Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Customer Awarded for Exposure to Blood at Checkout
In Kulik v. Acme Markets Inc., 172471, Burlington County Superior Court, NJ 03-03-2009, a jury awarded $51,500 to a supermarket patron who licked another customer's blood that got on his fingers after he touched a checkout counter. Lester Kulik was at a self-checkout counter in an Acme supermarket when he noticed blood on his finger. He put his finger in his mouth, thinking that he cut himself. However, employees alerted him that the previous customer at the checkout counter had been bleeding profusely and was escorted out of the store by an employee. Kulik claimed emotional distress for the subsequent six-month wait to receive test results for HIV and hepatitis, which were negative. He was willing to settle for $10,000, but the supermarket only offered $6,000. The jury's award included $1,500 for testing costs.
Tenant May Assert Constructive Eviction Claim Against Landlord's Mortgagee
In Reliastar Life Insurance Company of New York v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 570 F.3d 513 (2d Cir. 2009), Home Depot was the tenant that built the leased premises on a pad constructed by the predecessor of the plaintiff-mortgagee. The building developed cracks allegedly due to the faulty construction of the pad. After attempting to repair the cracks, Home Depot vacated the premises and stopped paying rent. Reliastar sued, and Home Depot claimed constructive eviction. The Second Circuit vacated the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff where: 1) New York's Uniform Commercial Code does not prohibit defendant from asserting constructive eviction as a defense to plaintiff's claims arising from the lease; 2) the estoppel certificate in the recognition agreement does not bar defendant's constructive eviction defense if defendant was unaware of the faulty condition of the building pad when it executed the parties' recognition agreement and its lack of awareness was reasonable at the time; and 3) defendant was constructively evicted, the lease was terminated and defendant was relieved of its obligation to pay rent under the “hell or high water” clause of the parties' recognition.
Customer Awarded for Exposure to Blood at Checkout
In Kulik v. Acme Markets Inc., 172471, Burlington County Superior Court, NJ 03-03-2009, a jury awarded $51,500 to a supermarket patron who licked another customer's blood that got on his fingers after he touched a checkout counter. Lester Kulik was at a self-checkout counter in an Acme supermarket when he noticed blood on his finger. He put his finger in his mouth, thinking that he cut himself. However, employees alerted him that the previous customer at the checkout counter had been bleeding profusely and was escorted out of the store by an employee. Kulik claimed emotional distress for the subsequent six-month wait to receive test results for HIV and hepatitis, which were negative. He was willing to settle for $10,000, but the supermarket only offered $6,000. The jury's award included $1,500 for testing costs.
Tenant May Assert Constructive Eviction Claim Against Landlord's Mortgagee
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?