A New Jersey appellate court said a co-worker relationship (if long-lasting and close enough) "would be adequate to fairly warrant the imposition of a duty to act." The New Jersey Supreme Court declined to opine on this, and instead concludes that such a duty wouldn't be triggered on the facts of this case.
Plus a side note on Mormon church basketball.
I'll bet you never studied this (at least under this name) in your 1L Torts class.
If a statute imposes strict liability for dog bites, does that extend to a herding dog nipping at a cow that then trampled the plaintiff?
A creative legal theory, roundly rejected.
That's what a New Jersey appellate court seems to have created, based on the theory that a criminal's coworkers somehow have a special duty to the victim -- even when the crime has nothing at all to do with the job.
The Georgia Court of Appeals rejected Snapchat's federal 47 U.S.C. sec. 230 defense, though Snapchat may still win under Georgia law.
The North Dakota Supreme Court says "no," but one judge dissents.
A woman is injured in a car accident supposedly because of bad roadway design decision (a dangerous cut in the median) -- so she sues business that had lobbied county to make that decision.
This modal will close in 10