I have been in Chicago for the last four days, attending the Board meeting of the National Board of Trial Advocacy and spending time with my son , MIchael. We saw the Cubs beat the Astros Saturday afternoon and took in a street fair in Chinatown yesterday. It was a great trip.
I apologize for the problem with the links to the last few posts. I have brought the issue to the attention of my service provider and assume that it has been fixed.
You know the general rule: absent a special relationship, one person does not have a duty to come to the aid of another. You can see someone drowning, calling out for help, and simply walk by listening to your Ipod and taking a another lick of your Maggie Moo’s ice cream cone. These is true even if you are a world-champion swimmer trained in life-saving.
The Superior Court, Appellate Division, of New Jersey recently faced an issue of whether two passengers in a car had a duty to aid a motorcycle rider who had been hit by the intoxicated driver of their car who was either unwilling or unable to come to the motorcyclist’s aid. The three men stopped after the incident, saw the injured man, and left the scene without offering or calling for assistance. (The three had cell phones with them.) The driver’s car broke down shortly thereafter, and the passengers fled the scene leaving the driver behind waiting for his girlfriend to pick him up. The passengers told the driver not to tell anyone that they had been present. The motorcyclist was left on the road, was hit by a car and died.
The trial judge dismissed a case brought against the auto passenger’s by the administrator of the motorcyclist’s estate. The Appellate Division reversed, in a fascinating opinion that takes the reader back to Torts 101. A brief excerpt:
Here is a follow-up story on my earlier post about a lawyer who indicated that a judge was a few fries short of a Happy Meal.
The General Assembly has approved changes to the Rules of Evidence, the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Perhaps the most significant change for practicing lawyers is the amendment to Rule 15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that "For amendments adding defendants pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §20-1-119, however, written consent of the adverse party or leave of court is not required."
All changes are effective July 1, 1007.
Robert Bork, the man who gave us the verb "borked," has sued The Yale Club in a trip-and-fall case. Read the NYT article about the case here.
Here is a copy of the complaint. Note that Judge Bork seeks punitive damages. I guess that it possible that conduct in a premises case like this can give rise to punitive damages, but it is difficult for me to imagine what that conduct would be. He also seeks attorneys’ fees, which I did not think were recoverable in premises liability cases in New York. Then again, I’m just a tort lawyer who went to public school.
His law firm? Gibson Dunn, a great firm that is known for, among other things, its advocacy against punitive damages.
This article from the Washington Post tells a fascinating tale about a lawyer for Best Buy who altered documents and then produced them to the plaintiffs in a class action case.
Man sues claiming that an energy drink gave him an erection that would not subside.
The drink is called "Boost Plus."
For a list of dealers near you, please call 1-800-4StickUp.
Never tell a judge that she is "a few fries short of a Happy Meal."
I have been in mediations the last two days and have two depositions in a very significant case today. Therefore, I simply do not have time to do a substantive post.
I will take time to say one thing, however. This is my 1000th post on this blog. 1000 posts in 27 months. I must say that I have enjoyed every minute of it.
I hope that this blog has helped you better serve your clients. I know that writing it has helped me serve our firm’s clients.
The Tennessee Department of State has administrative rules and regulations on its website.
Day on Torts