Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In April, Pennsylvania became the latest state to hold that a company hired by an employer to administer employee drug tests owes a duty of reasonable care to the employees subjected to those tests. In Renee Sharpe v. St. Luke's Hosp., 821 A.2d 1215 (Pa. Apr. 25, 2003), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the defendant, a hospital, owed a duty of care to Sharpe, an employee of Federal Express, with regard to collection and handling of her urine specimen for the employment-related drug test that plaintiff was required to undergo. Sharpe had been fired from Federal Express after her drug test came back positive for cocaine use and she claimed the positive result was attributable to the errors made by the hospital in collecting, labeling and processing her urine sample before sending it to a laboratory for testing. The trial court granted summary judgment for the hospital, concluding that the hospital owed no duty of care to Sharpe, with whom it had no contract. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed, by a 2-1 margin, although two of the three judges concluded that the applicable rule of law was wrong and should be overruled. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed.
Justice Thomas Saylor, writing for the court, cited the pronouncement of the dissenting Superior Court judge and opined, 'the increase in mandatory employment-related drug screening and the potential ramifications of false-positives create a substantial public interest in ensuring that the medical facilities involved in the testing exercise a reasonable degree of care to avoid erroneous test results occurring because of negligence.' Sharpe, 821 A.2d at 1221.
PA's Duty of Care
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?