Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Retailer Liable for Customer's Injuries
A retailer is liable for injuries to a customer caused by a pallet in the aisle of a store. King v. PetSmart, No. 416-03429-05, Collin County District Court, 416th, TX, 11-08-2006.
Ronald King, 63, fractured his tibia and fibula, requiring surgery. He was in a PetSmart when he tried to pull a bag of cat litter from a shelf, and his fingers slipped. He took a step back and his foot got lodged between some pallet slats before he fell backward. His lawyer argued that the pallet should not have been there unattended. The defense countered that the pallet did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm. A construction project manager, King was out of work for seven months. The jury found for King, awarding him $300,000.
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.
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?
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.