NEGLIGENT SECURITY: WHEN IS CRIME YOUR PROBLEM?

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "NEGLIGENT SECURITY: WHEN IS CRIME YOUR PROBLEM?"

Transcription

1 FDCC Winter Meeting Hyatt Grand Champions Resort Indian Wells, California February 26 March 5, 2011 NEGLIGENT SECURITY: WHEN IS CRIME YOUR PROBLEM? Presented by Premises and Security Liability Section Richards H. Ford WICKER, SMITH, O HARA, McCOY & FORD, P.A. Miami Ft. Lauderdale West Palm Beach Orlando Tampa Naples Jacksonville Copyright by Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel, N. 56th Street, Tampa, FL Reproduction of the contents hereof for noncommercial purposes is permitted.

2 NEGLIGENT SECURITY: WHEN IS CRIME YOUR PROBLEM? BY RICHARDS H. FORD I. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF NEGLIGENT SECURITY ISSUES Foreseeability is the traditional basis of liability. A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect against reasonably foreseeable criminal conduct. This duty is applicable to all types of business where you have business invitees: retailers, condominium associations, apartments, hotels, restaurants, bars, malls, etc. Defending foreseeability. Business owners must obtain and understand crime grids, which are local, state, and federal crime data. If there is preincident crime on the premises, this will impact the determination of foreseeability. The location of the prior crime is an issue, as to whether it occurred on the property itself, on property adjacent to the business, or in geographic proximity to the business. The type of crime is also important, with a distinction drawn between violent crimes versus property crimes, and whether the prior crimes were substantially similar to the crime at issue. Another element of foreseeability is the frequency of calls for security services or law enforcement. Another consideration is the proximity in terms of time to the crime at issue. Finally, issues of foreseeability also involve theoretical versus realistic prevention of crimes. The Third Party Criminal. Although not a defense, a third party criminal does impact foreseeability, including whether that third party is a customer, an invitee, a resident, a trespasser, or a loiterer. The intervening criminal act is not a defense to liability for negligent security, as the business owner cannot simply just blame the criminal. Further, because of the intentional nature of the criminal act, the criminal does not go on the verdict form for consideration by the jury. Another consideration is whether security measures would have deterred a particular crime. The defendant can develop information regarding the criminal past of the perpetrator, including a rap sheet, prior admissions, and the type of past crime. The circumstances of the crime at issue also impacts liability, as to whether this was a crime of opportunity, or impulse as opposed to a pre-meditated act, or part of a crime spree. The critical issue will be what the defendant did to prevent the criminal act. 1

3 Some states have statutory limitations on liability. For example, Florida Statutes creates a statutory presumption against liability for the criminal acts of a third person if the owner or operator a convenience business substantially implements the applicable securities measures listed in Florida Statutes and Florida Statutes provides that every convenience business shall be equipped with the following: security camera system; drop safe or cash management device; lighted parking lot; notice in the form of signage that the cash register contains less than $50; unobstructed window signage; height markers; a cash management policy; no window tinting; and a silent alarm. Florida Statutes provides for training of employees. Convenience businesses shall provide proper robbery deterrence and safety training by an approved curriculum to its retail employees within 60 days of employment. The curriculum must be approved by the attorney general of the state, and reapproved by the attorney general every two years. Other states have similar statutory limitations on negligent security awards. If the criminal is your employee, the general rule is that the employer is not liable for the intentional criminal acts of an employee because they are outside of the course and scope of the employment. However, the business owner must consider whether there is a basis for being sued for negligent hiring and/or negligent retention of the criminal employee. The business owner has a duty to conduct a pre-employment background check on the employee, and a plaintiff will request the employer s 2

4 personnel file in order to secure this information. Another pertinent consideration is the anticipated degree of contact that the criminal employee would have with the public when he or she was hired. If the contact was direct and frequent, the obligation to check on the background increases, whereas if the contact is merely incidental or infrequent, that duty diminishes. A consideration involving the criminal employee is whether the employer was unreasonable to hire the employee in light of his background; for example, if there was anything unsuitable in his background that suggested that this employee was not an appropriate hire. Certain states establish standards for an employer s inquiry about the criminal background of an employee, and if those standards are satisfied, there is a presumption that the employer did not negligently hire the employee. For example, Florida Statutes provides that in civil actions arising from an intentional tort by an employee, there is a presumption against negligent hiring if, prior to hiring the employee, the employer conducted a background investigation of the prospective employee, and the investigation did not reveal any information that reasonably demonstrated the unsuitability of the prospective employee for the particular work to be performed or for employment in general. A background investigation of a prospective employee must include the following: a criminal background investigation of the prospective employee by the state department of law enforcement; a reasonable effort to contact references and former employers concerning suitability of the applicant; completion of a job application form that includes questions concerning whether the applicant has been convicted of a crime and if so details regarding that crime, as well as whether the prospective employee has ever been a defendant in a civil action arising out of an intentional tort, including the nature of the intentional tort and the disposition of the action; secure a driver s license record check if relevant for prospective employees who will be required to drive as part of the job s responsibility; and interview the prospective employee. 3

5 If the employer does not conduct an investigation, there is no presumption that the employer used reasonable care in hiring the employee. A separate consideration is negligent retention of an employee, which addresses the timeframe after the employee has been hired. An employer who discovers an employee s unsuitability after the employee is hired but before the criminal act is committed can be held liable for negligent retention of that employee. One consideration in a negligent retention claim is whether there was some prior complaint which was inadequately investigated or addressed by the employer. If so, foreseeability is likely going to be established. The keys to negligent retention turn on the propensity for dangerous or criminal acts, including notice and foreseeability. Once an employer receives actual or constructive notice of problems with an employee, it may be unreasonable not to investigate the prior complaint or to take corrective actions, such as discharge of the employee or reassignment of the employee to a job whose responsibilities will not tempt the employee to engage in criminal behavior. In general, an employer cannot be held liable for the tortious or criminal acts of an employee unless those acts were committed during the course and scope of the employee s employment, and the acts were to further a purpose of interests, however excessive or misguided, of the employer. Otherwise, an employer will not be held vicariously liable for the criminal or intentional acts of its employee. There are certain specific facts to be considered in determining whether an employee s conduct is within the course and scope of his or her employment, as follows: whether the conduct is the kind that the employee was employed to perform; whether the conduct occurs substantially within the time and space limitations authorized or required by the work to be performed; and whether the conduct is activated at least in part by a purpose to serve the employer. There are a certain number of themes that are emerging in the prosecution of claims for negligent security. Plaintiffs go through specific prior crimes with defense witnesses and ask the following questions: 4

6 Did you know about this crime? What did you do about it? What actions did you take? If you did not take any actions, why not? Do the prior crimes concern you? Did you make any effort to warn the public? Did you warn the plaintiff? The plaintiff will try to depict the defendant as indifferent to the consequences of its lax security, and will combine this evidence with an argument that the defendant was engaging in profits over people designed to inflame the jury. Specific claims of negligent and intentional misrepresentations by the business owner can lead to an award of punitive damages. Plaintiffs will focus on marketing literature, that a particular location is a safe place, and employee lies, such as that there has been no crime that we are aware of, to anger the jury. A corporate policy of evidence can become an inflammatory issue supporting both compensatory and punitive damages. Common security problems that premises owners must confront include the following: security company; lighting; gates, fences, and other barriers; deferred maintenance; overgrown landscaping; video surveillance; and trespass, vandalism, and loitering. 5

7 The following is a checklist of items that should be included in any investigation of a negligent security claim: crime grids; marketing material; prior claims and suits; preservation of any surveillance video; representative photos of the area; internal communications both before and after the incident; security documents, including contracts, invoices, schedules, and correspondence; police reports; incident reports; prior insurance claims; lighting records, including invoices, contracts, and repair documentation; gate, fence, and wall records; security surveys, either private or through law enforcement; witness information, including statements, employee personnel files, and tenant files; community association meeting minutes; courtesy officer and meeting records; notices to tenants and/or the public regarding prior crimes; the policies and procedures manual, including hiring issues, reporting crimes, maintenance issues, safety and security; 6

8 copies of budgets, both drafts and final budgets; management agreements; repair requests from tenants; prior expert reports from litigation; Code Enforcement notices or citations; affordable housing documents; personnel files; a security officer s file or a contract with the security company; documentation concerning client-specific security measures, such as guard monitoring systems, a trespass program, drug testing, or premises inspections; and any documentation of recommendations concerning the use of off-duty police officers, and whether those recommendations were either followed or disregarded. Negligent security in the landlord/tenant context presents its own unique set of security concerns. As part of any investigation, it is important to establish whether there is any evidence that the landlord or property management company failed to maintain residential premises by complying with building, housing, and health codes which proximately caused the criminal act to occur. For example, issues such as whether there were missing screens, a defective lock, or exterior lights extinguished will play a significant role in the determination both of liability and the amount of damages. The status of the victim is also a significant consideration in a negligent security context. The duty that is owed to the victim depends upon the victim s status. Any initial assessment of exposure should include a determination of whether the victim was a business invitee, a licensee, or a trespasser. An invitee is owed a duty of reasonably safe premises being maintained, and the invitee must use reasonable care for his or her own safety and must observe any open and obvious condition. The duty owed 7

9 to a licensee depends upon whether the licensee is invited or uninvited. An invited licensee is treated much the same as an invitee. An uninvited licensee is generally owed the same duty as a trespasser, which is to refrain from willful and wanton acts and to warn of any concealed peril. Comparative negligence is a legitimate defense in a negligent security case, however its efficacy will vary based upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case. A business owner must be very cautious before engaging in a trial strategy that includes blaming the victim, as this tactical approach could backfire, resulting in an exacerbated verdict. One approach is to test the victim s familiarity with the geographic area and crime history of that area. If the plaintiff has knowledge of the prior crime history of the geographic area that is equal to that of the premises owner, this can be considered as an element of comparative fault. As is often the case, expert witnesses play a vital role in defending negligent security cases. Both plaintiffs and defendants will have expert witnesses to render opinions regarding liability. These opinions will be based on site inspections performed by the experts, as well as an evaluation of the crime grids and cap index information. The effectiveness of the expert witness can go a long way toward the successful defense of the negligent security claim. II. SPECIFIC VERDICTS AND SETTLEMENTS FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY Damage and security claims can arise in a variety of different contexts. It is often said that the three most important words in real estate are location, location, location. The same is true in a negligent security claim. The location in which a criminal act occurs will have an impact on the exposure that a landowner faces, as well as the potential award. Not surprisingly, the most common location in which a criminal act occurs giving rise to a claim of negligent security is a parking lot. The following examples of negligent security cases will be divided up by the location in which the criminal act occurred, beginning with parking lot liability. A. Parking Facilities In Stamper v. Woods Petroleum, Inc., Duval County, Florida, Circuit Court, 2009, the plaintiff s decedent was a lance corporal in the United States Marine Corp. who was fatally shot in the parking lot of an Amoco Gas 8

10 Station as part of a drive-by shooting. The estate argued that the defendant had a new clerk working on the evening of the shooting who had not taken the security program offered by Amoco. The estate contended that the inexperienced clerk should not have been working alone. The clerk should have called the police when she saw a large crowd congregating at the gas station. Ten minutes prior to the shooting, two looting incidents took place at the store. The clerk should have immediately called police at that moment. The area was known to be dangerous, and yet the defendant did not have a security guard on duty or any security cameras. The jury awarded the estate $1,830, In Nash v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York County Supreme Court, 2009, the plaintiff raised a negligent security claim arising out of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. A plaintiff s verdict was reached in 2009 in the amount of $5,360, This is one of several negligent security claims arising out of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In Erickson v. Curtis Investment Company, 447 N.W. 2d 165 (Minn. 1989), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the owner of a commercial parking facility owes a duty to customers to protect them against crime by third parties. The case involved a woman who was raped at approximately 5 p.m. in a 330 parking space facility located in downtown Minneapolis. The assailant forced his way into the plaintiff s car as she was about to leave, and raped her. The property owner had contracted with a security company to provide guards to patrol the parking garage, who did so once per hour. Prior to this incident, there had not been any reports of any crimes against any persons, although there were numerous security incidents during the four years prior to this rape. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the owner or operator of a parking facility has a duty to use reasonable care to deter criminal activity on the premises, with the relevant circumstances to be considered including the location and construction of the garage, the practical feasibility and cost of various security measures, and the likelihood of harm to customers. In Small v. McKennan Hospital, 437 N.W. 2d 194 (S.D. 1989), the South Dakota Supreme Court held that the owner of a parking facility owes a duty of reasonable care to keep the facility safe for invitees, and that a breach of this duty does not require a showing of prior criminal acts on the premises. A business invitee at the defendant hospital was abducted, raped, and murdered. The South Dakota Supreme Court held that it was proper for the trial court to submit to the jury the issue of whether the 9

11 attack was foreseeable in spite of the lack of any similar incidents. Foreseeability depends upon a consideration of all of the circumstances, including the physical conditions of the parking facility, the defendant s knowledge that the facility was used for the consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs, and the overall lack of adequate security. In Southland Corporation v. Superior Court 250 Cal. Rptr. 57 (Cal. App. 1988), a California intermediate appellate court held that a convenience store may be held liable for injuries sustained by patrons of the store who are assaulted by third parties in a vacant lot adjacent to the store s parking lot. Even though the defendant store did not own the lot, the store s lease permitted customers to use it as a parking lot. The appellate court determined that the store could be held liable if the plaintiffs could establish that the defendants had control over the vacant lot. This at least raised an issue of material fact that would preclude summary judgment in favor of the store. In MacQuarrie v. Howard Johnson s Company, 877 F.2d 126 (1 st Cir. 1989), the First Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Delaware law, held that the jury s finding that the hotel failed to provide adequate security for a guest who was shot in the hotel parking lot was supported by evidence of prior criminal acts, even though those prior crimes were non-violent, where there was expert testimony that the security at the hotel was inadequate. The appellate court ruled that the jury was entitled to find that the incident was foreseeable based upon evidence that 16 property crimes had occurred in the four years prior to the shooting, as well as based upon the expert testimony regarding the inadequate security. The expert testified that a violent crime was probable based upon the prior crimes, the proximity of the hotel to the highway, the heightened activity at the hotel at the time because of a football game, and the lack of security. In Figueroa v. Evangelical Covenant Church, 879 F.2d 1427 (7 th Cir. 1989), the Seventh Circuit, applying Illinois law, held that the owner of a parking lot could not be held liable to a woman who was abducted in the parking lot after using the parking lot to drop off her child at an adjacent daycare center. The parking lot owner employed a security officer to patrol the lot, and there were no prior instances of serious crimes in the parking lot. Under Illinois law, there is no duty to protect against criminal attacks by third parties unless the criminal attack was reasonably foreseeable and the parties had a special relationship. The court ruled that the incident was not reasonably foreseeable, and therefore the 10

12 defendant could not be liable for negligently performing the duty that it had assumed. This is clearly the minority view. In Ghiam v. Conte, Los Angeles County, California Superior Court, 1992, a 38 year-old electrician was assaulted in the parking lot of an apartment complex. A jury verdict was entered in favor of the defendant, as evidence was presented that the defendant land owner had purchased the property in 1989, and had since installed perimeter fencing and other improvements at a cost of approximately $750, The case was tried in Los Angeles County Superior Court in California. In Guice v. Centeq Real Estate Services, Inc., Harris County, Texas District Court, 1992, a case was settled for $750, during trial. The case involved the rape and beating of a 34 year-old woman in the parking lot of her apartment building. Evidence was presented that when Centeq took over its management duties, it reduced the security officer force from three guards to two. The plaintiff, prior to this incident, asked to break her lease because of concerns about security, but Centeq rejected her request. In addition, Centeq was aware of a rape that had taken place in the apartment building next door, but did not take any steps to warn tenants on its own property. In Weidenfeller v. Star & Garter, San Diego County, California Superior Court, 1989, a 28 year-old construction worker was shot while in the parking lot of an adult entertainment club in San Diego, California. The bar was located in a high crime area, with numerous prior violent incidents. In addition, the evidence showed that drug consumption on the premises was common, the only light in the parking lot was not working that night, the bar s bouncers were not patrolling as much as they were supposed to be, and there were no operational surveillance cameras. Based upon this evidence, the jury awarded the plaintiff $372, In Hubbard v. The Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation, Southern District of Florida, 1989, a 47 year-old woman was assaulted in the parking lot of a shopping mall. During the assault, her purse was taken, she was hit, and she was thrown to the ground. The plaintiff s expert testified that the mall had been notified of serious crime problems in the past but failed to take appropriate precautions. Evidence showed that there were normally six guards on duty, however there were only two or three guards on duty on the date of this assault. The defendant s security manager testified that security did not patrol that particular area, and then recanted that testimony. The South Florida jury awarded the plaintiff $420,

13 B. Stores In Cruz v. Crazy Horse Restaurant, Los Angeles County, California Superior Court, 2010, the plaintiff was injured when he was tackled by a security guard during a fight at the restaurant. The restaurant hires and manages its own security guards. Mr. Cruz alleged that the security guards were unlicensed and improperly hired, trained, and retained. Mr. Cruz contended that there were crowd control techniques that could have been employed which would have prevented the plaintiff s injuries had security personnel known how to deploy them. There was conflicting testimony as to whether there was surveillance video of the incident. The plaintiff sustained a right broken distal tibia and a laceration to the forehead. The jury awarded the plaintiff $1,176, In Leahy v. Karola Corp., Collin County, Texas District Court, 2010, the plaintiff was a 50 year-old software sales consultant who was stabbed just outside of the entrance of the Bent Tree Grill, a bar and restaurant located in a strip mall in Dallas, Texas. The plaintiff argued there was a history of criminal activity on the premises and that the restaurant had notice of it. The history included a shooting on the dance floor of the restaurant 12 days prior to this incident, plus vandalism of vehicles and arguments inside the establishment. The plaintiff was stabbed in the jaw line, causing nerve damage, causing one side of his face to droop. He was also stabbed in the left arm, left side, and back, which caused a punctured lung. The plaintiff was stabbed a total of seven times. The jury awarded $830,950.00, which was then reduced by 50% for the plaintiff s comparative fault. In Murphy v. Corner Food Mart, Harris County, Texas District Court, the decedent, who was a 19 year-old student, was shot and killed outside of the Corner Food Mart convenience store in a case of mistaken identity. The student died at the scene. The estate claimed that a fight had broken out at the store and that one of the individuals had drawn a gun, however the store employees did not call the police. The estate contended that the store was negligent in failing to contact the authorities, in failing to warn customers of the potential danger, in failing to provide proper security, and in failing to provide a safe environment for its customers. The jury awarded $2,005, In Makowski v. McDonald s, Pasco County, Florida Circuit Court, 2009, the decedent, a 21 year-old college student, was strangled to death during an altercation with a fellow McDonald s patron in the exit of the 12

14 restaurant s parking lot. The estate produced testimony that the shopping center where this McDonald s was located had a history of violent or potentially violent crimes. In the four years preceding the incident, there were 700 calls to 911 originating from the shopping plaza. The McDonald s employees hesitated for approximately five minutes while the altercation was going on. Once 911 was called, the police arrived at the scene in less than one minute. One week prior to this incident, McDonald s employees had placed an emergency call to the police when patrons had threatened to kill each other. There was conflicting testimony from the defendant regarding who was in charge of premises security. The defendant s witnesses were not aware of the high volume of emergency calls that had been placed in the years leading up to the incident. The jury awarded $1,500,000.00, which was then reduced to $1,000, based upon the decedent s comparative fault. In Williams v. Cunningham Drug Stores, 418 N.W. 2d 381 (Mich. 1988), the Michigan Supreme Court held that a merchant does not have a duty to provide armed, visible security guards to protect invitees from the criminal acts of third parties. The plaintiff in Williams was a customer in a drug store located in a high crime area in Detroit. The store employed a plainclothed security guard, who was out sick on the day of the robbery. A directed verdict in favor of the store was affirmed on appeal. The Supreme Court held that the store owner s duty did not extend to providing armed, visible security guards to deter criminal conduct. As a general rule, one person is not obligated to protect another. An exception exists for a special relationship, but that exception does not apply to merchants, who do not have sufficient control over their customers, and who cannot be expected to control crime. The duty to provide security is a police function vested in the government, and as a matter of public policy, the responsibility for police protection should not be shifted to the private sector. In Tucker v. KFC National Management Company, 689 F.Supp. 560 (D. Md. 1988), the Federal District Court of Maryland held that a fast food restaurant could not be held liable for failing to have a security guard on its premises. When an argument broke out between two customers, one of the combatants pulled a knife and injured the other. The district court held that a storekeeper s duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition does not include a duty to provide a security guard. In Garner v. McGinty, 771 S.W. 2d 242 (Tex. App. 1989), a Texas appellate court held that a business owner does have a duty to protect a 13

15 customer from crimes by third parties if the owner knew that criminal acts were likely to occur. In Garner, the plaintiff was injured by a criminal during the robbery of a hair salon. A directed verdict was entered in favor of the defendant because the plaintiff could not produce sufficient evidence to show that the business owner either knew or had reason to know that criminal conduct was likely to occur. The evidence presented of prior criminal activity included one burglary and one break in that had occurred at night more than two years prior to the attack on the plaintiff, as well as a four month old burglary at the shopping center where the store was located, and missing, unaccounted for deposits at the hair salon. The court determined that this evidence was an indication that criminal activity might occur, not that criminal activity was likely to occur. C. Schools and Colleges In Clinch v. Miami-Dade County School Board, Miami-Dade County, Florida Circuit Court, a 12 year-old student fell into a wall at a middle school, which rendered her unconscious. She was found without a pulse, and administrators delayed approximately seven minutes before calling 911. The estate contended that the school s critical incident response team was not called to the scene. CPR was not administered for approximately 15 minutes, and the school s staff failed to use an automated external defibrillator even though one was available. The estate s counsel argued that several hall monitors were absent on the date of the accident, and that no adult actually witnessed the accident. The case was settled for $700, In Srb v. Johnson, Middlesex County, Connecticut Superior Court, 2010, the plaintiff argued that he had been sexually abused by his horseback riding instructor 20 years earlier. The plaintiff sued both the instructor and the instructor s employer, alleging that it owed a duty to use reasonable care in supervising the instructor, and that it breached its duty to properly supervise the instructor and to provide proper security for its students. The plaintiff claimed that the employer s failure to properly supervise its instructor was the proximate cause of his injuries and losses. The plaintiff testified that he was sexually assaulted multiple times by the instructor on the employer s premises, and that he was a minor on each occasion that it happened. The jury awarded $1,265, The verdict was against both defendants, jointly and severally, with no allocation. In Lesane v. Board of Education of the City of New York, New York County Supreme Court, 2010, a student sustained stab wounds to his 14

16 abdomen, underwent emergency surgery, and was hospitalized for 10 days. The plaintiff met with friends after his day s classes had ended, and the group began to walk to their homes. While walking home, they encountered three older boys, and a fight ensued. The plaintiff claimed that the students had encountered their assailants several hours earlier in the afternoon on the day of the incident, and that the earlier incident was reported to the school s assistant principal and two of the school s security guards, but that precautionary measures were not undertaken. The plaintiff claimed that he had warned the school that a fight would occur after school, and that the security guards had witnessed the brewing of the after school incident, but they did not intervene, even after one of the assailants had produced a knife. The case was settled for $900, In Jane C. v. New York City Board of Education, Queens County, New York Supreme Court, 2009, the plaintiff was a minor who was sexually assaulted. The plaintiff was a 16 year-old student who was sexually assaulted by three 18 year-old students in one of the school s restrooms. The plaintiff argued that the school s policy specified that seven guards would be stationed throughout the school to prevent after hours re-entry into the school of any students who did not have to attend an after school program, and that none of the assailants attended an after school program, but that they were able to enter the school after hours because the guards were all in a meeting. The plaintiff s counsel also argued that several janitors saw the assailants, but that they were not asked to leave. One of the assailants had a history of sexual violence against students and teachers, and that the school had received evaluations that indicated that the other two assailants were also potentially dangerous. After the first day of trial, the case was settled for $1,650, In Bonner v. City of New York, 536 N.E. 2d 1147 (N.Y. 1989), the New York Court of Appeals held that a school could not be held liable for the injuries inflicted on a teacher by a third party who entered a playground through a broken fence. The court held that the school s duty to provide security to protect teachers against criminal acts is a governmental function, and therefore the school may not be held liable unless a special duty arises. However, in Logan v. Board of Education, New York Appellate Division, 1989, the appellate division of the State of New York held that a municipality may be held liable for negligently supervising a 12 year-old student who was directed to walk alone from one classroom to another while classes were in session, and was raped by three other students as 15

17 she was walking alone. The plaintiff s theory against the Board of Education was that the defendant was negligent in failing to provide adequate security, and that the defendant negligently supervised school children. After summary judgment was entered in favor of the School Board, the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the adequate security issue, but reversed with regard to the supervision of the school children. In Nieswand v. Cornell University, 692 F.Supp (N.D.N.Y. 1988), the District Court in the Northern District of New York held that the parents of a university student who was shot to death in a dormitory room can maintain a negligence and breach of contract action against the university for failing to provide adequate security. Under New York law, a land owner has a duty to provide security if he knows there is a likelihood of third party criminal activity. This duty may arise if harm from a particular assailant is foreseeable or if past criminal activity indicates that a criminal incident is a significant, foreseeable possibility. The decedent in this case was the roommate of a woman who had broken off a relationship with the assailant. In the years prior to this assault, there had been reports of four rapes, eight robberies, nine assaults, 42 other assaults, 19 sex offenses, 793 burglaries, and 2582 larcenies at the defendant university. D. Hotels In Kondratyuk v. Holiday Inn, Middlesex County, New Jersey Superior Court, 2010, a father sought damages after his son died of mechanical asphyxia by compression of his body and face. Expert testimony revealed that the decedent was in severe pain and in conscious fear of eminent death for approximately 15 minutes. Discovery revealed that the decedent had become intoxicated and unruly, and broke some light fixtures in the facility, after which he was chased by hotel employees where six people tackled him and climbed on top of him. The decedent s estate maintained that the decedent was restrained for 20 minutes before police arrived, and that the manner of the restraints negligently caused his death. The case settled at mediation for $1,375, In Eugene v. Latrun Realty, Miami-Dade County, Florida Circuit Court, 2009, the plaintiff was a security guard who was shot in the lobby of a hotel while he was on duty. The plaintiff sued the hotel s franchisee, arguing that the defendant had a duty to provide adequate security measures. The plaintiff argued that the hotel was located in a high crime area that had experienced 12 armed robberies over the previous three 16

18 years. The plaintiff also argued that the defendant had distracted the plaintiff by requiring him to perform other tasks including reception work and housekeeping while he was on duty. The case was settled for $5,250, In Nebel v. Avichal Enterprises, Inc., 704 F.Supp. 579 (D.N.J. 1989), the Federal District Court in New Jersey held that the test to determine whether inadequate security at a hotel was the proximate cause of a third party s criminal attack was whether the inadequate security increased the risk of harm to the victim and whether the increased risk was a substantial factor in producing the injury. Two assailants forced their way into the plaintiff s room at a hotel in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and shot him in the thigh. The court granted the plaintiff a new trial after a defense verdict, determining that the jury should have been instructed that the alleged negligent security was a proximate cause of the injury if the negligent security was a substantial factor in increasing the risk of harm. To recover, the plaintiff would therefore have to show that if certain security devices or techniques had been implemented, they would have reduced the risk of harm. The plaintiff would not be required to demonstrate that the missing security precautions would have prevented the crime altogether. In Fuentes v. Trump Marina Hotel & Casino, Camden County, New Jersey Superior Court, 2003, a 66 year-old man who was visiting the casino portion of the defendant s facility was robbed and beaten on the casino s outer walkway. The evidence showed that security was virtually nonexistent in the area despite the fact that there had been three robberies within a quarter mile of the area within the preceding 11 months, although those three prior robberies did not take place on the defendant s actual property, but rather adjacent to that property. The jury awarded the plaintiff $4,800, In Stroot v. Days Inn, Southern District of Ohio, 1992, an 8 year-old girl was abducted from the hallway of a motel and sexually assaulted. The evidence developed through discovery revealed that the assailant had been to the motel before, he knew that the outside doors would be unlocked, and that there would be no security guards or cameras. One month prior to this incident, another 9 year-old girl was involved in an attempted sexual assault at the same hotel, which was reported, however there were no changes in the security procedures at the facility. The case was resolved for a $500, cash settlement. 17

19 In Gilbert v. Motor Hotel Management, Inc., Shelby County, Tennessee Circuit Court, a 47 year-old man was abducted from a hotel and murdered. The evidence showed that there was no fence around the parking lot, no closed circuit television, and no security guards from 8pm to 7am. In addition, there was evidence developed through discovery that the crime grid placed this hotel in a bad crime area. The case was ultimately resolved for $625, E. Landlord/Tenant In Gonzalez v. Parkchester South Condominium, Bronx County, New York Supreme Court, the plaintiff, Ms. Gonzales, was a 49 year-old unemployed woman who was raped and sodomized at gun point within a condominium complex owned by Park Chester South Condominium in the Bronx, New York. The victim was visiting her boyfriend at the time. The assailant who had committed the rape had followed the victim from a trip to the supermarket, and gained access to the apartment under the guise of helping her with her groceries. The assailant then proceeded to rob the plaintiff, stabbed the plaintiff s boyfriend in the chest, and locked the boyfriend in with his mother in a separate room while he raped and sodomized the plaintiff. The defendant was precluded by the court from introducing flyers that were put up to warn residents about a serial criminal at large committing push-in crimes because of the defendant s failure to produce the flyers during discovery. The plaintiff introduced NYPD records showing that the precinct in which the apartment was located had developed a pattern on the assailant that involved similar components, including the description of the perpetrator, the elderly status of his victims, the use of a weapon, and similar locale and modus operandi. The NYPD records indicated that between August of 2002 and March of 2003, the assailant had committed similar push-in crimes against the elderly, and that 10 out of the 12 crimes had occurred at this particular apartment complex. An NYPD detective testified that he had personally informed the defendant that the assailant had been known as the good guy bandit for the way in which he assisted the elderly. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had failed to provide any advisory to residents and tenants that a serial criminal was at large committing push-in crimes against the elderly, and that this constituted a departure from minimal security precautions. After two weeks of trial, the case settled for $975, In Garcia v. Wiener Wood Apartments, LLC, Miami-Dade County, Florida Circuit Court, 2008, Starsky Garcia was shot and killed by an unknown assailant in the parking lot of an apartment complex. The area in which 18

20 the apartment was located had a history of violent or potentially violent crimes. The parameter fencing on the north and east side of the property was broken and had holes which allowed access from the adjacent properties. The fencing on the north side of the property had been damaged in the 2005 hurricane season, and had never been repaired. The assault took place on December 8, The estate claimed that although the complex was advertised as a gated community, the access control gate and exit gate had a long history of frequent malfunction and problems resulting from vandalism. The gates did not function properly for days at a time, allowing uncontrolled access to the property. At least one of the gates was broken and in the open position at the time of the homicide. The estate also argued that lighting conditions were unreasonably hazardous at the time of the murder. The estate claimed that the defendants failed to provide reasonable and adequate security on the premises and that the defendants failed to perform any type of periodic security audit of the property. The estate argued that the defendants had failed to follow internal protocols for reporting incidents on the property, and that it failed to budget adequate resources to provide reasonable security measures on the property. The estate argued that the murder was foreseeable and preventable, and that but for the defendants failure to correct known conditions, Mr. Garcia would not have been killed. Testimony was elicited at trial from the defendants leasing consultant, the regional manager, and the assistant regional manager, that information regarding the complexes conditions was forwarded to the defendants corporate officers in New York, and that the former employees had recommended repairing the fencing, lighting, and gating, as well as adding additional security patrols, but that all of the recommendations were denied by the defendants based upon budgetary concerns. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $8,010, In Bryant v. Brannen, 446 N.W. 2d 847 (Mich. App. 1989). a Michigan appellate court held that a landlord is not liable for an assault by one tenant on another. In this case, one tenant shot another tenant, and the victim sued the landlord, claiming that the landlord should have provided security guards. A jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff was reversed, with the appellate court holding that because the victim was shot in his own apartment, the landlord was not liable because the landlord did not have any control over the area. Even if the shooting had occurred in a common area, the landlord would not have been liable because the landlord does not have a duty to hire a security guard to protect tenants from other tenants. 19

Premises Liability for Third Party Crime (Full Article)

Premises Liability for Third Party Crime (Full Article) Premises Liability for Third Party Crime (Full Article) Owners and managers of commercial property (including leased residential properties) can be held liable under civil negligence claims for harm to

More information

Employer Liability for Workplace Violence

Employer Liability for Workplace Violence Employer Liability for Workplace Violence I. Employer Liability under OSHA/MOSHA a. Employers must maintain a place of employment which is free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to

More information

Cardelli Lanfear P.C.

Cardelli Lanfear P.C. Michigan Prepared by Cardelli Lanfear P.C. 322 West Lincoln Royal Oak, MI 48067 Tel: 248.850.2179 Fax: 248.544.1191 1. Introduction History of Tort Reform in Michigan Michigan was one of the first states

More information

Case: 1:16-cv-00951 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/16 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Case: 1:16-cv-00951 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/16 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Case: 1:16-cv-00951 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/16 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PAMELA ANDERSON, Individually and ) as Independent

More information

Analysis of Premises Liability for the Criminal Acts of Third Parties

Analysis of Premises Liability for the Criminal Acts of Third Parties PBI Electronic Publication # EP-2820 Analysis of Premises Liability for the Criminal Acts of Third Parties Kenneth M. Dubrow, Esq. The Chartwell Law Offices, LLP Philadelphia A chapter from Tort Law Update

More information

Canadian Law 12 Negligence and Other Torts

Canadian Law 12 Negligence and Other Torts Canadian Law 12 Negligence and Other Torts What is Negligence? Someone who commits a careless act that creates harm to another person is negligent. Over the past several years, negligence has become the

More information

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES WITH LITIGATION IN MIND

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES WITH LITIGATION IN MIND ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES WITH LITIGATION IN MIND Introduction The purpose of this paper is to alert the reader to concepts used in the defense of construction related lawsuits and to suggest how

More information

Video Course Evaluation Form. Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of Course You Just Watched

Video Course Evaluation Form. Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of Course You Just Watched Garden State CLE 21 Winthrop Road Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648 (609) 895-0046 fax- 609-895-1899 Atty2starz@aol.com Video Course Evaluation Form Attorney Name Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of

More information

A Guide to Employer Liability in Maryland: Principles of Agency and Negligent Hiring

A Guide to Employer Liability in Maryland: Principles of Agency and Negligent Hiring A Guide to Employer Liability in Maryland: Principles of Agency and Negligent Hiring Prepared by the Job Opportunities Task Force and the Homeless Person s Representation Project For more information,

More information

Torts Copyright July, 2006 State Bar of California

Torts Copyright July, 2006 State Bar of California Torts Copyright July, 2006 State Bar of California After paying for his gasoline at Delta Gas, Paul decided to buy two 75-cent candy bars. The Delta Gas store clerk, Clerk, was talking on the telephone,

More information

Chapter 4 Crimes (Review)

Chapter 4 Crimes (Review) Chapter 4 Crimes (Review) On a separate sheet of paper, write down the answer to the following Q s; if you do not know the answer, write down the Q. 1. What is a crime? 2. There are elements of a crime.

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT STATE OF MISSOURI

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT STATE OF MISSOURI IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT STATE OF MISSOURI STEPHANIE BRUNO, 3900 NW 60 th Place Kansas City, Missouri 64151 and JOHN AND C.D. BRUNO, 4702 NW Linden Rd Kansas City,

More information

(1) It was something fairly and naturally incidental to the employer's business assigned to the employee; and

(1) It was something fairly and naturally incidental to the employer's business assigned to the employee; and Employer Liability for Employee Conduct by Lisa Mann 05-01-2000 EMPLOYER LIABILITY FOR EMPLOYEE CONDUCT: When Does An Employer Have to Pay? by Lisa Mann Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A. Employers

More information

Guns at the Workplace

Guns at the Workplace Jonathan Hancock and Joann Coston-Holloway, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, with PLC Labor & Employment A Note describing state guns-at-work laws, sometimes known as parking lot laws.

More information

Landlord s Legal Guide to Renting in Illinois

Landlord s Legal Guide to Renting in Illinois Landlord s Legal Guide to Renting in Illinois TRISTAN & CERVANTES 30 W. MONROE STREET, SUITE 630 CHICAGO, IL 60603 312-345- 9200 www.tristancervantes.com Welcome to Tristan & Cervantes Tristan & Cervantes

More information

CatastrophiC injury / Wrongful Death

CatastrophiC injury / Wrongful Death CatastrophiC injury / Wrongful Death 360 www.mpplaw.com about our practice Morris polich & purdy llp has a team of seasoned trial attorneys dedicated to handling, in both state and federal court, high-exposure

More information

Defendant has a duty to act as a reasonable person would in like or similar circumstances to avoid causing unreasonable risk of harm to others.

Defendant has a duty to act as a reasonable person would in like or similar circumstances to avoid causing unreasonable risk of harm to others. NEGLIGENCE (Heavily Tested) (Write On the Bar): In order for Plaintiff to recover in Negligence, she or he must plead and prove: DUTY, BREACH OF DUTY, ACTUAL CAUSATION, PROXIMATE CAUSATION, AND DAMAGES.

More information

Negligent hiring: How to reduce your chances of hiring a claim

Negligent hiring: How to reduce your chances of hiring a claim Negligent hiring: How to reduce your chances of hiring a claim An employee fired for stealing from his employer comes into work the next day with a gun and kills eight people. A trucker with a history

More information

FEBRUARY 1997 LAW REVIEW MOLESTATION LIABILITY EXAMINES SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT & FORESEEABILITY. James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1997 James C.

FEBRUARY 1997 LAW REVIEW MOLESTATION LIABILITY EXAMINES SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT & FORESEEABILITY. James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1997 James C. MOLESTATION LIABILITY EXAMINES SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT & FORESEEABILITY James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1997 James C. Kozlowski In determining agency liability for sexual molestation by its employees, an employer

More information

Policy Options: Limiting Employer Liability When Hiring Individuals Formerly Incarcerated

Policy Options: Limiting Employer Liability When Hiring Individuals Formerly Incarcerated Policy Options: Limiting Employer Liability When Hiring Individuals Formerly Incarcerated Employers in Philadelphia require skilled and dedicated workers in order to be successful. Returning citizens (those

More information

Safety and Security Basics: What Property Managers and Board Members Need to Know

Safety and Security Basics: What Property Managers and Board Members Need to Know Basics: What Property Managers and Board Members Need to Know Hosted by: Presented by: Lara A. Anderson 847-259-5100 l.anderson@frapc.com Lara A. Anderson Lara Anderson is an attorney and shareholder in

More information

Premises Liability 101. If Injured on Property Am I Automatically Entitled to Compensation?

Premises Liability 101. If Injured on Property Am I Automatically Entitled to Compensation? Premises Liability 101 If Injured on Property Am I Automatically Entitled to Compensation? No. The injured person always has to prove that their injuries were caused by the negligence of someone else.

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION COMPLAINT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION COMPLAINT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, CASE NUMBER: JUDGE: vs. Defendant. / COMPLAINT COMES NOW, Plaintiff,, and hereby sues

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: MICHAEL A. MINGLIN Miller & Minglin, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: JAMES W. ROEHRDANZ ERIC D. JOHNSON Kightlinger & Gray, LLP Indianapolis,

More information

Filing # 22009228 Electronically Filed 12/29/2014 03:48:06 PM

Filing # 22009228 Electronically Filed 12/29/2014 03:48:06 PM Filing # 22009228 Electronically Filed 12/29/2014 03:48:06 PM PENELOPE BELVOIR, as Executor de son Tort for the Pending Estate of Robert Belvoir, Deceased, vs. Plaintiff, ROPES COURSES, INC., FB ORLANDO

More information

LEGAL DEFENSES FOR WORKPLACE VIOLENCE. Georgia Law Update

LEGAL DEFENSES FOR WORKPLACE VIOLENCE. Georgia Law Update LEGAL DEFENSES FOR WORKPLACE VIOLENCE Georgia Law Update Lynn M. Roberson SWIFT, CURRIE, McGHEE & HIERS, LLP 1355 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30309-3238 (404) 888-6146 Lynn.Roberson@swiftcurrie.com

More information

KEEP CALM CALL MVP AND 2014 MVP LAW SEMINAR EMPLOYER LIABILITY FROM VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE. www.mvplaw.com

KEEP CALM CALL MVP AND 2014 MVP LAW SEMINAR EMPLOYER LIABILITY FROM VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE. www.mvplaw.com 2014 MVP LAW SEMINAR EMPLOYER LIABILITY FROM VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE www.mvplaw.com KEEP CALM AND CALL MVP DALLAS JULY 17TH KANSAS CITY AUGUST 7TH ST. LOUIS SEPTEMBER 25TH GUNS AND VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION Case 3:14-cv-03585-N Document 1 Filed 10/03/14 Page 1 of 16 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION DAVID HARRISON, Individually and as Personal Representative

More information

Alternative Burdens May Come With Alternative Causes

Alternative Burdens May Come With Alternative Causes Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Alternative Burdens May Come With Alternative Causes

More information

UNIMPROVED LAND IMMUNITY IN CLIFF FALL

UNIMPROVED LAND IMMUNITY IN CLIFF FALL UNIMPROVED LAND IMMUNITY IN CLIFF FALL James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1987 James C. Kozlowski During recent months, the "NRPA Law Review" has presented decisions from various jurisdictions which discussed

More information

EMERGING ISSUES IN LEGAL MALPRACTICE DEFENSE

EMERGING ISSUES IN LEGAL MALPRACTICE DEFENSE FDCC Winter Meeting Hyatt Grand Champions Resort Indian Wells, California February 26 March 5, 2011 EMERGING ISSUES IN LEGAL MALPRACTICE DEFENSE Presented by Professional Liability Section Richards H.

More information

NO. COA13-614 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 3 December 2013. v. Buncombe County No. 11 CRS 59792 DANNY DALE GOSNELL

NO. COA13-614 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 3 December 2013. v. Buncombe County No. 11 CRS 59792 DANNY DALE GOSNELL NO. COA13-614 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 3 December 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Buncombe County No. 11 CRS 59792 DANNY DALE GOSNELL 1. Homicide first-degree murder not guilty verdict jury

More information

Attorneys at Law. Telephone: (312) 262 6700 Facsimile: (312) 262 6710. 30 N LaSalle Street Suite 1524 Chicago, IL 60602. www.mossingnavarrelaw.

Attorneys at Law. Telephone: (312) 262 6700 Facsimile: (312) 262 6710. 30 N LaSalle Street Suite 1524 Chicago, IL 60602. www.mossingnavarrelaw. 30 N LaSalle Street Suite 1524 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 262 6700 Facsimile: (312) 262 6710 Attorneys at Law THE FIRM With over 40 years of combined litigation experience, Adria Mossing and Jim

More information

New Housing Rights for Victims of Domestic Violence, Rape, Sexual Assault and Stalking

New Housing Rights for Victims of Domestic Violence, Rape, Sexual Assault and Stalking New Housing Rights for Victims of Domestic Violence, Rape, Sexual Assault and Stalking Victims of domestic violence, rape, sexual assault and stalking have increased rights and protections under a new

More information

CASE INFORMATION SHEET FLORIDA LEGAL PERIODICALS, INC. P.O. Box 3370, Tallahassee, FL 32315-3730 (904) 224-6649/(800) 446-2998 * FAX (850) 222-6266

CASE INFORMATION SHEET FLORIDA LEGAL PERIODICALS, INC. P.O. Box 3370, Tallahassee, FL 32315-3730 (904) 224-6649/(800) 446-2998 * FAX (850) 222-6266 CASE INFORMATION SHEET FLORIDA LEGAL PERIODICALS, INC. P.O. Box 3370, Tallahassee, FL 32315-3730 (904) 224-6649/(800) 446-2998 * FAX (850) 222-6266 COUNTY AND COURT: Pasco County Florida NAME OF CASE:

More information

THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES. By Craig R. White

THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES. By Craig R. White THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES By Craig R. White SKEDSVOLD & WHITE, LLC. 1050 Crown Pointe Parkway Suite 710 Atlanta, Georgia 30338 (770)

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DORETHA RAMSEY JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 12, 2006 v No. 262466 Wayne Circuit Court HARPER HOSPITAL, LC No. 04-402087-NI Defendant-Appellant.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: TRENT THOMPSON Salem, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: REBECCA J. MAAS KYLE B. DEHAVEN Smith Fisher Maas & Howard, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

More information

INVESTIGATIONS GONE WILD: Potential Claims By Employees

INVESTIGATIONS GONE WILD: Potential Claims By Employees INTRODUCTION INVESTIGATIONS GONE WILD: Potential Claims By Employees By: Maureen S. Binetti, Esq. Christopher R. Binetti, Paralegal Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A. When can the investigation which may

More information

Title: Current Construction Injury Law in California Issue: Oct Year: 2003 Current Construction Injury Law in California Morgan C.

Title: Current Construction Injury Law in California Issue: Oct Year: 2003 Current Construction Injury Law in California Morgan C. Title: Current Construction Injury Law in California Issue: Oct Year: 2003 Current Construction Injury Law in California Morgan C. Smith Since the last issue of the Forum dedicated to construction litigation,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 6/21/16 P. v. Archuleta CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 1 0 1 MARC D. ADELMAN Attorney at Law State Bar No. Liberty Station Historic Decatur Road, Suite 00 San Diego, CA - (1) -0 Phone (1) -0 Fax Email: AdelmanMD@aol.com Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT

More information

HOSTING TEEN PARTIES: WHAT S YOUR LIABILITY?

HOSTING TEEN PARTIES: WHAT S YOUR LIABILITY? HOSTING TEEN PARTIES: WHAT S YOUR LIABILITY? SOBERING STATISTICS Alcohol is responsible for a staggering amount of fatalities across a spectrum of activities including vehicles, bicycles, snowmobiles,

More information

MEMORANDUM. 1.) Under Michigan s dog bite statute, is a young girl considered lawfully on the property

MEMORANDUM. 1.) Under Michigan s dog bite statute, is a young girl considered lawfully on the property MEMORANDUM To: Sue Attorney, Attorney at Law From: Trish Dilliner Re: Our client, Chester Bigwig, File No. 2009 89 Date: March 12, 2009 I. Issues 1.) Under Michigan s dog bite statute, is a young girl

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT Filed 2/11/15 Estate of Thomson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL. Plaintiff, TARIN SAROKA, individually, and as the Personal Representative of the

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL. Plaintiff, TARIN SAROKA, individually, and as the Personal Representative of the IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 15 TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA TARIN SAROKA, individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of ALAN BAZINET, CIVIL DIVISION CASE

More information

The Effect of Product Safety Regulatory Compliance

The Effect of Product Safety Regulatory Compliance PRODUCT LIABILITY Product Liability Litigation The Effect of Product Safety Regulatory Compliance By Kenneth Ross Product liability litigation and product safety regulatory activities in the U.S. and elsewhere

More information

Unintentional Torts - Definitions

Unintentional Torts - Definitions Unintentional Torts - Definitions Negligence The failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise that results in the proximate cause of actual harm to an innocent person.

More information

Products Liability: Putting a Product on the U.S. Market. Natalia R. Medley Crowell & Moring LLP 14 November 2012

Products Liability: Putting a Product on the U.S. Market. Natalia R. Medley Crowell & Moring LLP 14 November 2012 Products Liability: Putting a Product on the U.S. Market Natalia R. Medley Crowell & Moring LLP 14 November 2012 Overview Regulation of Products» Federal agencies» State laws Product Liability Lawsuits»

More information

Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY CENTRAL DISTRICT STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE

Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY CENTRAL DISTRICT STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE VACHON LAW FIRM Michael R. Vachon, Esq. (SBN ) 0 Via Del Campo, Suite San Diego, California Tel.: () -0 Fax: () - Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY CENTRAL

More information

Personal Injury Litigation

Personal Injury Litigation Personal Injury Litigation The Anatomy of a New York Personal Injury Lawsuit An ebook by Stuart DiMartini, Esq. 1325 Sixth Avenue, 27 th Floor New York, NY 10019 212-5181532 dimartinilaw.com Introduction

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CA-00315-SCT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CA-00315-SCT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CA-00315-SCT CALLOP HAMPTON v. CHARLES BLACKMON AND DEXTER BOOTH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/23/2013 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. WINSTON L. KIDD TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: WILLIAM

More information

LIABILITY UNDER THE TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT. Sovereign Immunity

LIABILITY UNDER THE TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT. Sovereign Immunity LIABILITY UNDER THE TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT By: Richard Evans Staff Attorney Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool The King Can Do No Wrong Sovereign Immunity Under common law, state and political

More information

INFORMATION FOR LANDLORDS

INFORMATION FOR LANDLORDS NEW JERSEY JUDICIARY INFORMATION FOR LANDLORDS Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Special Civil Part Landlord/Tenant Section Information for Landlords page 1 Most disputes between landlords and

More information

STATE OF OREGON TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW

STATE OF OREGON TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW STATE OF OREGON TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Rodney L. Umberger, Jr. Marc M. Carlton Williams Kastner 888 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 228 7967 Email: rumberger@williamskastner.com

More information

MICHIGAN JEWISH INSTITUTE Policy and Procedure Manual

MICHIGAN JEWISH INSTITUTE Policy and Procedure Manual Effective Date: June 2003 Page No. 1 of 12 GENERAL PURPOSE: This policy is intended to provide a process and procedure that will increase awareness of campus safety and security issues and to communicate

More information

Lowcountry Injury Law

Lowcountry Injury Law Lowcountry Injury Law 1917 Lovejoy Street Post Office Drawer 850 Beaufort, South Carolina 29901 Personal Injury Phone (843) 524-9445 Auto Accidents Fax (843) 532-9254 Workers Comp DanDenton@Lawyer.com

More information

Hon. RICHARD STONE (Ret.)

Hon. RICHARD STONE (Ret.) Hon. RICHARD STONE (Ret.) Mediator Arbitrator Private Judge Referee Representative Cases PERSONAL INJURY Petitioner claimed he is mentally ill and under the care of Defendant Mental Health Clinic, and

More information

Case: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #:

Case: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageid> Case: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ALVIN E. WISEMAN, Plaintiff,

More information

Your Company s Reputation: You Are Who You Hire

Your Company s Reputation: You Are Who You Hire SOURCE: BY: TITLE: Human Resource Professional Magazine Kevin Prendergast Your Company s Reputation: You Are Who You Hire The reasons for performing pre-employment background investigations extend far

More information

LITIGATION OF PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES IN EXOTIC FORUMS - PUERTO RICO. Francisco J. Colón-Pagán 1

LITIGATION OF PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES IN EXOTIC FORUMS - PUERTO RICO. Francisco J. Colón-Pagán 1 LITIGATION OF PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES IN EXOTIC FORUMS - PUERTO RICO By Francisco J. Colón-Pagán 1 I. OVERVIEW OF PUERTO RICO LEGAL SYSTEM A. Three branches of government B. Judicial Branch 1. Supreme

More information

PREVIEW PLEASE DO NOT COPY THIS DOCUMENT THANK YOU. LegalFormsForTexas.Com

PREVIEW PLEASE DO NOT COPY THIS DOCUMENT THANK YOU. LegalFormsForTexas.Com Form: Plaintiff's original petition-wrongful Death [Name], PLAINTIFF vs. [Name], DEFENDANT [ IN THE [Type of Court] COURT [Court number] PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION 1. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1.1 Plaintiff

More information

CRIMINAL LAW AND VICTIMS RIGHTS

CRIMINAL LAW AND VICTIMS RIGHTS Chapter Five CRIMINAL LAW AND VICTIMS RIGHTS In a criminal case, a prosecuting attorney (working for the city, state, or federal government) decides if charges should be brought against the perpetrator.

More information

CASE NO.: CIVIL DIVISION COMPLAINT. through undersigned counsel, and hereby sues Defendant, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., a Florida GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

CASE NO.: CIVIL DIVISION COMPLAINT. through undersigned counsel, and hereby sues Defendant, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., a Florida GENERAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, vs. Plaintiff, CASE NO.: CIVIL DIVISION WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., Defendant, / COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiff,,

More information

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

Fourteenth Court of Appeals Affirmed and Opinion filed November 8, 2001. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-00-00880-CR JOHN CARROLL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from 248th District Court Harris County,

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Fernando F. Chavez, Esq. SBN 0 CHAVEZ LAW GROUP 00 West Beverly Blvd., Montebello, Ca 00 Phone: () 00-0, Facsimile: (0) 1-01 E-mail: ffchavez0@gmail.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE

More information

CASE INFORMATION SHEET FLORIDA LEGAL PERIODICALS, INC. P.O. Box 3370,, Tallahassee, FL 32315-3730 (904) 224-6649/(800) 446-2998 * FAX (850) 222-6266

CASE INFORMATION SHEET FLORIDA LEGAL PERIODICALS, INC. P.O. Box 3370,, Tallahassee, FL 32315-3730 (904) 224-6649/(800) 446-2998 * FAX (850) 222-6266 CASE INFORMATION SHEET FLORIDA LEGAL PERIODICALS, INC. P.O. Box 3370,, Tallahassee, FL 32315-3730 (904) 224-6649/(800) 446-2998 * FAX (850) 222-6266 COUNTY AND COURT: Broward County, Circuit Court NAME

More information

GRAY, L.L.C. 760 ROUTE 10 WEST, SUITE 203 WHIPPANY, NEW JERSEY 07981 PH: 973-240-7313 F: 973-240-7316 Attorneys for Plaintiff Henry Kent

GRAY, L.L.C. 760 ROUTE 10 WEST, SUITE 203 WHIPPANY, NEW JERSEY 07981 PH: 973-240-7313 F: 973-240-7316 Attorneys for Plaintiff Henry Kent POMPELIO, FOREMAN & GRAY, L.L.C. 760 ROUTE 10 WEST, SUITE 203 WHIPPANY, NEW JERSEY 07981 PH: 973-240-7313 F: 973-240-7316 Attorneys for Plaintiff Henry Kent HENRY KENT, vs. Plaintiff, SMILES II RESTAURANT,

More information

Campus Security and Safety Report Madison Center September, 2015

Campus Security and Safety Report Madison Center September, 2015 Campus Security and Safety Report Madison Center September, 2015 This information is being provided to all students and employees as part of Upper Iowa University's - Madison Center commitment to safety

More information

JENNIFER (COLMAN) JACOBI MMG INSURANCE COMPANY. in the Superior Court (Hancock County, Cuddy, J.) in favor of Jennifer (Colman)

JENNIFER (COLMAN) JACOBI MMG INSURANCE COMPANY. in the Superior Court (Hancock County, Cuddy, J.) in favor of Jennifer (Colman) MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2011 ME 56 Docket: Han-10-526 Argued: April 12, 2011 Decided: May 10, 2011 Reporter of Decisions Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR,

More information

VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION

VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION CHAPTER 585 An Act to amend and reenact 38.2-2206 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 7 of Chapter 3 of Title 8.01 a

More information

Chapter 7 Tort Law and Product Liability

Chapter 7 Tort Law and Product Liability Chapter 7 Tort Law and Product Liability Chapter Outline 1. Introduction 2. The Basis of Tort Law 3. Intentional Torts 4. Negligence 5. Cyber Torts: Defamation Online 6. Strict Liability 7. Product Liability

More information

HANDBOOK OF COLORADO WRONGFUL DEATH LAW SECOND EDITION

HANDBOOK OF COLORADO WRONGFUL DEATH LAW SECOND EDITION HANDBOOK OF COLORADO WRONGFUL DEATH LAW SECOND EDITION GREGORY R. GIOMETTI HERB TUCKER VICTORIA C. SWANSON Legal Editors Supplemented May 2006 September 2010 CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION IN COLORADO, INC.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2010 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2010 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2010 Session STEPHANIE JONES and HOWARD JONES v. RENGA I. VASU, M.D., THE NEUROLOGY CLINIC, and METHODIST LEBONHEUR HOSPITAL Appeal from the

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HOME-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY and AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, FOR PUBLICATION January 12, 2016 9:10 a.m. v No. 322694 Kalamazoo Circuit Court

More information

Laying Down the Law: A Review of Trends in Liability Lawsuits

Laying Down the Law: A Review of Trends in Liability Lawsuits Laying Down the Law: A Review of Trends in Liability Lawsuits By Teresa Anderson A new premises security liability study to be released this month examines the cost of lawsuits, who is winning, and what

More information

The following is an excerpt from the 2012 Manual on Town Government. LIABILITY

The following is an excerpt from the 2012 Manual on Town Government. LIABILITY Minnesota Association of Townships Document Number: RM1000 Information Library Revised: January 2012 The following is an excerpt from the 2012 Manual on Town Government. LIABILITY Any discussion of a town

More information

2014 IL App (1st) 123454-U No. 1-12-3454 February 11, 2014 Modified Upon Rehearing April 30, 2014 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT

2014 IL App (1st) 123454-U No. 1-12-3454 February 11, 2014 Modified Upon Rehearing April 30, 2014 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT 2014 IL App (1st) 123454-U No. 1-12-3454 February 11, 2014 Modified Upon Rehearing April 30, 2014 THIRD DIVISION NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent

More information

trial court and Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiff's case was barred by the statute of limitations.

trial court and Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiff's case was barred by the statute of limitations. RESULTS Appellate Court upholds decision that malpractice action barred September 2, 2015 The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently upheld a summary judgment obtained by David Overstreet and Mike McCall

More information

LEGAL ISSUES. Why should I learn about legal issues? How am I liable? What are my responsibilities as a teacher?

LEGAL ISSUES. Why should I learn about legal issues? How am I liable? What are my responsibilities as a teacher? LEGAL ISSUES Why should I learn about legal issues? School administrators are typically the only personnel to receive training in classroom liability issues, yet teachers have the most responsibility for

More information

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U Order

More information

INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS OF LOUISIANA 9818 BLUEBONNET BOULEVARD BATON ROUGE, LA 70810 TEL: 225/819-8007 FAX: 225/819-8027 www.iial.

INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS OF LOUISIANA 9818 BLUEBONNET BOULEVARD BATON ROUGE, LA 70810 TEL: 225/819-8007 FAX: 225/819-8027 www.iial. INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS OF LOUISIANA 9818 BLUEBONNET BOULEVARD BATON ROUGE, LA 70810 TEL: 225/819-8007 FAX: 225/819-8027 www.iial.com TA 206 Date: 5/21/02 SUBJECT: LOUISIANA LIQUOR LIABILITY LAW BACKGROUND:

More information

FULTON COUNTY STATE COURT STATE OF GEORGIA * * * * * * * * * *

FULTON COUNTY STATE COURT STATE OF GEORGIA * * * * * * * * * * FULTON COUNTY STATE COURT STATE OF GEORGIA JENNIFER GARRISON, vs. Plaintiff, MONTAG REALTY COMPANY, LLC d/b/a VERONA APARTMENTS, THE REALTY FUND III, L.P. and JOHN DOES 1-5, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CASE NUMBER:

More information

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ET AL. OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. v. Record No. 060774 January 12, 2007

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ET AL. OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. v. Record No. 060774 January 12, 2007 Present: All the Justices COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ET AL. OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. v. Record No. 060774 January 12, 2007 KAREN BURNS, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAMPBELL COUNTY

More information

SPECIAL REPORT. Parents can be held liable for the acts of their children based of statutes, common law, or contractual agreements.

SPECIAL REPORT. Parents can be held liable for the acts of their children based of statutes, common law, or contractual agreements. SPECIAL REPORT ARE PARENTS LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OF THEIR CHILDREN? (06-17-13) This Special Report was written by Daniel P. Hale, J.D., CPCU, ARM, CRM, LIC, AIC, AIS, API of Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC.

More information

What to expect when you are injured in a New York accident!

What to expect when you are injured in a New York accident! What to expect when you are injured in a New York accident! An ebook by Stuart DiMartini 1325 Sixth Avenue, 27 th Floor New York, NY 10019 dimartinilaw.com 2012 Law Offices of Stuart DiMartini P a g e

More information

Retail Industry Services Representative Experience

Retail Industry Services Representative Experience Retail Industry Services Representative Experience Attorneys: Scott W. Bermack Key Issues: pedestrian, parking lot, inadequate lighting, accident, brain injury Venue: NYS Supreme Court, Rockland County

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT Filed 10/11/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT ED AGUILAR, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B238853 (Los Angeles County

More information

Current Issues in Litigating Civil Workplace Crime Cases

Current Issues in Litigating Civil Workplace Crime Cases Current Issues in Litigating Civil Workplace Crime Cases Presenter By: Brian D. Kent, Esquire 1435 Walnut Street, Suite 700 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 399-9255 bkent@lbk-law.com www.linkedin.com/pub/brian-kent/5/52b/772

More information

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. A court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. A court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT A court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. Peter Ng, et al. v International Disposal Corp. of California, et al. Superior Court

More information

Decided: May 11, 2015. S15A0308. McLEAN v. THE STATE. Peter McLean was tried by a DeKalb County jury and convicted of the

Decided: May 11, 2015. S15A0308. McLEAN v. THE STATE. Peter McLean was tried by a DeKalb County jury and convicted of the In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: May 11, 2015 S15A0308. McLEAN v. THE STATE. BLACKWELL, Justice. Peter McLean was tried by a DeKalb County jury and convicted of the murder of LaTonya Jones, an

More information

EARLY CARE & EDUCATION LAW UNIT WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT SMALL CLAIMS COURT

EARLY CARE & EDUCATION LAW UNIT WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT SMALL CLAIMS COURT EARLY CARE & EDUCATION LAW UNIT Publication Date: November 2013 WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT SMALL CLAIMS COURT In the operation of your child care business you may encounter problems which force you to

More information

In order to prove negligence the Claimant must establish the following:

In order to prove negligence the Claimant must establish the following: Introduction A wealth of law exists to provide compensation to people who have suffered injuries, both physical and psychological, following an accident. This fact sheet provides a very brief guide to

More information

Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB ERNA GANSER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT

More information

New Jersey Department of Community Affairs Division of Codes and Standards Landlord-Tenant Information Service

New Jersey Department of Community Affairs Division of Codes and Standards Landlord-Tenant Information Service New Jersey Department of Community Affairs Division of Codes and Standards Landlord-Tenant Information Service GROUNDS FOR AN EVICTION BULLETIN Updated February 2008 An eviction is an actual expulsion

More information

$24.55 4.4.12 2012 WL

$24.55 4.4.12 2012 WL Cook County Jury Awards $24.55 Million to Woman Paralyzed in Car Accident 4.4.12 This case was reported informally by Patrick Dowd, Chicago, Illinois attorney, and the jury verdict was reported by Westlaw

More information

After two in-school attempts to kill

After two in-school attempts to kill LEADING QUESTIONS Student Suicide: Could You Be Held Liable? Suicide among students is tragic, and litigation against schools that might have prevented such tragedies is on the rise. How can principals

More information

How Much Protection Does the Oregon Tort Claims Act Really Provide?

How Much Protection Does the Oregon Tort Claims Act Really Provide? How Much Protection Does the Oregon Tort Claims Act Really Provide? Session Materials by Jens Schmidt Harrang Long Gary Rudnick P.C. Oregon Public Risk Manager s Fall Conference October 3, 2013 Salishan

More information