News
[08/19]
NY state firefighters deliver 3 babies in transit
[08/19]
Suit accuses restaurant of giving man big tapeworm
[08/19]
Sailor, knocked from boat, rescued 12 hours later
[08/14]
Calif. mom gives birth on front lawn by herself
[08/01]
Boy, 4, tries to drive to grandma's house, crashes
More...
Articles
Wrongful Death
Wrongful death claims allege, as their basis, that the deceased was killed as a result of the negligence of another. The deceased's surviving relatives, the dependents or beneficiaries bring suit seeking monetary damages to compensate for the improper conduct. Each state has its own statute covering claims for wrongful death, and not every state follows the same guidelines, principles, or rules. Some states have "true" wrongful death acts in which the next of kin are entitled to bring a cause of action in their own names as a result of damages sustained following the decedent's death.
More...
Can I be found liable if my car is rear-ended in a crash?
If someone hits you from behind, the accident is virtually always that driver's fault, regardless of the reason you stopped. A basic rule of the road requires that a driver be able to stop safely if a vehicle stops ahead of the driver. If the driver cannot stop, he is not driving as safely as the person in front of him.
More...
|
|
Case Summaries
[08/20]
Boschetto v. Hansing The sale of one automobile via the eBay website, without more, does not provide sufficient "minimum contacts" to establish jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in the forum state.
[08/20]
Theme Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. FSI In a case involving, inter alia, whether right of first refusal agreements between a publisher of advertising tools and packaged goods companies violate California antitrust and tort law, judgment in the matter is affirmed primarily as the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff was supported by substantial evidence in the record.
[08/20]
Soto-Lebron v. Federal Express Corp. In a matter brought by former employee against defendant FedEx following his termination, grant of FedEx's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the slander and libel claims is affirmed where: 1) the evidence introduced in support of the slander claim "does not rise to more than informal rumors" circulating among employees, for which FedEx cannot be held liable; and 2) there was sufficient evidence to support liability for libel. Case is remanded for new trial on damages for the libel claim where admission of irrelevant evidence tainted the jury's damage calculation and that taint was not cured by remittitur. Denial of defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is reversed where former employee-plaintiff did not introduce any evidence suggesting that a subsequent employer or potential employer treated him adversely as a result of the defamatory statements made by FedEx.
[08/19]
Joyce v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. In a suit by shareholders of a telecommunications company alleging that defendant, while advising the company during its acquisition by another company, failed to advise plaintiffs on minimizing their exposure to financial losses, grant of a motion to dismiss is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part where: 1) plaintiffs were bringing a direct action on their own behalf, not a derivative one on behalf of the corporation, and to that extent had standing; but 2) plaintiffs' constructive fraud claim required them to allege that defendant owed them a fiduciary duty, but no such duty never arose.
[08/19]
King v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. In a malicious prosecution suit alleging that defendant fired plaintiff without probable cause to believe that she had stolen train tickets, denial of plaintiff's discovery motion and summary judgment for defendants are affirmed where: 1) a determination by the System Board of Adjustment that plaintiff had stolen from defendant did not preclude litigation of that question in the context of the malicious prosecution suit; but 2) plaintiff failed to produce evidence of the date on which defendant had filed a criminal complaint against her, and thus would not be able to prove her claim that defendant lacked probable cause at the time of the filing.
More...
|