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.
Subrogation Claim Barred
A subrogation claim will not be heard where a lease waives the landlord's liability and the tenant, as a sophisticated party, negotiated and understood all the terms of the lease. Phoenix Insurance Company v. Town of Vernon et al., HHDX07CV044025148, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford, Jan. 5, 2007.
The subject premises was a building constructed in the 1800s and had deteriorated in condition. Wiretek, one of 10 tenants of the building, had entered into a five-year lease. On two separate occasions, water pipes linked to the premises' sprinkler system burst outside the Wiretek space and allegedly caused damage to Wiretek's property. Wiretek's insurer paid the damage claim and commenced a subrogation claim against the landlord.
Wiretek's lease provided that the landlord was not liable for any damage or injury to the tenant or to any property of the tenant, no matter how caused. The court held that the landlord was not liable under the subrogation claim. It held that the parties had equal bargaining power and there was no evidence that the parties did not intend to enter into the agreements. It considered that the tenant was aware of the landlord's waiver of liability and had agreed to procure insurance to cover any potential losses.
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.
Subrogation Claim Barred
A subrogation claim will not be heard where a lease waives the landlord's liability and the tenant, as a sophisticated party, negotiated and understood all the terms of the lease. Phoenix Insurance Company v. Town of Vernon et al., HHDX07CV044025148, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford, Jan. 5, 2007.
The subject premises was a building constructed in the 1800s and had deteriorated in condition. Wiretek, one of 10 tenants of the building, had entered into a five-year lease. On two separate occasions, water pipes linked to the premises' sprinkler system burst outside the Wiretek space and allegedly caused damage to Wiretek's property. Wiretek's insurer paid the damage claim and commenced a subrogation claim against the landlord.
Wiretek's lease provided that the landlord was not liable for any damage or injury to the tenant or to any property of the tenant, no matter how caused. The court held that the landlord was not liable under the subrogation claim. It held that the parties had equal bargaining power and there was no evidence that the parties did not intend to enter into the agreements. It considered that the tenant was aware of the landlord's waiver of liability and had agreed to procure insurance to cover any potential losses.
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
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 June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.