Today, two decisions were issued from the First Department pertaining to premises liability. The first decision concerns the “sole proximate cause” defense and the second decision reiterates the notion that an owner of premises will not be insulated from liability merely because it complies with the building codes.
Read the rest of this entry »
As of March 1, 2015, parties to litigation in New York Courts are required to redact confidential personal information (“CPI”) on any documents filed in the Supreme and County Courts. Given the number of deposition transcripts and Bills of Particulars that I have seen submitted without redacting personal information (such as social security number, taxpayer identification number, or birth date), it appears that many practicing attorneys have not received the memo.
To paraphrase the New Age Outlaws, “Oh you didn’t know, well then you better call somebody!”
Two recent local cases, one from the Second Circuit and one from the District of New Jersey, serve as reminders regarding the reach of the “Good Samaritan” clause of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) and demonstrate that the CDA is a powerful defense against tort claims brought against operators of websites. Read the rest of this entry »
As reported by multiple media outlets, a Yankee fan who fell asleep during the New York Yankees-Boston Red Sox game on April 13th filed a lawsuit against the Yankees; ESPN New York; MLB Advanced Media; and ESPN announcers, Dan Shulman and John Kruk.
The Complaint, which was filed by Okwara & Associates, P.C. on July 3rd in the Bronx County Supreme Court, alleges that “announcers like” Shulman and Kruk “unleashed [sic] avalanche of disparaging words against the . . . plaintiff” when ESPN’s Sunday Night Baseball broadcast showed Andrew Rector “nap[ping]” during the top of fourth inning of “the rivalry game between the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankee [sic].” The alleged defamatory language included: “stupor, fatty, unintelligent, [and] stupid.” Read the rest of this entry »
The Supreme Court of Alaska Upholds Constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and Holds That Negligence Claims Arising From the Theft of a Firearm Do Not Meet an Enumerated Exception to the Act
On February 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of Alaska issued its decision in Estate of Kim v. Coxe, No. S-14077, 2013 Alas. LEXIS 18 (Alaska Feb. 22, 2013), which affirmed the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7901, et seq. (“PLCAA” or the “Act”) and held that the Act prohibits lawsuits against a manufacturer or seller based on general negligence theories. In fact, the Alaska Supreme Court specifically held that the theft of a firearm from a retailer “does not support liability under claims excepted from the PLCAA.”
On August 2, 2006, Jason Coday entered Defendant’s gun shop (Rayco Sales). All three persons present in Rayco that afternoon (owner Ray Coxe, employee Bill Driver, and customer Stan Buckham) testified that they did not notice any behavior from Coday to indicate danger or potential for violence. After Coday inquired about purchasing a .22 caliber rifle for target shooting, Coxe suggested a used Ruger rifle priced at $195. Coday ultimately stated that he would have to think about the purchase and appeared to be leaving the store. When Coxe left the store front, Coday then stole the rifle and left two $100 bills on the counter. Read the rest of this entry »