Five Circuits have considered, and rejected, fossil fuel efforts to get state-law tort and nuisance claims removed to federal court. Will their luck change in the Supreme Court?
Is negligently providing information to a dangerous person comparable to negligently entrusting a gun to a dangerous person (assuming a reasonable person would have realized the person was dangerous)?
Under N.Y. law, the court holds, a jury could find that the alleged touching could qualify as touching of "intimate parts," based on its context.
A new decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals.
Research conducted with sitting judges suggests that autonomous vehicles will be judged more harshly than conventional vehicles.
if it's done without adequate investigation, and as a means of retaliating against the teenager's parent.
An interesting discussion of the question—with a vivid example—in a South Carolina case.
Plaintiff had been an Iranian citizen exposed to asbestos in Iran, from 1959 to 1979; he then moved to California (after defendants' negligent conduct took place), and developed mesothelioma and died.
The interesting legal issue is whether the parents converted his property "for [their] own use," thus entitling him to three times the actual damages under Michigan law.
The same logic could apply when churches, synagogues, mosques, bookstores, gun stores, fur stores, and similar places are targeted by their enemies. We've filed an amicus brief before the Georgia Court of Appeals, in support of getting the verdict reversed.
(1) Black Lives Matter demonstrations. (2) Trump-fans-vs.-Biden-bus demonstrations.
The Court avoids, at least for now, the First Amendment question by instructing the Fifth Circuit to ask the Louisiana Supreme Court to decide whether Louisiana state law even allows negligence liability in the case.
Even after the shutdown orders are lifted, businesses may fear liability if they reopen and someone supposedly gets sick as a result—when Congress concludes reopening is safe, should it block such liability?
More on Doe v. Mckesson, the Baton Rouge Black Lives Matter case.
the Baton Rouge Black Lives Matter case (in which Judge Don Willett has just switched to dissenting, and in which a cert. petition has been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court).
The California Court of Appeal upheld a $900,000 intentional infliction of emotional distress verdict against the grandmother, who had cofounded the Trinity Broadcasting Network.
The defendants are "Stunna 4 Vegas" and "Dababy"-run company Billion Dollar Baby Entertainment, LLC.
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.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
