
• Owners of Who Dat?, Inc. sue the NFL and the New Orleans Saints for trademark infringement, seeking to protect the mark that "has become one of the most recognizable in all of America and quickly became well-known around the world." Who Dat?, Inc. v. NFL Properties
• Army bomb disposal expert sues the makers of "The Hurt Locker" for plagiarizing his life story. The film is "nothing more than the exploitation of a real life honorable, courageous, and long serving member of our country’s armed forces, by greedy multi-billion dollar 'entertainment' corporations." Sarver v. The Hurt Locker
• Former patient sues the Cincinnati hospital where he was sexually assaulted by a transgender nurse. The nurse's "employment while masquerading as a member of the female gender in a hospital environment involved an unreasonable risk of harm to others." Evans v. University of Cincinnati
• Federal judge enjoins the City of Phoenix from enforcing a noise ordinance against "sound generated in the course of religious expression," finding the right of churches to ring bells outweighs "the City's interest in preserving the peace and tranquility of its neighborhoods." St. Mark Roman Catholic Parish v. City of Phoenix
• 5th Circuit says a Texas city's junked vehicle ordinance applies to a cactus planter made out of wrecked Oldsmobile 88. "Irrespective of the intentions of its creators ... the car-planter is a utilitarian device, an advertisement, and ultimately a 'junked vehicle.'" Kleinman v. City of San Marcos
• Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols notifies a federal judge that he has gone on hunger strike, saying he is "prepared to die if necessary because he is done allowing his body to be defiled by [ ] refined and dead foods." Nichols v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
• Texas judge finds the makers of a film about Rin Tin Tin did not infringe on the trademarks of a breeder of German Shepherds. "Defendants['] title 'Finding Rin Tin Tin: The Adventure Continues" is a fair use of the term 'Rin Tin Tin.'" Rin Tin Tin, Inc. v. First Look Studios
• Illinois appeals court says the contact sports exception to negligence liability does not apply to the case of an athletic trainer who was struck in the eye by a hockey puck while refilling water bottles. Michael Weisberg "suffered injuries as a result of alleged conduct that was not inherent to the sport of hockey." Weisberg v. Chicago Steel

|
|
Court Finds Church Liable in "Swoon-and-Fall" Case |
|
|
Churches might want to be more careful about protecting swooning parishioners after the Michigan Court of Appeals said a church was liable for the fall of a woman who was “slain in the spirit” during an altar call.
A jury had awarded Judith Dadd $40,000 in damages for the head injury she suffered in the fall at Mount Hope Church in Lansing and the appeals court affirmed the award in a first-of-its-kind decision last week, stressing the uniqueness of her negligence case.
“[W]e generally agree with defendants that they had no legal duty to insure that they would protect from injury all congregants who participated in the church service,” the per curiam opinion said, but
we conclude the very narrow and unique circumstances that exist in the present case support the imposition of a legal duty imposed on defendants to assist plaintiff while she participated in this altar call.
The court noted that the church's pastor “made it clear to the congregants that ushers were trained to catch persons who fall during an altar call” and that, according to Dadd's testimony, an usher “specifically solicited her participation in the altar call” and “directed her to a specific place before the altar where a specific minister would pray over her.”
“A person in plaintiff’s position could reasonably conclude that the usher who positioned her for this altar call would also guard her through the process,” the court said.
The opinion was not published, but it certainly puts churches on notice that if they regularly provide ushers at altar calls, they have a duty to protect congregants who are being prayed over from injury.
In a similar case, a parishioner sued a Knoxville, Tenn., church last year for allowing him to fall to the ground during an altar call even though the minister had “asked the catchers to be ready and stated that he didn't want anyone to fall and get hurt and sue him.” Another suit in Oakland, Calif., alleges a woman fell and injured her head after her pastor “laid hands” on her by striking her forehead with the palm of his hand.
Dadd was injured during a leadership rally at Mount Hope, a "megachurch" with more than 4,000 members, in July 2002. While an assistant minister prayed over her, she was “slain in the spirit,” fell backward and –- with no usher there to catch her –- struck her head on the floor.
As part of her case, she introduced a recording of one of Pastor Dave Williams’ sermons in which, while discussing whether congregants should respond to an altar call, he said that “others are against it because they’re afraid of getting hurt. That’s why we train our ushers to catch people if this happens.”
The church argued that “requiring the presence of an usher for every person who attends a church service places a huge burden on churches and removes all responsibility from a person attending a church service to be careful.” But the appeals court did not consider that argument because the church did not present it at trial.
Asked whether she checked to see if an usher was behind her before she fell, Dadd testified:
As I go before whoever is praying for me, they’re facing the congregation in the sanctuary. I’m facing the altar, the front. They are the ones that determine when to start praying for you. It’s up to them.
The jury awarded another $273,750 on claims alleging Williams damaged Dadd's reputation by suggesting in statements to parishioners that she faked her injury. The appeals court reversed that portion of the judgment because the trial judge failed to instruct the jury that the statements were entitled to a qualified privilege.
By Matthew Heller 4/12/09
|
|
-
"Upskirting" Victim Loses Privacy Suit Against Store
A customer at a T.J. Maxx store in upstate New York has lost her lawsuit against the retailer for allowing a man to take photos up her skirt by using her as “human bait” in a sting operation.
Read more...
-
Perfume Allergy Case Settles for $100,000
A Detroit city planner with an allergy to perfume is savoring the sweet smell of legal success after the city agreed to pay her $100,000 and be more sensitive to the chemically sensitive.
Read more...
-
Teen's Suit Puts Mug-Shot Publisher Against the Wall
A new publication in Lincoln, Neb., milks mug shots for humor. But a teenager whose arrest photo appeared in Cuffed doesn't see the funny side of it and has sued the publisher for misappropriating his image.
Read more...
-
BA Settles 'Reckless' Baggage Handling Suit
Limiting its liability to a group of only 13 airline passengers, British Airways (NYSE: BAY) has settled a first-of-its kind lawsuit that accused the airline of being “inexcusably reckless” in its handling of passengers' baggage.
Read more...
-
Judge Says "Gay" Still Defamatory in Texas
What one court has called “a veritable sea change in social attitudes about homosexuality” has evidently not reached Texas where a judge ruled that an airport security guard can sue a radio show host for calling him “gay” on the air.
Read more...
-
Mom Says Hospital Gave Her Wrong Baby to Nurse
Because of a hospital's error, Jennifer Spiegel became an involuntary wet nurse to another woman's newborn son. Now she is suing the hospital for its malpractice in providing her with the wrong baby to breastfeed.
Read more...
-
Case Over MySpace Page Chills Student Speech
Several recent court rulings have been protective of off-campus student speech -– with the exception of a very shaky decision that a dissenting judge said “vests school officials with dangerously overbroad censorship discretion.”
Read more...
|
Newdow v. Rio Lindo Union Sch. Dist. Subject: Pledge of allegiance Document: Opinion
Vance v. Rumsfeld Subject: Detainee abuse Document: Opinion
Stern v. Sony Corp. Subject: Disabled gamers Document: Opinion
Churchill v. Univ. of Colorado Subject: Academic freedom Document: ACLU amicus brief
KBR/Halliburton v. Jones Subject: Sexual assault Document: Petition for review
more
|
|
Spears v. Allergan, Inc. Court: Orange County (Calif.) Superior Subject: Botox death Verdict: Defense
Patterson v. Hudson Area Schools Court: USDC, E. Mich. Subject: Student harassment
more
|
|
McClain v. Pfizer, Inc. Date: 3/2/10 Court: USDC, Conn. Hearing: Jury trial in case over unsafe lab conditions.
Sherman v. McDonald's Corp. Date: 3/23/10 Court: Washington County (Ark.) Circuit Hearing: Jury trial in case over nude photos.
more
|
|
|