Posts tagged as:

assumption of risk

Reality-TV attempt to break world record for “Fastest Time to Jump Through 10 Panes of Tempered Glass” does not end well, money sought [Mike Heuer, Courthouse News]

Wurst-case scenario comes true: “The Missouri Supreme Court has ruled on behalf of a baseball fan who says he was hit in the eye with a hot dog thrown by Sluggerrr, the Kansas City Royals mascot.” The court overruled a trial judge who had instructed jurors that they could find the flying foodstuff to be an assumed risk of attending a Royals game. [Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal; earlier]

{ 2 comments }

“Tom Goldstein’s letter for rich client who threw porn star off roof for video” [@RandyEBarnett] is an “instant classic” [@adamliptak]. Goldstein is a prominent member of the Supreme Court bar and co-founder of SCOTUSBlog. [Josh Blackman] Concluding passage of letter:

If she sues, the complaint will be sanctionably frivolous. Your client should just box up almost every last bit of her property (please exclude all videos and photographs, as well as the seemingly inevitable small yappy dog) and drop it off with you in safe-keeping for Mr. Bilzerian. After he receives the judgment in his favor, he will have it all delivered to him. Then he will probably blow it up with a mortar in the desert.

I enjoyed our brief correspondence.

{ 3 comments }

Says the man who sued because he tried to climb a boulder in Manhattan’s Hudson River Park and fell off. Good news, Mr. Stock: you not only get to explore the world, you also get to explore the legal concept known as “assumption of the risk.” [Gothamist]

{ 1 comment }

Nanny state roundup

by Walter Olson on February 12, 2014

  • Sock puppets: U.K. and E.U. governments both fund public advocacy campaigns on paternalism themes, effectively lobbying themselves at taxpayer expense. Sounds kinda familiar [Christopher Snowdon on Institute for Economic Affairs studies]
  • Federal government, in the form of the CDC, wishes your doctor would nag you more about your drinking [Jacob Sullum, more]
  • “$10m look into games and gun violence a bust” [Rob Beschizza; Mike Rose, Gamasutra; related, Scott Shackford]
  • Assumption of risk won a round at the California Supreme Court a year ago in a case on amusement park bumper cars [S.F. Chronicle, ABA Journal, related on Disneyland teacups] J.D. Tuccille on motorcycle risks [Reason]
  • As a country Australia is known for freedom, so why’s it a leader in enacting bans? [Vivienne Crompton, IPA "Freedom Watch"]
  • “Maine’s unwise and unconstitutional ban on disclosing the alcohol content of beers” [Jonathan Adler]
  • FDA mandate on removal of nicotine could benefit head regulator’s former client [Jacob Grier] Glaxo SmithKline, Johnson & Johnson also push bans on e-cigarettes, which compete with their nicotine therapies [Tim Carney] AGs from 24 states (AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, ME, MD, MS, MT, NH, NM, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, VT, WA) write FDA urging ban on menthol in cigarettes [CSPNet] “Cigarette Sin-Tax Hike Could Boost Black Markets” [Steven Greenhut] Brendan O’Neill on secondhand smoke [Reason]

Sports roundup

by Walter Olson on June 27, 2013

  • Florida attorney John Morgan, suing NASCAR over crowd injuries, says waiver on back of ticket isn’t valid [Mike Bianchi, Orlando Sentinel, scroll to "Open Mike"; John Culhane, Slate] Idaho court denies assumption-of-risk “Baseball Rule” in foul-ball case [CBS]
  • “Pennsylvania vs. NCAA: case dismissed” [antitrust; Rob Green, Abnormal Use]
  • 1911 article: aviation “as safe as football”: 47 aviation vs. 60 football fatalities in 1909. [Kyle Graham, @tedfrank] “Do no harm: Who should bear the costs of retired NFL players’ medical bills?” [WaPo] “Retired Jocks Dig for Gold in the California Hills” [Jon Coppelman on state's generous worker's comp arrangements, earlier]
  • “The Derrick Rose lawsuit and emotional distress claims in South Carolina” [Frances Zacher, Abnormal Use]
  • “Parents of autistic New Jersey teen sue so he can play on” [Brick, N.J. football team; WPVI]
  • NY Yankees successfully challenge company’s effort to trademark “Baseball’s Evil Empire” [Ilya Somin, Michael Schearer]
  • “Memo to Roger Goodell: I’ll take my NFL football without Obamacare propaganda, please” [Bainbridge]

I’ve now done a second post in Common Good’s symposium on education and fear of liability. Among the topics I discuss: assumption of risk, statutes of limitations, sovereign immunity, and the need for some more organized way of advocating the interests of public service entities against excessive or impractical liability demands. You can read it here.

My new post at Cato at Liberty, following on a theme pursued by NYT science writer John Tierney, looks at some of the risks of trying to make children’s play too safe. More: UK Telegraph (“Health and safety fears are taking the joy out of playtime.”); Lenore Skenazy, Free-Range Kids.

{ 4 comments }

Yet another lawsuit against a Manhattan bar filed by a patron who fell off its mechanical bull [New York Post]

{ 5 comments }

The best-known operator of British amusement parks has ordered its staff “to ban anyone found guilty of bumping into each other in the electric cars equipped with huge bumpers. Bemused customers who assume that the ‘no bumping sign’ is in jest are told to drive around slowly in circles rather than crash into anyone else for fear of an injury that could result in the resort being sued.” [Louise Gray, Telegraph via Free-Range Kids]

Also: California appellate court rejects assumption of risk defense and denies summary judgment to bumper car injury claim [Bill Childs, MassTort.org]

{ 6 comments }

“The suit [by a Florida man against the Winn-Dixie supermarket chain and a flower importer] states the roses should have been stripped of their thorns and the stems should have been wrapped more carefully.” [UPI]

{ 2 comments }

A proposed Hawaii law would assign liability to guidebook writers for some injuries at risky tourist sites [WSJ]

“In a brief opinion released today, the New York Court of Appeals agreed with lower courts that a golfer hit by an ‘errant’ shot could not sue his co-golfer for negligence, because one who chooses to golf assumes the risk of being whacked by a golf ball.” [Lowering the Bar, AP, earlier]

“I guess you know your date didn’t go very well when you get sued afterward.” [Lowering the Bar; Stanislav v. Papp] Per the New York appellate court’s statement of facts:

Plaintiff was injured when she fell off a horse while on a date with defendant. She alleges that defendant was negligent in failing to properly warn her and appreciate her limited level of skill as a rider, and in failing to pay proper attention to her request that the horses proceed at a slow pace in a careful manner.

The judges, however, upheld a lower court’s dismissal of the case (citations omitted):

Plaintiff has provided no evidence or authority which supports her contention that defendant owed her a duty to insure that the horseback riding experience was safe. As a person with experience riding horses, plaintiff was aware that the risks of falling from a horse or a horse acting in an unintended manner are inherent in the sport. Defendant’s conduct was not so unique or reckless as to create an additional unanticipated risk for plaintiff.

{ 4 comments }

Two doctors, frequent golf partners, were playing a round together when one was struck in the face at close range by the other’s ball. Lower courts dismissed the resulting case, which is now on appeal. [Lowering the Bar, WSJ Law Blog] Plus: WLF (“this is not a lawyer or doctor joke.”)

{ 3 comments }

Prince George’s County, Maryland: “The jury found that the tournament organizer, Baseball Players Association, built the pitcher’s mound too big and too deep.” [Ron Miller]

{ 10 comments }

May 16 roundup

by Walter Olson on May 16, 2010

{ 4 comments }

And then sues would-be suicide over foot injury sustained in the jump. The unusual case reached an Illinois appellate court last year, which ruled that a suit could proceed against the would-be suicide, though not his wife, who had also been named as a defendant on the grounds that she had requested the plaintiff’s help. [Illinois Injury Lawyer Blog]

{ 4 comments }