Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Statistics and 'Substantial Certainty'
An interesting case in New Jersey might provide an answer to a significant question on employers' liability under workers' compensation statutes and, by association, manufacturers' liability under defective-design theories. The issue: How does a plaintiff prove “substantial certainty” of injury in order to proceed under common law standards against the employer, as opposed to recovering under workers' compensation?
Workers injured in workplace accidents often make a claim against the manufacturer of equipment or machinery involved in the injury as well as against the employer; in virtually all jurisdictions an employer's liability is substantially limited by workers' compensation statutes. However, manufacturers of workplace equipment are not so protected, allowing the worker to sue the manufacturer under common law standards.
A dramatic example of this occurred in New Jersey in 1985, when a jury found that a machinery manufacturer was only 5% at fault (due to defective design), while the employer was 95% at fault for failing to install a guard on the equipment. The machinery manufacturer was required to pay the entire claim, while the employer was actually reimbursed for the workers' compensation it had paid to the plaintiff. Stephenson v. A. Jones & Co., Inc., 103 N.J. 194 (1986).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?