• Boston judge refuses to require Massachusetts to include materials that deny the Armenian genocide in the public school curriculum.
"[T]he decision as to what to teach about ... the Armenian genocide must be made by elected officials, educators, and teachers rather than by federal judges."
Griswold v. Driscoll
• Kentucky Court of Appeals upholds a $3.7 million jury award against a school board for ignoring a student's complaints that several teachers had molested her. Plaintiff Lynne Maner "presented sufficient evidence that the Board was deliberately indifferen[t] in its failure to act." Maner v. Fayette County Board of Education
• 6th Circuit revives the racial bias case of an African-American couple who sued a hotel for refusing to host their wedding reception. "There is a genuine issue of material fact in this case as to whether ... the Hotel denied them the right to enter into a contract because of their race." Keck v. Graham Hotel Systems
• San Francisco judge rules that a city did not violate a hiker's rights by failing to protect her from an attack on public land by a rancher's cattle. "[P]laintiffs have not alleged facts supporting a claim that the City was deliberately indifferent to a known or obvious danger" to Jo Dee Schmidt. Schmidt v. Hoover
• Divided New York appellate court says a golfer is not liable for striking another golfer in the eye with an errant drive. The defendant's failure to yell "Fore" before hitting the ball "does not rise to the level of creating a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers inherent in participating in the sport of golf." Anand v. Kapoor
• Sioux tribal members file a class action seeking their share of as much as $900 million held in trust by the federal government as compensation for the "taking" of the Black Hills of South Dakota. The plaintiffs have split from other Sioux who refuse to take the money, insisting on the return of the land.
Different Horse v. Salazar
• Texas Court of Appeals says a gas station owner is not liable for the negligence of an attendant who accidentally shot a customer while showing him a gun. The attendant's "actions were not merely a misuse of his authority; they were utterly unrelated to his duties."
Glass v. Williams
• San Francisco judge denies Chevron Corp.'s request for $485,159 in court costs from impoverished Nigerian villagers who sued the company for human rights violations. "The economic disparity between plaintiffs, who are Nigerian villagers, and defendants, international oil companies, cannot be more stark."
Bowoto v. Chevron
  
|
|
Boy Hurt in Car Crash Wins $100K by Suing Parents |
 |
A Minnesota couple whose 3-year-old son suffered brain injuries in a car accident has won a $100,000 settlement from their auto insurer by having the child sue them for negligent installation of his car seat.
The Minnesota Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Teddy Harrison, now 9, finding that the state's “seat belt gag rule” does not apply to his suit against his parents. The child was thrown from his mother's SUV when it was struck by an uninsured motorist driving another vehicle in April 2001.
“[T]he plain language of [the gag rule exception] permits an action to be made against a child’s parents for negligent installation and maintenance of a child passenger restraint system,” the court said in a decision that required the Harrison family's insurer to settle Teddy's claim for the full limit of its policy.
Teddy sued his parents –- with their support –- to collect from Progressive Auto Insurance after settling a separate case against the manufacturer of his car seat. Progressive invoked the gag rule, which bars the introduction of any evidence of “the installation or failure of installation of seat belts or a child passenger restraint system” in auto accident cases.
Minn. Stat. § 169.685, subd. 4(a) –- one of the few laws of its kind in the country -- was intended to stop an at-fault driver from blaming the “innocent” party for not wearing a seat belt. At the time it was enacted in 1963, wearing a seat belt was optional.
An exception to the law allows an “action for damages arising out of an incident that involves a defectively designed, manufactured, installed, or operating seat belt or child passenger restraint system.”
According to Progressive, the use of the word “defectively” indicates that the exception only applies to products liability cases against designers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of car seats. But the Supreme Court rejected such a “limited, technical” interpretation, saying that “in general usage, 'defective' simply means 'faulty.'”
Justice Helen M. Meyer, writing for a 6-1 majority, also disagreed with the insurer that the ruling would encourage a glut of claims by minors trying to collect from their parents' policies.
“We agree with the court of appeals that 'not all litigation that involves the use of a child passenger restraint system also involves a claim that the child passenger restraint system was defectively designed, manufactured, installed, or operated,'” she said.
The dissenter, Justice Paul H. Anderson, said the word “'installed' in Minn. Stat. § 169.685, subd. 4(b), should not be read to include the installation of a car seat or a seat belt into a car by an end-use consumer—in this case Ted Harrison, Jr.’s parents. Instead, I conclude that subdivision 4(b) applies only to products-liability actions.”
Teddy's brain injuries left him a quadriplegic. The settlement from Progressive will go toward his medical care.
“This case was a test of the gag rule,” Teddy's attorney said. “Although it’s a highly unusual case, the only sound strategic legal recourse the family had was the one they pursued in order to ensure funds to provide the best quality of life for their child.”
By Matthew Heller
7/18/07
|
|
-
No Prayer Now for Preacher's Suit Over "Religulous"
Less than three weeks after being sued for defrauding two former parishioners of $600,000, a Florida preacher dropped his $50 million lawsuit alleging the Bill Maher documentary “Religulous” falsely portrayed him as a charlatan, On Point has learned.
Read more...
-
Man Burned at Burning Man Assumed Risk
Get too close to the Burning Man fire and you assume the “obvious and inherent” risk of being burned, a California appeals court has ruled in dismissing a personal injury lawsuit against the operators of the iconic countercultural arts festival.
Read more...
-
Lawyer's 'Prove Me Wrong' Offer No Joke to Student
A Texas law student may have taken a $1 million “prove me wrong” challenge seriously, but the criminal defense lawyer who made the challenge on a TV news show appears to have done so with enough tongue in cheek to avoid liability for not paying up.
Read more...
-
Jury Chills Rights in Strip Search Case
A jury has reached a chilling decision in the civil rights case of a Southampton, N.Y., woman, clearing four police officers in the exclusive resort community of liability for performing a strip search on her after a minor marijuana bust.
Read more...
-
Toxic Bra Suits Won't be Combined in Ohio
A rash of lawsuits against Victoria's Secret alleging defectively manufactured underwear is continuing with eight new cases filed in the past two months. But in a setback for plaintiffs, a judicial panel has refused to consolidate all the litigation in Ohio.
Read more...
-
Wedding Fiasco Suit Really Takes Cake
Sandra Newsom's wedding disaster lawsuit may -– literally –- take the cake. The New York woman has sued a cruise ship operator for ruining her wedding reception by serving a coconut-containing cake to which she had an allergic reaction.
Read more...
-
Woody Allen Got $5M After Judge Shredded Defense
A week before American Apparel agreed to pay Woody Allen $5 million for misappropriating his image, a judge had shredded the clothing company's First Amendment defense based on its CEO's “mental processes,” On Point has learned.
Read more...
|
Capitol Records v. Thomas
Court: USDC, Minn.
Subject: Digital music downloading
Verdict: $1.92 million
ASPCA v. Ringling Bros.
Court: USDC, D. Col.
Subject: Illegal "taking" of elephants by circus
more
|
|
Howard K. Stern v. Rita Cosby
Date: 7/7/09
Court: USDC, S. N.Y.
Hearing: Motions for summary judgment in defamation case.
Goldberg v. Paris Hilton Entertainment
Date: 7/9/09
Court: USDC, S. Fla.
Hearing: Jury trial in breach-of-contract case.
more
|
|
