Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Posts tagged as:
She “was taking pictures on the railroad tracks in Tupelo in 2006″ and things didn’t end happily. Now her lawsuit says the train was going too fast and that the BNSF Railway Company “should have posted trespassing signs to keep people away.” People like her, that is. [AP/Jackson Clarion Ledger]
{ 3 comments }
{ 1 comment }
Add another to our list of tavern patrons who discovered that dancing on the bar was not as safe a pastime as they initially assumed. This time the scene of the accident, and target of the resulting lawsuit, is Nashville’s Coyote Ugly Saloon. Her attorney says Ms. Barnes “‘had had a few drinks’ but was not drunk.” [Tennessean via Day]
{ 4 comments }
dietary paternalism in Bloomberg’s NYC and Washington, D.C. doesn’t go over well with writers at Slate [William Saletan, Jacob Weisberg, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Glenn Reynolds] { 2 comments }
The California Supreme Court “has refused to reinstate a lawsuit by a man who approached the flames at the Burning Man festival and got burned.” [Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle; California Civil Justice; earlier here and here][name of second linked source corrected]
Personal injury law attorney/blogger John Hochfelder, who’s also guestblogging this week at my other website Point of Law, has this story from Gardiner, New York. More: Coyote, Right-Thinking from the Left Coast.
{ 11 comments }
A New Mexico appeals court says the stadium can be sued. [AmLaw Daily]
{ 2 comments }
“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.” [OnPoint News, ruling in PDF, Bob Egelko/San Francisco Chronicle, Shaun Martin/California Appellate Report (sees ruling as expanding scope of existing California assumption-of-risk defense), Michael Krauss/Point of Law (hails ruling), Lowering the Bar]
{ 5 comments }
Say not that the assumption-of-risk doctrine is defunct: “As a self-described expert skier with 13 years’ experience, Brian W. Martin, 17, was well aware of the risks associated with rail sliding and had acknowledged falling before while attempting to execute a rail maneuver, an Appellate Division, 3rd Department, panel ruled last week in Martin v. State of New York, 505999.” [NYLJ]
At a Dix Hills, Long Island golf course, Dr. Azad Anand was injured when his golfing buddy hit the ball flying without yelling the traditional cry of “fore”. A New York appellate court, however, “said getting hit by an errant ball is an ‘inherent risk of the game of golf.’” [AP/Staten Island Advance] More: John Hochfelder discusses the concept of the “foreseeable danger zone“.
{ 5 comments }
{ 4 comments }
A state Supreme Court ruling that allows a Bettendorf woman to sue over injuries her daughter suffered when she was struck with an errant bat at a minor-league baseball game threatens the spirit of America’s pastime, according to a judge who said his fellow justices have “taken a mighty swing … and missed by a mile.”
Cynthia Sweeney had signed a liability waiver, but sued anyway after her daughter, sitting in the bleachers as part of a school field trip, was struck by a bat that went flying. For more baseball-liability reports, follow our baseball tag.
{ 2 comments }
This time a New York city judge has dismissed the claim of Irish tourist Valerie Morris, who slipped while dancing on a bar and sued the bar owners. We’ve covered previous dancing-on-bar suits from Illinois here and here.
{ 1 comment }
{ 1 comment }
The famous West Coast festival has obtained a summary judgment against the lawsuit filed by attendee Anthony Beninati, who says he was — you have probably guessed the nature of the injury — burned “when he stumbled and fell into the Burning Man’s ashes trying to ignite a photo of a late friend” (California Civil Justice Blog; Anthony Beninati v. Black Rock City, LLC).
{ 1 comment }
The golf accident in Hillsborough County, Florida resulted in a $1 million payout. Several legal bloggers discussed the case on Twitter and Nicole Black picked us up on her compilation site, LegalTweets (which is worth checking out generally).
{ 4 comments }
It was only natural for the professional organization of the civil defense bar, the Defense Research Institute, to include bulletproof disclaimer language when sponsoring a charity race for its own lawyer-members at its annual meeting, which took place earlier this month in New Orleans. As Robert Ambrogi points out, the waiver/disclaimer warned of the risks of high altitude (in a famously low-altitude city) and asked the signer to affirm that various horrific-sounding risks, such as those of terrorism, “contribute to my enjoyment and excitement and are a reason for my voluntary participation”.
Point of Law Volokh