Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
After Texas Court Avoids Question on Duty to Warn, Can Suppliers Relax?
The nation's silica litigation attorneys and their clients kept a close watch on a case decided last year in Texas that was supposed to help define the limits of liability for failure to warn of silicosis danger. It took nearly 2 years for the Texas Supreme Court to finally issue its decision in Humble Sand & Gravel Inc. v. Gomez, 146 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. 2004), holding that flint supplier Humble Sand & Gravel Inc. had no duty to warn companies whose employees used the product for abrasive blasting that there were risks associated with silica dust in the workplace. The reason the court gave for its decision was that the risks of silica dust in the workplace had been known for years and companies that regularly dealt with blasting materials were “sophisticated users.”
What the court did not rule on was the second key question posed by the case: whether the “sophisticated user” doctrine would also relieve an abrasive material supplier of the duty to warn its customers' employees ' who work with the product and are thus vulnerable to inhalation diseases ' that exposure to silica dust can lead to serious disease and death and that they should wear protective equipment when working with the product. A decision on this issue, the court stated, would have to be determined at a new trial. Therefore, the court remanded to the 60th District Court in Beaumont for a new trial. The decision reversed Texas' Sixth District Court of Appeals holding, which had affirmed a more than $2 million judgment for Raymond Gomez and his two children.
So, what became of that second question the court didn't answer in September? Should preventive measures be taken by the industry to avoid a potential new source of liability?
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
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?