Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Hand Brake Manufacturer Settles Fatal Accident Case
The manufacturer of a special hand brake for paraplegic drivers agreed to pay $1 million to the family of a man who claimed the brake failed, causing a fatal collision. Estate of Burnsed v. Wells-Enberg Co., No. 48-2003-CA-007656-0, Orange County Circuit Court, FL, June 25, 2007.
Michael Burnsed, a paraplegic in his 50s, was driving down a hill when he was unable to engage his brakes. He died in the ensuing crash, and his survivors sued Wells-Enberg Co., the brake manufacturer. Plaintiffs' counsel argued that the hand control contained a rod that became loose due to vibration, causing the control to malfunction. There should have been more safeguards in place to prevent any loosening caused by vibration, according to plaintiffs' counsel.
Wells-Engberg claimed its safeguards were sufficient and it has sold more than 30,000 units without any such incidents. The manufacturer settled the claim.
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.
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.
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.
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?