distress, a judge has ruled, finding his alleged behavior, while “obnoxious,” was not “objectively outrageous.”
Read more...
-
Chuck E. Cheese Settles Molesting Mascot Suit
A Missouri woman who claimed a Chuck E. Cheese mascot groped her breast has settled her lawsuit against the operator of the restaurant chain, On Point has learned.
Read more...
|
Stovell v. James Subject: LeBron's paternity Document: Complaint
U.S. v. Arizona Subject: Illegal immigration Document: Complaint
Rosenberg v. Google Subject: Negligent navigation Document: Complaint
Smith v. Hooters Subject: Weight discrimination Document: Complaint
City of Ontario v. Quon Subject: Text-message privacy Document: Opinion
more
|
|
Rosenberg v. Musical Arts Assn. Court: Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Common Pleas Subject: Defamation, age bias
Mecozzi v. City of Los Angeles Court: L.A. Superior Subject: Police brutality Verdict: $1.7 million
more
|
|
Jose Padilla v. John Yoo Date: 6/14/10 Court: 9th Circuit Hearing: Oral arguments in human rights case.
Perry v. Schwarzenegger Date: 6/16/10 Court: USDC, N. Calif. Hearing: Closing arguments in trial of challenge to gay marriage ban.
more
|
|
|