Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Product failures are often investigated by official agencies. For example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) will often report on automobile defects as well as traffic accidents; the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) investigates aviation accidents, and the Coast Guard investigates maritime disasters.
Such reports are usually more extensive than a privately funded investigation. Governmental reports are often heavily relied upon as the basis of a products liability action or defense in those jurisdictions that permit such reports in evidence. In federal cases, such reports are admissible pursuant to FRE 803(8) “Public Records and Reports.” This section makes admissible all records, reports and data in any form by any public officer or agency unless the source of information indicates lack of trustworthiness. Lawyers often make these reports the lynchpin of their entire case. You can imagine the chagrin of any trial lawyer when, on the eve of trial, a motion in limine is granted excluding the report based on untrustworthiness.
Such a situation arose for both sides in the recent case of Jones v. Ford Motor Company, 320 F. Supp. 2d 440 (E.D.Va., 2004). In that case, the plaintiff was injured when a motor vehicle manufactured by the defendant suddenly accelerated rearward. She claimed a transient electrical signal from an unidentified vehicle component injected itself into the cruise control system and pulled open the gas throttle and also alleged that the sudden acceleration left no physical evidence of any malfunction. The plaintiff had originally brought her action in Virginia state court, where the jury returned a verdict against her. The Virginia Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial; however, believing she had a better chance in a federal setting, the plaintiff recommenced her case in the U.S. District Court in Virginia rather than go back to state court.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?