Tag Archives: liability

What Would Cousin Dudley Do?

Posted on by
Reply

dudleyWatching the “Harry Potter” movies with my kids allowed me to reach the proud parental conclusion that my kids, even at their worst, were far removed from the heinous behavior of Harry Potter’s cousin, Dudley. A child who could demand more birthday presents even after being showered with every toy the department store could hold, and who could get away with complaining constantly about everything, in spite of having it all, probably stands as the modern definition of “spoiled brat”.

Then along came Rachel Canning, the 18 year old high school student from New Jersey, who recently sued her parents, seeking that they be ordered to provide her financial assistance with her education (tuition at the private Catholic high school she currently attends, and then her college tuition thereafter), along with her current living and transportation expenses. From the pictures of Rachel on the internet, she does not appear to be someone who has ever wanted for much. The wrinkle in this story is that Rachel left her parents’ home voluntarily. The debate is whether she left because she didn’t want to follow her parents’ house rules (do some chores, abide by a curfew, etc.) or because she felt “abused” by name-calling and psychological mistreatment by her parents. From my perspective, the reason she left should not matter. She left. She is 18. Many a teenager over the years has begged for time to accelerate so that he/she could reach the age of 18, graduate high school or otherwise become emancipated from their parents. However, Rachel wants to the court to declare her “unemancipated”, since parents are not legally obligated to provide financial support for a child who is emancipated. New Jersey law does not consider a child to be “emancipated” unless they have left “the scope of his or her parents’ authority”. Seems like Rachel wants it both ways, i.e., the benefits of emancipation (freedom to do as one pleases) along with all the financial entitlement and support from parents of one who is not emancipated.

I don’t know if Rachel’s attorney is a parent or not. As one who is, my immediate reaction is that she can finish her last semester of high school in public school, since she has already benefitted from years of her parents having paid for a private education (although in the recent hearing on her suit, the judge noted that Rachel’s private school is not even making payment of her tuition an issue for her). Likewise, is she chooses to live elsewhere, one of the early life-lessons all people learn upon moving out on their own is that food, transportation, housing, etc., all costs money. If she were like the other millions of kids who will leave the comfort of their parents’ homes after turning 18 she’d have to pay those bills herself. Why not her? In her case, she has been staying at the home of one of her friends. Did those parents expect or demand payment? Apparently not. If they aren’t happy with the situation, they certainly have the right to throw her out.

Perhaps the most troubling, and as yet unresolved, issue in this case involves Rachel’s college tuition and expenses. The court denied her request for immediate financial assistance from her parents last week in a hearing, but tabled the issue of college tuition. While there may exist a “college fund” for Rachel that her parents established for their little darling when she was a toddler, does that entitle her to that money, now or ever? Unless she herself contributed some money from her own employment to date (why do I have a tough time picturing that?), what would actually prevent her parents from renaming the money otherwise set aside for Rachel’s college as their “Retirement Fund” or “Round the World Cruise Fund”? While colleges expect that students and their parents will pay the costs of a college education, I’m not sure that the waters have ever been tested in a situation where the parents and student involved are at loggerheads over who is actually responsible as between them. If a student applies, is accepted and then enrolls in a college and the parents won’t pay the tuition, unless they have signed off on any of the documents, are they legally liable? This particular case has the potential to set a dangerous precedent about what obligations parents have to provide for adult children who simply “want” something. We will have to see how this develops.

The only thing certain about the Rachel Canning matter is that their family holiday get-togethers in the future are almost certain to be tense affairs…

Air Travel Injury — The Tray Table Coffee Spill

Posted on by
Reply

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-breakfast-plane-fruit-small-bun-juice-tea-passenger-tries-tea-teaspoon-image30423496Once again, an incident in which someone claims injuries from a coffee spill is making the news. Ms. Lourdes Cervantes filed suit last month against United Airlines, related to a cup of coffee that spilled on her during a flight in 2011.

The most famous “coffee spill” incident in history is likely the one that lead to the lawsuit filed by 79 year old Stella Liebeck against McDonalds following burns she suffered in 1992. That case actually served as the inspiration for the title of this blog – but not because I believe it to have been frivolous (my friends in the plaintiff’s bar are quick to point out that Ms. Liebeck’s injuries were actually quite severe and that her claims were very legitimate, and there have been numerous articles, videos and investigative reports since that time to support that position). Instead, I used that case because of the very fact that for nearly 20 years it has served as the flashpoint for every debate about what actually constitutes frivolous litigation. In Ms. Liebeck’s case, various tales and urban legends exist regarding how she was burned – some claim she held the cup between her legs as she was driving, while others suggest that a family member was driving and bounced a pothole as she tried to add creamer, etc. Ultimately, what truly came out of that suit was discovery of the fact that McDonalds’ coffee was REALLY HOT…perhaps hotter than coffee made in other establishments and general residential coffee pots, etc.

Since Ms. Liebeck’s suit, I suspect everyone has seen the warnings which McDonalds (and likely many other such entities) now put on their coffee cups, noting that the product or liquid therein may be “VERY HOT” and to exercise “caution”, etc. Notwithstanding the injuries Ms. Liebeck suffered, it still seems odd to many that a restaurant should have to actually warn people that a drink created to be enjoyed hot is actually HOT. Reading such a warning on the cup might make the average person say “duh”…

In the new suit by Ms. Cervantes, she claims that while on an international flight on Continental Airlines (now part of the United system) in 2011, a flight attendant put a cup of coffee down on Ms. Cervantes’ tray table, after which the passenger in front of her reclined his seat, causing her coffee to spill and burn her. In her case, however, she has sued under a 1999 treaty (the Montreal Convention) related to international air travel that essentially makes an airline strictly liable for injuries a passenger may sustain on a flight, but limits the awardable damages. It does not appear that under this treaty Ms. Cervantes will have to prove the airline’s negligence, which is a good thing for her, since I’m not sure I see the negligent conduct of the airline, and she sure can’t sue the schmuck in the row in front of her.

Were it not for the ability to pursue a “strict liability” claim under the aforementioned treaty, it would appear that Ms. Cervantes’ case ignores the realities of air travel. Anyone who has ever flown knows that a plane bounces around in the air like a roller coaster, and that putting anything on a tray table is fraught with risk. Planes in flight actually go both upward and downward, thereby changing the angle of the trays, I presume to the surprise of no one. I have had plenty of beverages (including coffee) that were on a tray table spill in flight, and that little indentation in the tray table that is supposed to “hold” a cup is of little use. Moreover, tray tables are almost smaller than a laptop computer footprint, and those of us who work on planes know that we have nowhere to put our beverage while trying to type. The fact remains that we are packed in a long aluminum tube like sardines, with seats as close to the one in front of you as the airlines can get them. As a result, when the big guy in front of you reclines (and he is bound to do so), your tray table will move, and you are likely to be staring right at the back of his head only a few inches in front of your face. Likewise, finding a tray table that actually sits rigidly parallel to the floor is rare. Most appear to be off kilter or have a bracket or arm on one side that is a little looser than the other, etc., and they generally are too ricketty to bear much weight as it is.

The bottom line is that it is hard to believe that anyone would be surprised that something might spill during a flight. And quite frankly, in my experience, I’ve never even been served anything other than lukewarm coffee on any flight anyhow. While I take Ms. Cervantes’ claims about the injuries she suffered as true, I can only wonder whether a jury would actually find in her favor if she could not benefit from the 1999 treaty to pursue her claim. Otherwise, this type of event screams “assumption of the risk” to me. Because given the fact that you are bound to hit turbulence with a drink on your table, if the airline has to pay damages for for every spill that occurs, I surmise that air travel is going to take another step away from the luxurious days gone by, and the simple beverage service and peanuts we now receive in flight will be the next thing to go.

When we run out of things that might spill on us in flight, perhaps the next wave of litigation will be over the cold or flu we contract due to the fact we all have to share the same virus and bacteria-infested air with others in that long, tight tube.

The Blushing Plaintiff — Weisberg v. Lancome

Posted on by
Reply

Products that don’t live up to their hype, i.e., their marketing schemes, are a dime a dozen. The whole point of advertisements and statements like “new and improved” is to get people to buy the product. We all want to believe the pitch, but most of us realize there is a little “spin” involved. Does anyone truly believe that if you slap on Aqua Velva cologne that you’ll be fighting off supermodels who throw themselves at you? Yet some people must take these sales pitches and marketing ploys VERY seriously. A lawsuit was recently filed against make-up manufacture Lancome, alleging that their “24 hour” make-up didn’t actually last 24 hours.

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-mid-age-woman-applying-make-up-image21013258

The suit, filed April 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, was brought by Rorie Weisberg, an orthodox Jewish woman who contends that she purchased this product to get her through the Sabbath, since she cannot apply (or re-apply) make-up from sundown Friday night until Saturday evening…hence the “need” for a 24 hour make-up. When I first heard of her suit, I presumed that some unfortunate event must have befallen her sometime during her Sabbath period or religious services she may have attended (perhaps her make-up streaked or made her look freakish, leading to expulsion from her house of worship), causing her to suffer some significant damage. In fact, however, she claims to have “tested” the product on a Thursday, and that it was “cakey”, and her nose was shiny by Friday morning. Therefore, she apparently chose not to even use the product that night for her planned Sabbath primping. So what gives?

While I do not claim to know much about women’s make-up, much less the importance of make-up during the 24 hour Sabbath period in the Jewish religion, I was surprised that this “problem” with Lancome’s product could have been this significant. Surely the plaintiff had been dealing with Sabbath make-up issues weekly for many years? Ultimately, the true problem revealed itself when I wiped the mascara off the lawsuit and learned that it is actually just another class-action suit, seeking millions in “damages” for unsuspecting consumers who didn’t get a full 24 hours out of their make-up. As I addressed in an earlier article related to a class action suit against Anheuser-Busch over the alcohol content of their beer, I don’t think we’ll really see a solution from this litigation for poor Ms. Wiesberg’s problem in particular. For that, perhaps she should find out what the women who worked with Jack Bauer in “24” used – they never seemed to have time to re-apply make-up, but always looked their best.

Got drunk and killed someone … but what about MY damages?

Posted on by
Reply

In one (or more) of the original series of Star Wars movies, flummoxed hero Hans Solo could be heard exclaiming “It’s not my fault” when his bucket-of-bolts spaceship wouldn’t fly as it should. Needless to say, when one faces civil or criminal liability for their conduct, a common defense is that it’s “not my fault”. But a recently filed lawsuit in New Mexico takes the concept of refusing to accept personal responsibility one step further.

James Ruiz, already out on bond on his fifth DWI, was involved in a fatal drunk driving accident in 2010, in which two teenage sisters were killed. Mr. Ruiz was appropriately convicted of his crimes and sentenced to prison. The family of the girls filed civil suits, not surprisingly, against Ruiz (who is undoubtedly judgment-proof), and against the restaurant that served him alcohol that night, leading to his .22% blood-alcohol level at the time of the crash. Such a claim, known as “dram shop” liability, allows aggrieved victims of alcohol-related injuries to seek damages from the bar, restaurant or entity that over-served the drunk driver. Few would argue with the legitimacy of such a claim, although proof, of course, must be established on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Ruiz, however, also felt personally aggrieved at having to do a 40 year stretch in the state’s correctional facilities, and therefore filed his own suit against the restaurant (and his drinking buddy that night as well), claiming that their actions caused him to suffer emotional distress, loss of liberty and loss of the ability to enjoy life. Apparently, since this was his sixth DWI, he will contend that he faced much less than 40 years in prison if convicted only on the charge for which he was out on bond at the time of this accident, had he not been forced by his buddy and the restaurant to down enough drinks to register a .22% blood alcohol level. Everyone knows that the profit margin on alcohol at any restaurant is pretty good, hence the reason the wait staff will frequently inquire if you “want another?” (and which, by increasing the bill, likely increase their tip). When the restaurant staff ignores the increasing inebriation of a hard-drinking patron who then causes injuries to someone after leaving the facility, dram shop laws make that restaurant liable to the injured party. But if the law were to make them liable for damages to the person actually doing the drinking too, then we’ve gone way past compensating the innocent victim, to the point of financially rewarding the actual guilty party. Doesn’t the “drinker” have to take personal responsibility for his own actions? Even when the staff politely and frequently inquires about another drink, or even pushes or cajoles one to order more, every customer has the right to say “no”. Or can they claim to be so weak-minded and lacking of backbone that they cower at the mere inquiry from a waitress about having another drink?

If a claim like this moron’s is valid, then where does it stop? A street thug who shoots a robbery victim sues the good Samaritan or police officer whose intervention causes the gun to go off for his own emotional distress at having to do time or watching his victim bleed? Perhaps Captain Schettino should consider suing the people waving to his boat from the nearby shore which apparently caused him to divert the Costa Concordia into the rocks that sank his ship, killing several dozen people. Couldn’t he claim that their conduct ultimately have caused him emotional distress? And he’s likely going to have that whole “loss of liberty” claim to raise because of his probable incarceration. That’s the new tort law idea…even when your own personal conduct and actions cause death or destruction, just claim “it’s not my fault” and find someone else to whom you can pass the responsibility, and sue them for your own damages over the incident where you injured or killed someone else.

At least I’m happy to say that in Mr. Ruiz’ case, he filed his lawsuit himself, so we can’t blame this poppycock on some sleazy ambulance-chasing attorney.