
• 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
• 3rd Circuit rules that a couple can sue Google for trespassing on their property while photographing it for the Street View feature. "[T]he Borings have alleged that Google entered upon their property without permission. If proven, that is a trespass, pure and simple." Boring v. Google
• Minnesota judge reduces a jury award of copyright infringement damages against an illegal music file sharer from $2 million to $54,000. "The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music." Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset
• Special master says Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Sharon Keller's conduct on the day of an execution was "not exemplary," but "she did not engage in conduct so egregious that she should be removed from office." In re Honorable Sharon Keller
• New Jersey appeals court says a female business owner can sue a male customer for refusing to do business with her unless she gave him sexual favors. "The quid pro quo sexual harassment alleged in the complaint, if legally permitted, would stand as a barrier to women's ability to do business on an equal footing with men." J.T.'s Tire Services v. United Rentals
• New Mexico judge says a photographer may be compelled to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony despite her religious convictions because she "is not being forced to participate in any ceremony or ritual; the only requirement is that she photograph the event." Elane Photography v. Willock
• Tennessee judge rules that the PGA Tour does not have to accommodate a golfer by allowing him to take testosterone shots. Doug Barron "has not shown that the 'reasonable accommodation' he has requested ... is necessary in order for him to continue playing golf in PGA Tour events." Barron v. PGA Tour
• 6th Circuit says two high school basketball coaches did not use excessive corporal punishment in paddling a player. One of the coaches "testified that he only paddled Martin [Nolan] a total of ten times during Martin’s tenure at Hamilton [High School]." Nolan v. Memphis City Schools
• Wrongful-death lawsuit alleges a cell phone company is liable for a fatal auto accident allegedly caused by a customer who was driving while "engrossed" in a cell phone conversation. Sprint/Nextel "failed to warn of the hazard of cell phone use while driving." Estate of Doyle v. Sprint/Nextel

|
|
Disney Claims Bogus Victory in Disabled Access Suit |
|
A discrimination suit against Walt Disney World Co. over its ban on two-wheeler Segways at its Florida theme parks has taken an unexpected twist with a judge throwing out a settlement and Disney disingenuously claiming a victory.
As part of the settlement of a proposed class action filed by three disabled people, Disney agreed in December 2008 to provide disabled guests with at least 15 newly-designed four-wheeled vehicles. The company had claimed Segways could endanger the safety of other theme park guests and that it adequately accommodated the disabled by providing wheelchairs and motorized scooters for rent.
But the settlement left the Segway ban in place and enraged disabled rights groups because, among other things, it shielded Disney from “any and all past, present, and future claims ... of any and every kind or nature whatsoever” arising from the policy. More than 100 individuals and the U.S. Department of Justice filed objections to the agreement.
In an Oct. 6 opinion, U.S. District Judge Gregory A. Presnell vacated his preliminary approval of the settlement and dismissed the case, finding the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue for discrimination because it was not “necessary” that they use a Segway to access Disney parks.
“Although there may be some disabled individuals for whom an upright mobility device such [as] a Segway –- and not a wheelchair or some other 'traditional' device –- amounts to something that is essential, it remains a near physiological certainty that most people, regardless of disability, can sit from time to time,” he said. “The named Plaintiffs ... are no different from most of humanity in this regard.”
Under Section 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Americans With Disabilities Act, a public facility must “make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities.”
Disney responded to the decision with remarkable chutzpah, saying in a statement:
This ruling is consistent with what we have advocated all along in this case -- that we have appropriately balanced the need to maintain a safe environment for everyone while at the same time meeting our legal requirements to provide access to those with mobility impairments.
In fact, Presnell confined his ruling to the reasonable accommodation issue and expressed concerns that the Segway ban is an affront to the dignity of the disabled.
“[T]he Segway is quickly changing the way disabled Americans are perceived and treated in our society,” he noted. “The importance of this interest simply cannot be overlooked. While on the facts of this case equal treatment and human dignity may not be protected under Section 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii), those interests may still be protected by other provisions of the ADA or state law.”
David Ferleger, an attorney for disabled rights groups that objected to the settlement, said Disney had actually
suffered a great loss. It's effort to obtain approval of the settlement which would have made the Segway ban permanent was rejected. The court spoke at length about the ADA's protection of the dignity of people with disabilities and left the way open to other suits under a variety of theories. Given Disney's urgent efforts to win approval of the settlement, it is ironic to see it attempt to call this loss a win.
The settlement also provided for an award of $70,000 in fees to counsel for two of the plaintiffs. The attorney for the other plaintiff requested $106,812.50 in fees.
The Department of Justice cited the “overbroad” liability release provisions in objecting to the settlement. “Given the limited scope of the Complaint, well-established federal caselaw precludes the settling parties in Disney from compromising the claims of absent class members that arise out of other legal or factual predicates,” it said in a brief.
|
Other Ault v. Walt Disney World Sources
|
By Matthew Heller 10/9/09
|
|
-
Dancer Strips Club of $100K in DUI Case
A former stripper has won a $100,000 award in an unusual employment law case as a jury found a Birmingham, Ala., strip club liable for allowing her to drive home from work “in a highly intoxicated state.”
Read more...
-
Halliburton Takes Swing at Alleged Rape Victim
Perhaps befitting the former employer of Dick Cheney, KBR/Halliburton has taken the low road in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to bar a former employee from having a public trial of her claims that she was gang raped by co-workers in Iraq.
Read more...
-
Tenant's Gripe Tweet Too Vague to be Libel
A Chicago judge has dismissed the first libel case involving a single Twitter posting, finding that an apartment renter's gripe about her landlord was too vague and imprecise to be construed as defamatory.
Read more...
-
Copperfield Wants U.S. to Keep Evidence From Accuser
Magician David Copperfield has some sharp words for federal prosecutors who have refused to acknowledge that they dropped a sexual assault investigation against him because of the accuser's lack of credibility.
Read more...
-
Hotel Exec Settles Drug Death Case
The former CEO of a luxury hotel operator has quickly settled a lawsuit accusing him of causing the drug overdose death of his girlfriend, On Point has learned –- even though he describes the allegations as “slanderous and bogus.”
Read more...
-
Bingo for "Bruno!" Baron Cohen KO's Verbal Spat Case
A California judge has dismissed a verbal assault case against comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, finding that a woman initiated a confrontation with him during the filming of a scene for the movie “Brüno” and “not vice versa.”
Read more...
-
"No Sex Involved" in Orgy Viewing Case, Hotel Insists
A former manager at the Hilton Minneapolis who claimed she walked in on an orgy at a company sales conference has “sensationalized” what was only “some questionable behavior,” the hotel's owner says in arguing that her sexual harassment case should not go to trial.
Read more...
|
North Face Apparel v. The South Butt Subject: Trademark infringement Document: Answer to complaint
Stern v. Sony Corp. Subject: Gamer's rights Document: Motion to dismiss
Rossiter v. Evans Subject: STD infection Document: Opinion
Sanford Siegal v. Kim Kardashian Subject: Twitter libel Document: Complaint
Bryan v. McPherson Subject: Excessive Taser force Document: Opinion
more
|
|
Spears v. Allergan, Inc. Court: Orange County (Calif.) Superior Subject: Botox death
Putnam v. Morning Star Boys' Ranch Court: Spokane County (Wash.) Superior Subject: Sexual abuse
more
|
|
Plaintiff B v. Joe Francis Date: 2/22/10 Court: USDC, N. Fla. Hearing: Jury trial in sexual abuse case.
CBS v. FCC Date: 2/23/10 Court: 3rd Circuit Hearing: Oral arguments in "Nipplegate" case.
more
|
|
|