Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Class Canceled on March 31, 2010
We had eight years of Bush and Cheney, Now you get mad!?
You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.
You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.
You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.
You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.
You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.
You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.
You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.
You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.
You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.
You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.
You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.
You didn't get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.
You didn't get mad when we gave a 900 billion tax break to the rich.
You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.
You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with you, but helping other Americans...oh hell no.
Link: http://www.rosie.com/
Saturday, March 27, 2010
10 Ways the New Healthcare Bill May Affect You
The Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act, more commonly referred to as the "healthcare bill", has taken over a year to craft and has been a lightning rod for political debate because it effectively reshapes major facets of the country's healthcare industry.
Here are 10 things you need to know about how the new law may affect you:
http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/109178/10-ways-the-new-healthcare-bill-may-affect-you?mod=family-love_money
Contracts Case
STEPHANIE REITZ,Associated Press Writer |
NEW BRITAIN, Conn. (AP) — Among the nine siblings in their family, Rose Bakaysa and her younger sister Theresa Sokaitis shared a special bond.
As they hit their 70s and 80s, their dream of jackpot riches became a central part of that connection, fueling road trips three or four times a week to Foxwoods Resort Casino and countless lottery tickets that yielded a few bucks here and there, but no major money.
When Bakaysa and her brother won a $500,000 Powerball jackpot in 2005, it would seem the sisters' dreams finally had come true. But the windfall is now at the center of a court case pitting them against each other. The sisters, who haven't spoken since Sokaitis sued Bakaysa in 2005, faced each other Tuesday in New Britain Superior Court.
Sokaitis, 84, says Bakaysa, 87, violated a written, notarized contract to split all winnings. Bakaysa says Sokaitis had broken off the deal during a 2004 fight over a few hundred dollars. Sokaitis acknowledges they had a tiff, but believes the contract was still in place.
"I love my sister. There was no reason not to be partners," Sokaitis testified Tuesday.
Sokaitis said Bakaysa often helped her pay rent while she was raising her six children, helped her get back her car when it was repossessed and paid for one of her daughters' Catholic school tuition.
It was that daughter who informed Sokaitis of Bakaysa's $500,000 Powerball jackpot, which Bakaysa split with their brother instead of Sokaitis.
Bakaysa testified Tuesday that she started gambling with her brother instead of Sokaitis after their 2004 fight, which came not long after Bakaysa stayed with Sokaitis for a few weeks while recovering from heart surgery.
"She was shouting, 'I don't want to be your partner anymore.' I said all right, that was it, I tore up my contract," Bakaysa testified, sitting about 25 feet from Sokaitis as her sister hung her cane on the courtroom railing.
When Sokaitis learned of her sister's lottery win the next year, she asked for her share.
"I told her I felt I deserved a share of the money and she told me I wasn't going to get a dime," Sokaitis testified. "I said, 'I have a contract.' She said, 'I tore mine up.' I said, 'I didn't.'"
The brother, Joseph Troy Sr., was scheduled to testify Tuesday afternoon. A ruling was not immediately expected.
A judge had dismissed Sokaitis' lawsuit under a Connecticut law that makes gambling contracts illegal. But the state Supreme Court, in a ruling that took effect in August, said the sisters' agreement wasn't covered by that law because it involves legal activities. It said the case could go to trial.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Invasion of Privacy?
The world revolves around Lindsay! Lindsay Lohan is suing the financial company E-Trade, insisting that a boyfriend-stealing, "milkaholic" baby in its latest commercial -- who happens to be named Lindsay -- was modeled after her. And she wants $100 million for her pain and suffering, The Post has learned. Is this an invasion of privacy or is the recovering drug addict looking for money?
Here's the link on the rest of the story
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35780790/
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
case of product liability
Sunday, 21 March 2010
The California auto defects lawyers of BISNAR | CHASE (www.BestAttorney.com) have filed a products liability wrongful death lawsuit against Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Motor Sales USA after an April 2008 rollover crash (http://www.autoproductliabilitylawyers.com/rollover.shtml) that killed Jeffrey Bachman, a former resident of Virginia. The lawsuit alleges that the 1998 Toyota 4Runner SUV Jeffrey Bachman was driving at the time of his death was defective and failed to properly protect him against fatal injuries during the crash. The lawsuit was brought against the defendants by Jeffrey's wife, Angela Bachman.
Toyota 4Runner Roof Crush, Rollover Causes Fatal Injuries
According to court documents, Jeffrey Bachman was driving a 1998 Toyota 4Runner SUV on I-95 in Cumberland, North Carolina on his way home to Virginia on April 13, 2008. As Jeffrey was changing lanes on the highway, the 4Runner unexpectedly swerved and rolled over due to alleged lateral and directional instability. During the crash sequence, the roof of the SUV crushed inward, partially ejecting Jeffrey from the vehicle and causing him to sustain massive and devastating head injuries, including skull fractures and fractured vertebrae. Jeffrey died at the hospital shortly after the crash, leaving behind his wife and six children.
Narrow Track Width, High Center of Gravity in Toyota 4Runner Blamed
According to the lawsuit, the Toyota 4Runner Jeffrey was driving at the time of his death had a high center of gravity and an unacceptably narrow track width which contributed to its lateral and directional instability, ultimately causing it to roll over.
What's more, the lawsuit alleges that the 4Runner's A, B, C and D pillars/windshield headers and roof rails lacked sufficient strength and structural integrity to withstand minimal roof crushing (http://www.bestattorney.com/roof_crush.html) forces without imparting injuries to occupants during rollover crashes, and that the use of tempered glass in the side windows and the lack of side curtain airbags increased the likelihood of severe and fatal injuries due to the ejection of occupants during a rollover crash.
"Tragically, Toyota's 4Runner SUV offered Jeffrey zero protection against mortal injuries during this rollover crash," said Brian Chase of the BISNAR | CHASE Auto Products Liability Law Firm (http://www.autoproductliabilitylawyers.com/). "As far as handling, it's unlikely that even a professional driver would have been able to regain control of this SUV. We believe Toyota acted in callous and negligent disregard for human safety by allowing its 4Runner to be sold to the public in the first place, knowing it was wrought with defects."
Toyota's Knowledge of 4Runner Defects
The suit alleges that even before it was manufactured, the Toyota 4Runner failed stability tests, being named the number two most likely vehicle in its class to roll over in a five-state study undertaken and/or described in the Federal Registry. And it's alleged that during Toyota's own in-house testing, the 4Runner obtained two wheel tip-up at speeds in the 35 miles per hour range.
What's more, the lawsuit claims that as far back as 1968, Toyota was fully aware -- through crash data, in-house testing, field-service reports and published studies -- that its SUVs were susceptible to injury-producing forces that would result in serious head and neck injuries during rollover crashes.
The lawsuit goes on to claim that defective and unsafe side and rear windows that did not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 205, as well as the absence of side-curtain airbags (http://www.bestattorney.com/airbag-failure.html), failed to restrain Jeffrey during the crash and as a result, allowed him to be partially ejected from the vehicle.
Finally, the suit alleges that Toyota misrepresented the character and quality of its third generation 4Runner through marketing, advertising, and promotional materials, by warranting that the SUV was safe for its intended purpose. The lawsuit is pending in the State of North Carolina, County of Durham, case # 10CV002375.
About BISNAR | CHASE
The BISNAR | CHASE Auto Defect Attorneys (http://www.bestattorney.com/defective_auto_part.html) represent people throughout the country who have been very seriously injured or lost a family member due to motor vehicle defects. The law firm has won a variety of challenging auto defect cases against General Motors, Ford Motor Co., Chrysler and many of the foreign manufacturers. For more information, read the book "Still Unsafe At Any Speed: Auto Defects
Monday, March 22, 2010
Universal Health Care in Other Countries and Higher Taxes
Study: 45,000 Uninsured Die a Year
While Debate Continues Over Cost of Insuring Everyone, Harvard Study Links Deaths to Lack of Coverage
VIDEOCongress Grills Big InsuranceExecutives from six of the nation's largest insurers were grilled about their company's policies before members of Congress. Nancy Cordes reports.
SPECIAL REPORTHealth CareThe latest news and analysis on the continuing battle over Barack Obama's health care reform plans.
Having quit his full-time job at a dairy to freelance in the catering business -- gambling he wouldn't need the insurance -- Durate didn't go to the doctor until he could no longer eat. The diagnosis: Stage 4 stomach cancer. Medicaid paid for his surgery last April.
"Would you have been in a different place if you had health insurance?" asked CBS News correspondent Jim Axelrod.
"Totally," Durate said. "I would have been able to go to a doctor like maybe last year."
"We found that 45,000 Americans are dying annually, due to lack of health insurance," said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler.
Woolhandler was part of a team that tracked more than 9,000 people for up to 13 years, comparing the health of those with insurance to those without. After factoring in education and income, smoking, drinking and obesity, researchers found that the uninsured had about a 40 percent higher risk of death, linking 45,000 American deaths a year to lack of insurance. In 1993 it was 25 percent.
Read the full report
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care Reform
"We have lots of good treatments for high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol that can now prevent complications, that can now lengthen our patients' lives, but we can't do anything for our patients if they can't afford to come to our offices," Woolhandler said.
John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis said the study results are exaggerated. Researchers don't know how the uninsured died or if they were uninsured the entire time they were being tracked. But even this critic agrees with the basic premise.
"I think you can't trust the results," Goodman said. "Having said that, we ought to do something for the uninsured."
It's not getting easier even for those who do have insurance. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average cost of a family health insurance policy is now more than $13,000, having more than doubled this decade.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Black people must leave, NJ Walmart announcer says
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Sheriff: Man Sold His Wife For Sex On Craigslist
Clinton Danner, 32, of Rockford, Minn., is charged with felony pandering for allegedly sending his wife to at least eight states to have sex with men in encounters he set up on online and forcing her to deposit the proceeds into his own bank account.
Craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster is reacting to the arrest of a Minnesota man accused of selling his wife's sexual services on the online classified site.
Buckmaster didn't comment on the specifics of the Chicago arrest. But he said Wednesday that Craigslist works with law enforcement when called upon to help solve and prosecute crimes.
He also warns that using Craigslist for criminal purposes "is extremely unwise" because it leads to an electronic trail.
Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart says 32-year-old Clinton Danner from Rockford, Minn., convinced his wife she would never see their preschooler again if she didn't have sex with strangers for money.
Danner was arrested Sunday at a Chicago hotel. He faces a felony charge and is being held on $150,000 bond. It isn't clear if he has an attorney.
Private school students' gay-bashing not free speech, court rules
March 17, 2010 | 11:04 am
Students at an elite L.A. private school who posted death threats and antigay messages on the Internet site of a 15-year-old classmate can't claim the constitutional protection of free speech, a California appeals court has ruled.
The parents of the boy targeted by the threatening and derogatory posts on his website withdrew him from Harvard-Westlake School and moved to Northern California to protect him from classmates who had incorrectly labeled him as gay and pronounced him "wanted dead or alive," the boy's father said in a lawsuit brought against six students and their parents.
The defendants had attempted to deflect the charges by seeking a judgment from Los Angeles County Superior Court that the comments were 1st Amendment-protected speech on an issue of public interest, a motion denied by the lower court and upheld by the 2nd District Court of Appeal in a 2-1 decision Monday.
The Los Angeles Police Department detective who initially investigated the hostile website postings against the student, identified only as D.C., had declined to pursue charges against the other students, saying their "annoying and immature Internet communications did not meet the criteria for criminal prosecution."
The Los Angeles County district attorney likewise declined to prosecute.
The appeals court decision separating cyber-bullying from free speech will allow the boy and his parents to move forward with their suit against the students for alleged hate crimes.
--Carol J. Williams
Idaho signs law to sue Federal Gov for mandating health care; similar legislation pending in 37 states
BOISE, Idaho — Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.
Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.
Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.
But the state measures reflect a growing frustration with President President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The proposal would cover some 30 million uninsured people, end insurance practices such as denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, require almost all Americans to get coverage by law, and try to slow the cost of medical care nationwide.
Democratic leaders hope to vote on it this weekend.
With Washington closing in on a deal in the months-long battle over health care overhaul, Republican state lawmakers opposed to the measure are stepping up opposition.
Otter, a Republican, said he believes any future lawsuit from Idaho has a legitimate shot of winning, despite what the naysayers say.
"The ivory tower folks will tell you, 'No, they're not going anywhere,' " he told reporters. "But I'll tell you what, you get 36 states, that's a critical mass. That's a constitutional mass."
Last week, Virginia legislators passed a measure similar to Idaho's new law, but Otter was the first state chief executive to sign such a bill, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, which created model legislation for Idaho and other states. The Washington, D.C.,-based nonprofit group promotes limited government.
"Congress is planning to force an unconstitutional mandate on the states," said Herrera, the group's health task force director.
Otter already warned U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in December that Idaho was considering litigation. He signed the bill during his first public ceremony of the 2010 Legislature.
"What the Idaho Health Freedom Act says is that the citizens of our state won't be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control," Otter said.
Minority Democrats in Idaho who opposed the bill called the lawsuits frivolous.
Senate Minority Leader Kate Kelly, D-Boise, also complained about the bill's possible price tag. Those who drafted the new law say enforcement may require an additional Idaho deputy attorney general with an annual salary of $100,000 a year.
Kelly said that was irresponsible when Idaho is grappling with a $200 million budget hole.
"For Democrats in the Legislature, our priority is jobs," she said. "We'd rather Gov. Otter was holding a signing ceremony for (a jobs package) meant to put Idaho residents back to work."
Does Lindsay have a case?
Consumer Protection
Check this link:
http://www.rinkworks.com/said/warnings.shtml#http://www.rinkworks.com/said/warnings.shtml
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
$50 million lawsuit filed by chimp-attack victim
STAMFORD, Conn. - The family of a woman mauled by a chimpanzee filed a lawsuit seeking $50 million in damages against the primate's owner, saying she was negligent and reckless for lacking the ability to control "a wild animal with violent propensities."
Attorneys for Charla Nash, who remains in critical condition, filed the lawsuit against Sandra Herold late Monday in Superior Court in Stamford.
The suit also alleges that Herold had given the chimp medication that further upset the animal. Herold has made conflicting public statements about whether she gave Xanax, an anti-anxiety drug, to Travis on the day of the attack. The drug had not been prescribed for the animal, police said.
Suit accuses negligence, recklessness
Herold knew the 200-pound chimp, Travis, was agitated when she asked Nash to come to her house on Feb. 16, the lawsuit said. The suit accuses Herold of negligence and recklessness for owning "a wild animal with violent propensities, even though she lacked sufficient skill, strength and/or experience to subdue the chimpanzee when necessary."
"Our client, Charla Nash, has suffered and will continue to suffer agony and pain beyond our comprehension," attorney Charles Willinger said at a news conference in Bridgeport. "This is a tragedy ... that should not have happened."
Herold's attorney, Joseph Gerardi, declined to comment Tuesday.
Nash, 55, lost her hands, nose, lips and eyelids in the 12-minute mauling. Many bones in her face were crushed, and the attack may also have left her blind and brain damaged. She is in critical condition at the Cleveland Clinic, which in December performed the first face transplant in the United States. Doctors haven't said if Nash will be a candidate for such a procedure.
Another of Nash's attorneys said she can respond to some verbal commands, but the extent of possible brain damage is still unknown. "Going forward, there's going to be astronomical expenses associated with the procedures she's going to require," attorney William Monaco said.
At least $50 million
By state law, Nash's lawsuit seeks only an amount greater than $15,000. But Nash's attorneys are also seeking an account of Herold's assets — including six pieces of property she owns and her stake in a Stamford used car dealership — in hopes of securing $50 million for possible damages, according to court papers. Attorneys say it's unknown if Herold has that much in assets.
"No amount of money can compensate my sister for the injuries she has suffered," Michael Nash, the appointed conservator of his sister's estate, said in an affidavit. "Nevertheless, it is my belief that probable cause exists that judgment will enter in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of at least $50 million."
The judge granted a temporary restraining order that prevents Herold from selling or mortgaging her assets, and scheduled an April 13 hearing on the attorney's request for detailed financial information from Herold.
Herold had asked Nash to come to her home in Stamford on the day of the attack to help lure Travis back into her house. Herold has speculated that the chimp was trying to protect her and attacked Nash because she had changed her hairstyle, was driving a different car and was holding a stuffed toy in front of her face to get Travis' attention.
Chimp shot and killed by police
The animal was shot and killed by police, who are weighing whether to file criminal charges against Herold.
Two other people have said that Travis bit them, in 1996 and 1998. A former animal control officer has said that she warned Herold after a 2003 escape that the pet's behavior was worrisome and she needed to keep it under control.
McDonalds Illusory Defenses
(For a larger view, click on the photo)
Monday, March 15, 2010
Tiger attack in San Fran: Case of strict liability
Published 1, January 18, 2008 Bizarre , Criminal law , Environment , Lawyering , Torts 4 Comments
It appears that the tiger attack in the San Francisco Zoo may boil down to a case over plaintiffs’ conduct. New reports indicate that the two brothers mauled in the attack may have taunted the tiger, stood on the railings, and at least one may have been drunk at the time of the attack.
This week it was revealed that toxicology tests showed that Paul Dhaliwal had a blood alcohol level of 0.16 — twice the legal limit for driving. Paul Dhaliwal reportedly admitted to the father of Carlos Sousa Jr., 17, who was killed in the attack, that the three young men taunted the tiger. He alleged admitted that they yelled and stood on the three-foot metal railing.
A foot print was found a partial shoe print that matched Paul Dhaliwal’s shoe on top of the railing. Various witnesses have reported stated that they saw the men teasing and taunting the Tiger.
Reports further suggest that 24-year-old Kulbir Dhaliwal and Sousa also had alcohol in their blood as well as marijuana in their systems. Some papers are stating that Kulbir Dhaliwal told police that the three had smoked pot had been drinking vodka. As discussed below, this raises a good defense if the case is handled in negligence as opposed to strict liability.
The legal status of the San Francisco Zoo appears to be rather bad with litigation inevitable. The zoo’s director admitted earlier that a wall that separated the public from the zoo’s tigers is nearly 6 feet lower than initially reported — and nearly 4 feet lower than industry standards. In the meantime, the father of the teen killed by the tiger has accused of the zoo of negligence.
The zoo director said that the dry moat between the wall and the tiger exhibit is 33 feet, but the wall itself is 12 and a half feet, not 18 feet.
The police are reportedly looking into a shoe print on the inside of the enclosure and the possibility that the tiger escaped by latching on to a leg or other body part of one of the victims to escape.
The lower wall may explain the skepticism of experts over the theory that the tiger lept out of the enclosure. Experts said such an extraordinary feat would reduce possible liability by showing that it was unforeseeable and unprecedented.
Zoo attacks (sounds like a Fox special, I know) are not uncommon. Only a year ago, the National Zoo in Washington was briefly shut down after a clouded leopard escaped overnight and was found snoozing in another part of the zoo.
Under the common law, possessors are strictly liable for injuries causes by their wild animals. A Siberian tiger would certainly fit into that category. However, many states have passed special legislation to protect zoos from strict liability, often returning them to a standard negligence standard.
In a case related to this zoo in 1952, a state court ruled that strict liability would not apply to a man mauled by a bear. Arthur McKinney was bitten when he reached toward or into the bear’s cage. The court applied a negligence standard and found in favor of the zoo. McKinney argued on appeal that the common law rule of strict liability for wild animals should apply. He lost. The appellate court found that he would have to show a “dangerous or defective condition” of public property that officials should have known about and failed to repair. That could be the case with the inadequate enclosure but the men would still prefer a strict liability standard. They may argue that the state liability rules were overhauled since 1952 and thus a new standard could apply.
As a general rule, courts have rejected strict liability claims on the basis that this is a public enterprise as well as rejecting attractive nuisance claims for children injured. In Guzzi v. New York Zoological Soc’y, 182 N.Y.S. 257 (N.Y. App. Div. 1920), the court held that the society, which maintained the Bronx Zoo, would not be liable in strict liability or nuisance after a girl who crept under the cage of a bear.
The problem of the zoo is that it appears that this is a second attack by this tiger at this zoo. Families watched in shock in 2006 when Tatiana mauled a zoo keeper.
To make matters worse for the zoo, emergency personnel have complained that there was confusion and insufficient lighting in responding to the emergency call. The tiger arrived in San Francisco from the Denver Zoo on December 16, 2005.
The new allegations could raise a serious defense in a negligence case. Under the older common law rule (still followed in a couple of states) any contributory negligence — even one percent — was a total bar to recovery. Under this rule, the men would be barred. However, California follows a pure comparative fault rule. This is fortunate for a couple of reasons for the men. Under a partial or modified comparative rule, they would be barred from recovery if their negligence was over 50 percent. If they were drunk and taunting a tiger, the jury could well find them more at fault.
In a pure comparative system, the jury or judge allocates the percentage of responsibility and reduces the award by the percent of responsibility assigned to the plaintiffs. This would mean that the case could survive to a verdict and damages — though with a likely reduction given their own alleged misconduct.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Pledge of Allegiance's God reference now upheld by court
March 12, 2010|By Carol J. Williams
The Pledge of Allegiance to "one nation under God" doesn't violate a citizen's right to be free of state-mandated religion, a divided federal appeals court ruled Thursday in reversing one of its most controversial decisions.
In a 2-1 ruling, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said no federal law requires students to recite the pledge or the religious reference in it.
The 9th Circuit had ruled in 2002 in a case brought by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the wording violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution's 1st Amendment, which prohibits the enactment of any law or official policy in support of a religion.
A U.S. Supreme Court review in 2004 ducked the constitutional question. The justices threw out Newdow's lawsuit against the Elk Grove Unified School District, which his daughter attended, on grounds that he lacked standing to sue because he didn't have primary custody of the girl.
Joined by other Sacramento-area parents opposed to the pledge, Newdow, a physician with a law degree, brought an identical challenge against the Rio Linda Union School District practice of leading daily pledges and secured a ruling in his favor from U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. The judge cited the 9th Circuit's holding that Congress rendered the pledge unconstitutional when it added the words "under God" in 1954, in a Cold War-era gesture against the godless communism of the Soviet Union.
Thursday's ruling brings the 9th Circuit in line with other federal appeals courts in upholding a school's right to conduct the patriotic ritual. That unity among the circuit courts makes it unlikely that the Supreme Court will again review the decision, both Newdow and those in favor of preserving the "under God" reference said.
"This is not a politically popular cause and those who would disenfranchise a majority have the power to do it," said Newdow, who endured virulent scorn and death threats after the 2002 ruling. He conceded that the 9th Circuit reversal could prove the last word in his quest to have the pledge deemed unconstitutional. Despite the bleak outlook, he said he would petition for rehearing by a full 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit and for Supreme Court review.
In a separate case decided Thursday, the same three-judge panel rejected Newdow's challenge to the imprinting of "In God We Trust" on the national money, citing a Supreme Court ruling that the phrase constitutes a national motto.
"Not every mention of God or religion by our government or at the government's direction is a violation of the Establishment Clause," wrote Judge Carlos T. Bea, citing tax exemptions for religious groups and Nativity displays on government property that have passed high-court review.
"The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded and for which we continue to strive: one Nation under God--the Founding Fathers' belief that the people of this nation are endowed by their Creator," wrote Bea, an appointee of President George W. Bush, who was joined in the decision by Judge Dorothy W. Nelson.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Truck-driver father runs over own daughter; guess who is to blame?
Truck-driver father runs over own daughter; guess who is to blame?
In 2004, truck driver Simon Loza Mejia violated company regulations, and took his eight-year-old Diana Yuleidy Loza-Jimenez along on a long-haul trip from Oregon to Bakersfield. That November 27, he was pulling away in the truck, but apparently didn’t bother to check where his daughter was, and ran over her. This was, argued her attorneys, the fault of her father’s employer—and a Sacramento County judge agreed with the argument that it was legally irrelevant that her father was the one who ran her over. Unsurprisingly, a jury ignorant of the facts awarded Diana, whose lower body was crushed, a jackpot verdict of $24.3 million, over $20 million of which was noneconomic damages. (Andy Furillo, “Sacramento jury awards record $24.3 million to girl run over by dad’s truck”, Sacramento Bee, Mar. 9 (h/t @BobDorigoJones)).
http://overlawyered.com/2010/03/truck-driver-father-runs-over-own-daughter-guess-who-is-to-blame/
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
C'mon Lindsay, really??
Lindsay Lohan wants $100M over E-Trade ad
Cries over E-Trade ad, wants $100M
Last Updated: 4:01 PM, March 9, 2010
Posted: 2:32 AM, March 9, 2010
EXCLUSIVE
The world revolves around Lindsay.
Lindsay Lohan is suing the financial company E-Trade, insisting that a boyfriend-stealing, "milkaholic" baby in its latest commercial -- who happens to be named Lindsay -- was modeled after her. And she wants $100 million for her pain and suffering, The Post has learned.
The actress filed a lawsuit yesterday in Nassau County Supreme Court over the commercial that debuted during the Super Bowl this year.
The ad -- part of a series starring babies who play the stock market -- features a boy apologizing to his girlfriend via video chat for not calling her the night before.
"And that milkaholic Lindsay wasn't over?" the baby girl asks him suspiciously.
"Lindsay?" the boy replies, just before a baby girl sticks her head into the frame and slurs, "Milk-a-what?"
Lohan's lawyer, Stephanie Ovadia, said the actress has the same single-name recognition as Oprah or Madonna.
"Many celebrities are known by one name only, and E-Trade is using that knowledge to profit," Ovadia said.
"They used the name Lindsay," Ovadia said. "They're using her name as a parody of her life. Why didn't they use the name Susan? This is a subliminal message. Everybody's talking about it and saying it's Lindsay Lohan."
Ovadia wants an injunction to force the spot off the air, and the Lindsay camp wants every last copy of the commercial.
Chris Brown, a spokesman for Grey Group, which produced the spot, is throwing cold milk on the controversy, saying it "just used a popular baby name that happened to be the name of someone on the account team."
Ovadia said E-Trade has violated Lohan's rights under New York state civil-rights law and used her "name and characterization" in business without paying her or getting her approval.
The lawyer said that since the spot was seen by hundreds of millions of people watching the Super Bowl and Winter Olympics finals, the firm has garnered great profits.
She says Lohan is owed $50 million in exemplary damages, plus another $50 million in compensatory damages.
E-Trade could not be reached for comment.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/lohan_such_baby_jVdQWABj9z0MgXzCv1Nh1O#ixzz0hjXSFjd6
Friday, March 5, 2010
10 ft. of gauze found in patient: did res ipsa loquitur apply?
CASE Background: On October 13, 2002, Carlos Ivey was struck by a motor vehicle and sustained a severe injury to his right thigh. Ivey sought treatment for his injury at the emergency room at Carraway Methodist Medical Center. After a physical examination and X-rays, Ivey was diagnosed with a large contusion. He was given prescription medication and discharged. Ivey returned to the hospital's emergency room on October 30, 2002, because he had experienced increased swelling and pain from the injury following his discharge. ACT scan revealed a large collection of fluid on the front middle portion of the right thigh. Ivey was diagnosed as having an infection and Necrotic cellulitis ( a spreading bacterial infection just below the skin surface). Because of the severity of the infection, Ivey was admitted to the hospital and antibiotics were administered. On the night of Iveys' admission, Dr. Robert Stinson performed an irrigation procedure during which he made an incision into the wound, drained fluid from it and removed dead skin tissue in order to reduce the swelling and clean the infected area. Following the procedure, the open cavity of the wound was packed with rolls of Kerlix gauze, a clean dressing commonly used to "pack," plug, and absorb drainage in large wounds. It is manufactured in rolls that are two to four inches wide, and twelve feet long.
Testimony at trial explained that packing a large wound is done by placing an entire roll of gauze into the wound, but 'leaving a tail' until the gauze is extracted from the site of the wound. On October 31, 2002, Dr. Carraway performed a second irrigation and debridement procedure. He maintained that before he entered the operating room equipped for performing surgical operations, nurses had prepped Ivey's wound for surgery, including removing all the gauze from the site. He stated that he visually inspected the site before starting the procedure, and he did not notice any foreign objects. Dr. Carraway removed more dead tissue from the site and cleaned it. Dr. Carraway testified that before completing the procedure, he felt inside the cavity with his fingers to ensure that it was clean and that no foreign objects remained in it. He also asked for and received a correct needle and sponge count from the nurses. Dr. Carraway stated that he did not use Kerlix gauze during the operation, that Kerlix gauze is not used in surgeries, and is not included in the count taken at the end of a surgical operation. Following surgery, an open cavity' remained at the wound site measuring approximately seven inches by six inches and varying in depth. The cavity was repacked with Kerlix gauze each time. However, Dr. Carraway stated that he never packed or repacked the cavity. The patient did not contradict Dr. Carraway. After Dr. Carraway left the operating room, nurses again packed the wound cavity with Kerlix gauze. Ivey remained hospitalized, and Dr. Carraway ordered certain treatment for the wound infection, including whirlpool therapy and more antibiotics. The Kerlix gauze packing was removed each time. Dr. Carrawav stated that he did not use Kerlix gauze during the operation, that Kerlix gauze is not used in surgeries, and is not included in the count taken at the end of an operation. Ultimately, the patient was transferred to Cooper Green Medical Center (Cooper (keen) where, during exploratory surgery by Dr. Phillip Johnson, Dr. Johnson removed a large piece of Kerlix gauze which was inside an abscess. The piece of Kerlix gauze was approximately ten feet long!
CASE FACTS-On October 22, 2004, Ivey filed suit against CMMC, and Dr. Carraway alleging that the defendants had violated the standard of care as evidenced by the Kerlix Gauze found by Dr. Johnson inside Ivey's right leg. Both defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court entered an order granting CMMC's motion for summary judgment motion for summary judgment (a written request for a judgment in the moving party's favor before a lawsuit goes to trial and based on recorded testimony outside court)The case against Dr. Carraway proceeded to trial. After a jury trial, the trial judge granted Dr. Carraway's motion for summary, judgment. The patient appealed.
COURT'S OPINION: The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the trial judge's granting of Dr. Carraway's Motion for summary judgment. The court held, inter alia- A phrase used in Pleading to designate that a particular statute set out therein is only a part of the statute that is relevant to the facts of the lawsuit and not the entire statute. , that the patient failed to present expert testimonyTestimony about a scientific, technical, or professional issue given by a person qualified to testify because of familiarity with the subject or special training in the field. ..... Click the link for more information. concerning whether Dr. Carraway breached the applicable standard of care by failing to discovery and remove the Kerlix gauze from Ivey's leg in order to preserve a jury question on that issue. Because the patient failed to do so, the court concluded that the trial court correctly granted Dr. Carraway's motion for judgment as a matter of lawJudgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is a motion made by a party, during trial, claiming the opposing party has insufficient evidence to reasonably support its case. JMOL is similar to summary judgment, which is a motion made before trial. ..... Click the link for more information.. LEGAL COMMENTARY: The Court rejected the plaintiff's contention that because a foreign object was left inside the patient, the doctrine of RIL RIL Recombinant Inbred Lines was applicable and would have entitled the plaintiff to a jury trial on the grounds that in such cases there is no need for a plaintiff to have to introduce expert medical testimony. Undoubtedly, some courts would have ruled that the doctrine of RIL was applicable, had they been confronted with the same set of facts and circumstances as was the court in the case at bar. However, this court did not see fit to invoke the doctrine.
If not in such a case, then when?
Like this Story? Share it: