U.S. ordered to pay $4.4 million for Weston air traffic controller's negligence in fatal crash

I think that this is an interesting case of how an air traffic control center can be held partially liable for an aircraft accident. It shows how important it is for an air traffic control center to assist pilots with information about weather conditions and navigation, and that failure to do so can be considered negligence if an aircraft crashes as a result of not being given important flight-related information.

To read more visit: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/fl-boca-pilot-killed-bulldog-20111213,0,7126252.story

US urges ban on texting, talking while driving

By SHAYA TAYEFE MOHAJER LOS ANGELES (AP) — Ren Bishop is one of many American drivers who texts, tweets and talks on her cellphone while she's behind the wheel — and thinks it should be up to drivers to use their discretion when it comes to safety. Though she admits thumbing her phone while driving is bad habit, the University of Missouri student says drivers "are mature enough to understand when it is appropriate and when it is not." The National Transportation Safety Board disagrees, and it declared Tuesday that texting, emailing or chatting while driving is simply too dangerous to be allowed anywhere in the United States. The board is urging all states to impose total bans except for emergencies following recent deadly crashes, including one in Missouri after a teenager sent or received 11 text messages within 11 minutes. The unanimous recommendation from the five-member board would apply even to hands-free devices, a much stricter rule than any current state law. NTSB chairwoman Deborah Hersman acknowledged that complying would involve changing what has become ingrained behavior for many Americans. "We're not here to win a popularity contest," she said. "No email, no text, no update, no call is worth a human life." Currently, 35 states and the District of Columbia ban texting while driving, while nine states and Washington, D.C., bar hand-held cellphone use. Thirty states ban all cellphone use for beginning drivers. But enforcement is generally not a high priority, and no states ban the use of hands-free devices for all drivers. The immediate impetus for the NTSB's recommendation was last year's deadly pileup near Gray Summit, Mo., involving a 19-year-old pickup driver. The board said the initial collision was caused by the teen's inattention while texting a friend about events of the previous night. The pickup, traveling 55 mph, hit the back of a tractor truck that had slowed for highway construction. The pickup was rear-ended by a school bus, and a second school bus rammed into the back of the first bus. The pickup driver and a 15-year-old student on one of the buses were killed. Thirty-eight other people were injured. In Missouri, texting is illegal for drivers 21 and under, which means the law would have applied to the 19-year-old. But the ban isn't aggressively enforced, NTSB member Robert Sumwalt said. "Without the enforcement, the laws don't mean a whole lot," he said. The law didn't apply to 22-year-old Bishop when she was pulled over Monday night for swerving while texting on the University of Missouri campus. She blames a late night and schoolwork. The officer who stopped her told her to put her phone in the back seat and sent her home with a warning. "I definitely have the bad habit of tweeting and driving, texting and driving, and updating my Facebook status," Bishop said. "I probably shouldn't but the technology makes it too easy." About two out of 10 American drivers overall — and half of drivers between 21 and 24 — say they've thumbed messages or emailed from the driver's seat, according to a survey of more than 6,000 drivers by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. At any given moment last year on America's streets and highways, nearly one in every 100 car drivers was texting, emailing, surfing the Web or otherwise using a hand-held electronic device, the safety administration said. Those activities were up 50 percent over the previous year. NTSB investigators said they are seeing increasing texting, cellphone calls and other distracting behavior by drivers in accidents involving all kinds of transportation. It has become routine to immediately request the preservation of cellphone and texting records when an investigation begins. In the past few years, the board has investigated a train collision in which the engineer was texting that killed 25 people in Chatsworth, Calif., a fatal accident near Philadelphia in which a tugboat pilot was talking on his cellphone and using a laptop computer, and a Northwest Airlines flight that sped more than 100 miles past its destination because both pilots were working on their laptops. Last year, a driver was dialing his cellphone when his truck crossed a highway median near Munford, Ind., and collided with a 15-passenger van. Eleven people were killed. While the NTSB doesn't have the power to impose restrictions, its recommendations carry significant weight with federal regulators, Congress and state lawmakers. But the board's decision to include hands-free cellphone use in its recommendation is likely to prove especially controversial. No states currently ban hand-free use, although many studies show that it is often as unsafe as hand-held phone use because drivers' minds are on their conversations rather than what's happening on the road. Bike messenger Jesus Santa Rosa, 24, says he's seen a lot of accidents that are caused by people using their cellphones while he maneuvers through the streets of downtown Los Angeles. "I've seen people taking red lights while they're looking down at their cellphones," said Santa Rosa. "And a lot of people get hit — bike messengers, pedestrians." Santa Rosa says he was sideswiped by a woman who was exiting the freeway and charging onto downtown's surface streets at a high speed. "This girl, when she stopped after she hit me, she was still talking on the phone as she got out of the car, like, telling someone she almost just killed someone," Santa Rosa said. Still, he said a ban on hands-free devices would probably be going too far because "texting is more dangerous. They're not looking up." Another NTSB recommendation Tuesday urges states to aggressively enforce current bans on text messaging and the use of cellphones and other portable electronic devices while driving. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported earlier this year that pilot projects in Syracuse, N.Y., and Hartford, Conn., produced significant reductions in distracted driving by combining stepped-up ticketing with high-profile public education campaigns. Miami computer salesman Cully Waggoner, 50, agreed that texting is a danger to drivers but said enforcing bans is difficult. What may be more effective is harnessing technology to make technology safer, he said. Perhaps phone manufacturers can be required to equip phones with a technology that disables texting and data packages if the phone is moving over a certain speed, Waggoner said. "That would be the only way to get around to fixing anything: Go right to the technology that's being used," Waggoner said. Otherwise, "there's all kinds of laws on the books that people break every day, this would just be another one." ___ Shaya Tayefe Mohajer can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/APShaya . Associated Press writer Joan Lowy in Washington contributed to this report and can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/AP_Joan_Lowy . 2011-12-14 07:30:31 GMT

Copyright 2011. The Associated Press All Rights Reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

Updated 10/11/2006 10:53 AM ET

By Laura Parker, USA TODAY

A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."

Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. — first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review — represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing."

BEWARE OF BLOGS: Courts are asked to crack down on bloggers, websites

Lidsky says the case could represent a coming trend in court fights over online messages because the woman who won the damage award, Sue Scheff of Weston, Fla., pursued the case even though she knew the defendant, Carey Bock of Mandeville, La., has no hope of paying such an award. Bock, who had to leave her home for several months because of Hurricane Katrina, couldn't afford an attorney and didn't show up for the trial.

"What's interesting about this case is that (Scheff) was so vested in being vindicated, she was willing to pay court costs," Lidsky says. "They knew before trial that the defendant couldn't pay, so what's the point in going to the jury?"

Scheff says she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. "I'm sure (Bock) doesn't have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear," Scheff says. "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."

The dispute between the two women arose after Bock asked Scheff for help in withdrawing Bock's twin sons from a boarding school in Costa Rica. Bock had disagreed with her ex-husband over how to deal with the boys' behavior problems. Against Bock's wishes, he had sent the boys to the boarding school.

Scheff, who operates a referral service called Parents Universal Resource Experts, says she referred Bock to a consultant who helped Bock retrieve her sons. Afterward, Bock became critical of Scheff and posted negative messages about her on the Internet site Fornits.com, where parents with children in boarding schools for troubled teens confer with one another.

In 2003, Scheff sued Bock for defamation. Bock hired a lawyer, but he left the case when she no longer could afford to pay him.

When Katrina hit in August 2005, Bock's house was flooded and she moved temporarily to Texas before returning to Louisiana last June. Court papers that Scheff and her attorney David H. Pollack mailed to Bock were returned to Pollack's office in Miami.

After Bock didn't offer a defense, a Broward Circuit Court judge found in favor of Scheff. A jury then heard Scheff's arguments about damages. Pollack did not seek a specific amount for the harm he says Scheff's business suffered.

"Even with no opposing counsel and no defendant there, $11 million is a huge amount," says Pollack, adding that Scheff is considering whether to try to collect any money from Bock. "The jury determined this was a significant enough issue. It's not just somebody's feelings are hurt; it's somebody's reputation is ruined."

Bock says that when she moved back to her repaired house over the summer, she knew the trial was approaching but did not know the date. She says she doesn't have the money to pay the judgment or hire a lawyer to appeal it. She adds that if the goal of Scheff's lawsuit was to stifle what Bock says online, it worked.

"I don't feel like I can express my opinions," Bock says. "Only one side of the story was told in court. Nobody heard my side."

Posted 10/10/2006 10:07 PM ET

Updated 10/11/2006 10:53 AM ET

http://avstop.com/news_december_2011/coast_guard_pilot_faces_negligent_homicide_charges_in_deaths_of_flight_crew.htm

This is an interesting claim of negligence. Essentially, while flying a helicopter, a Sikorsky MH-60T Jayhawk, from Oregon to Alaska the helicopter's tail hit a power cable that was unmarked while flying at around 125 knots at about 200 feet off the deck. The way the pilots were flying their helicopter was considered unsafe and the crash resulted in the death of 3 individuals. Upon review of the flight recorder it turns out that apparently the pilot and copilot were sight-seeing. However, there were conflicting witness reports and according to the defendants lawyer the lines were improperly marked.

I feel as though a claim of negligence is accurate as the crew were not paying proper attention to their jobs. However if the lines were not properly marked then some of the blame may be alleviated.

Arizona Immigration Law

The Supreme Court has announced that it will hear the case of Arizona's immigration law. This is going to be one of those cases that could potentially become a landmark decision because of what it could mean for the role states may play when it comes to passing legislation that constitutionally could be ascribed to the federal government.

To make matters more interesting, Justice Kagan has recused herself from the case. In a court that tends to lean more conservative when it comes to 5-4 decisions there is a possibility that Kagan's decision could mean victory for Arizona.

To read more visit. http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/12/supreme-court-will-hear-arizona-immigration-law-ca/

Email and Statute of Frauds

New York Court Holds that Email Satisfies Statute of Frauds 2/1/2005 A New York court has held that an email sent by a defendant accepting the plaintiffs' offer to purchase real property, in which email the defendant had typed his name, satisfies the requirement of the statute of frauds that contracts for the transfer of an interest in real property be evidenced by a writing. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim because the emails the parties had exchanged failed to contain all the essential terms of a contract for the sale of real property. In Rosenfeld v. Zerneck, 4 Misc 3d 193, 776 NYS2d 458 (2004), the plaintiffs made a cash offer to purchase the defendant's house. The defendant responded by email, in which he accepted the plaintiffs' offer, set a date by which the sale must close, and stated that the offer was not subject to any financing contingences. A written contract of sale was to follow. At the bottom of the email, the defendant typed his name. On the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court held that his email satisfied the requirements of the statute of frauds that contracts for the sale of real property be evidenced by a writing signed by the party to be charged. An open issue appears to be whether an email sent by an individual from a computer, using software programmed to automatically list his or her name and contact information in the email, would also satisfy the statute of frauds. Jere M. Webb Stoel Rives LLP jmwebb@stoel.com Although this article was from awhile ago I thought I would post it because of the subject concerning the Statute of Frauds which we are currently learning about. As we all know any contract that has to do with land or the selling/purchase of real property is required by the Statute of Frauds to be in written form and signed. It is interesting that the court found the email to satisfy this even though the email was not the actual contract. I would have thought that the signature would only matter if it was on the contract itself, not on an email communication before the final contract. However, if the email contained all of the exact information that would be included in the final contract, the signing at the end would appear to be valid. Something to take away from this case is that anything that is written form, even if it is electronic, can be evidence of a contract and we need to be careful whenever we write our names, even emails.

Pujols offer. Revocation

Since we have been discussing offers in the previous section I wanted to find a real life example. I found a good example in the Miami Marlins offering Albert Pujols a ten-year and what sources say a contract worth two hundred million dollars. The contract would be a bilateral contract with the Marlins promising to pay and Pujols promising to play. The contract would be govern under the common law because playing baseball would be considered a service. The offer though today was revoked by the Marlins. Before the offer was revoked Pujols and his agent had a few options. They could accept the offer at the terms the Marlins had provided following the mirror image rule. They could have made a counteroffear, which would terminate the original offer. They could have also rejected the offer also terminating the original offer. Let’s say Pujols accepted the offer and mailed a letter of acceptance to the Marlins. Once he places the letter into the mailbox the acceptance is considered valid. Let’s say Pujols accepted through email. Once the email enters the information processing system designated by the Marlins the acceptance is considered valid. Pujols and his agent could have exercised any of these options.

Pujols though never exercised any of these options because the Marlins revoked the offer. The Marlins exercised their right to revocation. What this means is because they are a “master of their offer” they have the right to revoke their offer at any time as long as Pujols did not enter into an option contract with the Marlins. In this instance Pujols had not entered into an option contract with the Marlins. There are other ways that an offer can be terminated. Let’s look at some hypothetical situations that could have happened in this scenario. As I mentioned before rejection or counteroffer would terminate the original offer. The counteroffer though would allow for continuing negotiations between the two parties. Another way this offer could have been terminated would be if the Marlins organization no longer existed, let’s say Major League Baseball disbanded the Marlins. This would be the same as if the offeror died; the offer would be immediately terminated. A fourth way the offer could be terminated would be if the offer were illegal. Let’s say the government banned playing Major League Baseball because of rampant steroid and HGH use. The offer would terminate because playing Major League Baseball is illegal. Finally the offer could terminate if Pujols didn’t respond within month and a month was a reasonable amount of time to decide on the offer. The offer would terminate because a reasonable amount of time has passed without a response. There are a variety of ways to terminate an offer the Marlins chose revocation in this instance. If you’re curious they revoked their offer to get Mark Buehrle.

1st Amendment Rights?

Below is a article that I forgot to post from a while back. It was relevant to me because it was a court case involving a teacher from my high school.

Facts of the case: The teacher had "inspirational banners" up in his classroom with religious connotations in it such as "One Nation Under God" and "In God We Trust" and the school district ordered him to remove them from his classroom because those sayings didn't reflect the district's image, the district didn't represent Catholicism. So the teacher sued for 1st Amendment violation of rights. He won initially, but lost at the circuit court of appeals. The final ruling being that the teacher was under the district's employment.

So the issue or question that I want to raise to you all is: what stance do you take on this issue? Should the public school teacher still have free speech rights since it is a public school or should it be limited because he is working in a educational institutional and shouldn't exhibit his beliefs on teenage students?

District to appeal ruling on classroom banners

Math teacher’s signs refer to God

By Blanca Gonzalez

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

POWAY — The Poway Unified School District will appeal a federal judge’s ruling that school officials violated the constitutional rights of a high school math teacher when they ordered him to take down classroom banners that referred to God.

The Poway school board voted last night to appeal U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s ruling that Bradley Johnson’s First Amendment rights were violated and that he be allowed to rehang the banners, which included the phrases “In God We Trust,” One Nation Under God” and “God Bless America.”

The district had claimed that Johnson’s banners advocated a Judeo-Christian point of view that was not appropriate given the nonreligious mission of public schools.

Board member Jeff Mangum said that while nobody on the board objected personally to the content of Johnson’s banners, allowing them in the classroom could open the door to other questionable material. “I’m religious, I’m conservative … but if this is allowed, what else can go up on the wall?” Mangum said.

Johnson, who was at the meeting but did not address the board, said he has put up banners in his math classroom for more than 20 years “to celebrate and acknowledge our heritage.” He said he is prepared to take the matter to the Supreme Court.

“The banners are inspirational to others and to me,” Johnson said. He put the banners back up in his Westview High School classroom after the Feb. 25 ruling.

In his ruling, Benitez said the district allows other teachers to post materials on a variety of topics without penalty and said the district’s action against Johnson amounted to discriminating against a particular point of view, which courts have said is not permitted.

District officials said the judge’s ruling is based on the legal test of “limited open forum,” which is usually used for student groups, not employees. “We think the judge used the wrong legal test,” said Bill Chiment, associate superintendent.

The district does not want to sanitize the environment and prohibit teachers from putting anything up, but the ruling “would open up the floodgates” of what employees could hang on classroom walls, Chiment said.

“Reasonable people can see things differently on difficult and challenging issues,” said Superintendent Don Phillips. “It’s not the posters, and it’s not Brad Johnson. If we create the forum, where do we draw the line?”

Chiment said the case will now go the 9th District Court of Appeals. “We anticipate that the 9th District will confirm that we made the right decision.”

Katie Holmes Sues Star Magazine for $50 Million

Truth rating: 10

American Media American Media Inc. Katie Holmes Star Magazine Tom Cruise

10:48 am, March 1st, 2011

(Star)

Katie Holmes just filed a $50 million libel lawsuit against American Media, Inc., owner of Starmagazine, which recently ran a cover suggesting the actress uses drugs.

Holmes is furious with the tabloid and contends the story is defamatory.

Star‘s cover featured a photo of a tired-looking Holmes below the cover line, “ADDICTION NIGHTMARE – Katie DRUG SHOCKER! The real reason she can’t leave Tom.”

The story was a total bait and switch, which Gossip Cop busted when it first came out in January.

Inside the tabloid, Star wrote that Scientologists use a device called an “e-meter,” which “emits a low-level electric charge that goes to the brain” and gives its user “a temporary feeling of euphoria, followed by a crash and a craving for more,” the way opiates do.

The article NEVER actually stated Holmes uses drugs, though the actress believes the cover clearly misleads readers to believe she does.

Star has repeatedly published pieces that claim Holmes’ and Tom Cruise‘ marriage is in trouble and that she’s miserable.

49ers' Braylon Edwards sues restaurant for slander

September 15, 2011|Eric Branch, Chronicle Staff Writer

• 
  San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Braylon Edwards (17) runs away from Seattle Seahawks defensive back Marcus Trufant (23) in the fourth quarter of an NFL football game in San Francisco, Sunday, Sept. 11, 2011.
  Credit: Marcio Jose Sanchez

Niners wide receiver Braylon Edwards has filed a $14 million slander lawsuit, claiming he lost his shot at a big-money contract due to false claims that he was directly involved in a bar fight on the early morning of Aug. 1, the Associated Press reported Wednesday.

Edwards' suit accuses a restaurant and bar in Birmingham, Mich., and three of its employees of slander, extortion and malicious prosecution. In the aftermath of the fight, the restaurant issued a statement in which it implicated Edwards, stating he was "present and involved."

The suit claims Edwards had a contract offer from an NFL team for $15 million guaranteed that was taken off the table after he was connected to the fight.

Three days after the incident, Edwards, who has not been charged, signed a one-year, $3.5 million contract with the 49ers with $1 million guaranteed.

Sponsored Links

• The Next Internet BoomStock Investment With 1,000% Potential Gains(www.stockmauthority.com)
• Mortgage Rates Hit 2.50%If you owe under $729k you may qualify for 3.01% APR Govt Refi Plans.(www.MortgageRatesExperts.com)
• Top Anti Aging up to -57%Compare prices now and pay up to 57% less on top quality Anti Aging!(www.Anti-Aging.news72.com)

advertisement | your ad here

Last week, Edwards was fined $50,000 by the NFL for his DUI charge from last year. In January 2010, he pleaded no contest to aggravated disorderly conduct after allegedly punching a friend of NBA star LeBron James.

Crabtree, Goldson limited: Wide receiver Michael Crabtree (foot) and safety Dashon Goldson(knee) were in uniform, but were largely bystanders during the portion of practice open to the media Wednesday.

Crabtree, who jogged through one route, spent most of his time speaking with trainer Jeff Ferguson as the pair watched the quarterbacks throw to wide receivers. Goldson, who did not play in the final preseason game or the season opener against Seattle, watched secondary drills.

Both players were listed as "limited" on the team's injury report.

Briefly: The Niners signed rookie safety Colin Jones to the practice squad. Jones, a sixth-round pick who made a key block on Ted Ginn's 102-yard kickoff return in the season opener, was waived Tuesday to make room for tight end Justin Peelle on the 53-man roster.