Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reinstated a jury verdict that dismissed a complaint against an entertainer who shoved a security guard, injured as a result, during a performance at the Trump Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City. Degenhardt v. Kirkorov, A-1075-09T1. While moving through the aisles during his show, Russian musical artist Philipp Kirkorov shoved security guard Thomas Rogers, who was trying to keep audience members away from Kirkorov. Rogers fell, hit his head, lost consciousness and sustained other personal injuries. After Rogers sued, the jury absolved Kirkorov of assault and battery and found that Rogers was more negligent for his injuries than was Kirkorov. The trial judge granted Rogers' motion for a new trial.
The appellate court noted, however: “Kirkorov testified that he did not purposely push Rogers, but rather that he came into contact with an obstacle in his path that he brushed away. Kirkorov also said that his path of travel is reviewed with security staff prior to the performance to ensure that they do not block the aisles. Kirkorov explained during his testimony that a predetermined path is necessary because his vision is impaired by the lighting during his performance and the focus of his attention is his audience.”
The court continued: “This testimony could readily lead a jury to conclude that Kirkorov did not intentionally shove Rogers. ' [T]he jury could rationally have found Rogers' conduct to be more negligent than Kirkorov's because Rogers was supposed to be paying close attention to what was occurring in the theater, including Kirkorov's whereabouts, and was not doing so.”
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reinstated a jury verdict that dismissed a complaint against an entertainer who shoved a security guard, injured as a result, during a performance at the Trump Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City. Degenhardt v. Kirkorov, A-1075-09T1. While moving through the aisles during his show, Russian musical artist Philipp Kirkorov shoved security guard
The appellate court noted, however: “Kirkorov testified that he did not purposely push Rogers, but rather that he came into contact with an obstacle in his path that he brushed away. Kirkorov also said that his path of travel is reviewed with security staff prior to the performance to ensure that they do not block the aisles. Kirkorov explained during his testimony that a predetermined path is necessary because his vision is impaired by the lighting during his performance and the focus of his attention is his audience.”
The court continued: “This testimony could readily lead a jury to conclude that Kirkorov did not intentionally shove Rogers. ' [T]he jury could rationally have found Rogers' conduct to be more negligent than Kirkorov's because Rogers was supposed to be paying close attention to what was occurring in the theater, including Kirkorov's whereabouts, and was not doing so.”
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.
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.
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.