|
|
|
Court OKs Suit in Death of Drunk Teen Left in Pickup
Headline News |
2008/09/16 07:07
|
The Tennessee Supreme Court has revived a wrongful-death case against four men whose intoxicated friend died after they left him in the open bed of a pickup truck for fear he would vomit on them.
The mother of Cody Downs is entitled to a jury trial, the court said, on either of two theories of liability –- that his friends “owed him a duty to exercise reasonable care to refrain from conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of harm” or voluntarily “assumed a duty by taking charge of [him] because he was helpless.”
Downs, 18, was struck by two oncoming vehicles as he was trying to run across an interstate freeway. If the defendants put him in the bed of the truck, the duty to exercise reasonable care would apply since, the opinion said, “it is common knowledge that riding unrestrained in a vehicle can result in preventable injuries and deaths.”
An appeals court had summarily dismissed the case against Downs' roommate Ryan Britt, the pickup's owner Scott Hurdle, driver Jerry Eller, and passenger Mark Bush, citing the lack of any “prohibition against an adult riding in the open bed of a pickup truck.”
Downs and his friends initially rode in the pickup's cab as they headed home on Interstate 65 from a party in Cool Springs, Tenn., to his apartment in Nashville. After he became nauseous, they stopped alongside the freeway so he could throw up.
Someone then suggested that Downs travel the rest of the way in the bed of the pickup so he would not vomit on anybody. Several miles later, his friends realized he was no longer there but they continued on to his apartment without looking for him.
Writing for the Supreme Court, Chief Justice William M. Barker noted that “the record is unclear whether the defendants assisted Mr. Downs into the bed of the truck, physically put him there, or whether he voluntarily agreed to ride there.” The resolution of that factual issue, he said, would determine “the nature of the duty the defendants owed Mr. Downs.”
If Downs got into the bed of the truck voluntarily, the duty would be that owed under the Restatement of Torts by “One who ... takes charge of another who is helpless adequately to aid or protect himself.”
“[T]here are genuine issues of material fact with respect to whether Mr. Downs was 'helpless' and whether the defendants 'took charge of' him,” Barker said.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Janice M. Holder concluded that the defendants owed Downs a duty to exercise reasonable care and the jury should only have to decide “whether the defendants breached that duty and caused the decedent's death.”
On the causation issue, the appeals court found it was not foreseeable that “a young man who, upon all accounts was happy and showed no signs of the intention to harm himself, would run into the interstate as the result of being 'put' or 'assisted' into the bed of the pickup truck.'” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
O.J. Will Face All-White Jury
Headline News |
2008/09/12 07:14
|
Nine women and three men, none of them black, have been seated as the jury in the O.J. Simpson robbery and kidnapping trial. Trial is expected to begin Monday. Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass said jurors will not be sequestered.
The fourth day of juror questioning moved at a fast clip Thursday, and by mid-afternoon the top 40 finalists were chosen. The 12 jurors and six alternates were picked just before 8 p.m.
Simpson and co-defendant Clarence C.J. Stewart have pleaded not guilty to kidnapping, armed robbery and other charges after an alleged sports memorabilia hold-up last year at the Palace Station Casino.
One of Stewart's attorneys has his own legal problems. Former Louisiana Sen. Charles Jones is charged in Louisiana with filing false federal tax returns in 2001 and 2003 and trying to duck taxes on more than $750,000 in legal fees from July 1995 to December 2003.
Jones pleaded not guilty in February. Trial is set for March 2009 in Monroe, La.
On Thursday, prospective jurors were peppered with questions ranging from topics such as religion and one juror's alcoholism to Simpson's previous criminal and civil cases.
Many said they disagreed with the 1995 verdict that acquitted Simpson of the 1994 slayings of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman. But they said they could be fair in this case.
More than one admitted to not wanting to be there.
I don't really want to be here, due to babysitting problems, said one potential juror, a nurse's assistant. Being a single mom, and being here ... I don't know if I'll get paid for doing this.
A former police officer turned salesman acknowledged he answered a questionnaire with fiery language to get himself removed from the case.
I wanted to scare you so that I wouldn't have to be here, he said. I was hoping (you) would think, 'This guy is crazy.'
He changed course somewhat during questioning.
I'm a firm believer in the system, and (Simpson) won. He is a free man until he comes here.
Judge Glass prodded him to look deep inside yourself and say ... 'Yes, I understand how the system works and I can put it aside and give both sides a fair evaluation in this case - or I can't.'
The answer: Unfortunately, I can.
One juror was excused for his remark, If someone got away with something like that ... you would keep yourself clean, you wouldn't come back up here and pretty much commit another crime.
Also Thursday, Glass denied a motion from the media to release the filled-out questionnaires jurors were given. Glass said she would release the unanswered questions after the jury is seated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Firm Can't Sue Enron Again, 5th Circuit Says
Headline News |
2008/09/10 07:16
|
A Houston law firm cannot file 34 more lawsuits against Enron after the high-flying company's financial collapse, the 5th Circuit ruled.
Fleming amp; Associates has represented hundreds of plaintiffs against the failed energy company, but Judge Prado agreed with the district court that the statute of limitations on the latest group of cases had expired.
The lawsuits would have covered 1,200 clients and would have alleged state law claims of fraud, negligence and civil conspiracy. Prado ruled that the district court did not violate any notions of federalism by determining that the state court would dismiss the claims as untimely.
The district court is intimately involved in the many facets of litigation surrounding the Enron collapse, Prado wrote. Further, federal courts often consider issues involving a state statute of limitations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama Sues Banks In $3.2 Billion Bond Fiasco
Headline News |
2008/09/04 07:24
|
Alabama sued bond consultants Blount, Parrish amp; Roton and 12 banks and insurers for their part in Jefferson County's sewer bond fiasco: the $3.2 billion debt has the county on the verge becoming the nation's largest-ever municipal bankruptcy. The state claims Blount Parrish bribed Jefferson County Commission President Larry Langford to get its consulting contract, and JP Morgan Chase Bank and others profited by refinancing the enormous debt with auction rate securities and interest rate swaps, for their own benefit.
The Jefferson Parish sewer bond fiasco was the lead item in New York Times financial columnist Gretchen Morgenson's Sunday column on Aug. 31. Morgenson used Jefferson County to illustrate the perils faced by investors in municipal securities, which have $2.6 trillion in outstanding debt.
As state entities, the municipal agencies are largely free of regulatory oversight. More than half of them have failed to file required financial reports, and more than 25 percent chronically fail to do so, Morgenson reported, citing a recent study by DPC Data, one of four data collectors known as nationally recognized municipal securities information repositories.
Alabama claims in Jefferson County Court that Blount Parrish JP Morgan Chase employee Charles LeCroy, on behalf of defendants JP Morgan and JP Morgan Bank, teamed with defendant Blount Parrish to perpetrate the plan of refinancing the County's fixed rate sewer debt with auction rate securities and interest rate swaps, such plan to be for the benefit of the Defendants. It is alleged that co-conspirators Blount and LeCroy, having secured the cooperation of Langford, seized the opportunity to launch the massive sewer debt re-finance plan at issue herein which has brought the County to the brink of ruin.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' alleged conduct, the County and the public have suffered enormous financial harm and the future viability of the County's operations vital to the public has been put in imminent peril. Each Defendant allegedly profited directly fro the scheme or conspiracy perpetrated by Langford, Blount, LaPierre and LeCroy with each Defendant receiving valuable and lucrative contracts relating to the County's bond offerings and swap contracts.
(LaPierre is Al LaPierre, of Blount Parrish.)
The State says that public corruption in Jefferson County government is well documents. In the past several years there have been 21 criminal convictions related to the sewer system, including the conviction of a former county commissioner.
Named as defendants are Blount Parrish amp; Roton, JP Morgan Chase amp; Co., JP Morgan Chase Bank, Bear Stearns Capital Markets, Stern, Agee amp; Leach, Bank of America NA, CDR Financial Services, Goldman, Sachs Capital Markets, National Bank of Commerce of Birmingham, Bank of New York, Financial Guaranty Insurance Co., Financial Security Assurance Inc., and XL Capital Assurance.
The State is represented by James O'Neal and Law One Group of Birmingham. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Church to defy federal ruling upholding funeral protests ban
Headline News |
2008/08/29 08:15
|
Followers of the Kansas-based fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church plan to stage a protest at the funeral for late Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones Thursday, despite a federal appeals court ruling last week that upheld an Ohio law limiting funeral protests. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit last week upheld Ohio's funeral protest law against a constitutional challenge raised by Westboro member Shirley Phelps-Roper. Westboro church members have been going around the country picketing military funerals in recent years, claiming US soldiers have been killed because America tolerates homosexuals. Phelps-Roper claimed that the Ohio law was unconstitutionally overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment. The district court rejected Phelps-Roper's challenge, concluding that the provision was a constitutional content-neutral regulation of the time and manner of protests and that the state of Ohio has a significant interest in protecting its citizens from disruptions during funeral events. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, stating that the law was reasonable and that:
blockquote Individuals mourning the loss of a loved one share a privacy right similar to individuals in their homes or individuals entering a medical facility...Unwanted intrusion during the last moments the mourners share with the deceased during a sacred ritual surely infringes upon the recognized right of survivors to mourn the deceased. Furthermore, just as a resident subjected to picketing is 'left with no ready means of avoiding the unwanted speech,' mourners cannot easily avoid unwanted protests without sacrificing their right to partake in the funeral or burial service./blockquoteIn April, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius signed similar legislation banning protests within 150 feet of a funeral one hour before, during, and two hours after the end of a service. At least 37 other states have passed similar laws in response to the Westboro pickets, and a federal lawnbsp; restricting protests at Arlington National Cemetery and other federal cemeteries has also been passed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US soldier sentenced for desertion
Headline News |
2008/08/26 08:15
|
A US military judge in Colorado sentenced US Army Pfc. Robin Long Friday to 15 months in prison, dishonorable discharge and demotion after Long pleaded guilty to desertion with intent to remain away permanently. Long fled to Canada in 2005 in moral opposition to the war in Iraq and filed for refugee status there, but a Canadian immigration judge denied his motion in August 2007, writing:nbsp;
blockquote I find nothing in the claimant’s evidence that would support a finding that he could not rely upon the state to protect him from persecution or any other harm. There is no support for a finding that it was objectively reasonable for the claimant not to have sought protection in his country./blockquoteCanadian officials deported Long to the US in July. US authorities initially charged him with desertion with intent to shirk hazardous duty, a more serious offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but Long pleaded to the lesser offense of desertion with intent to remain away permanently the same day as the scheduled start of his court-martial proceedings.
In early July, Canada's House of Commons passed a non-binding resolution to grant US military deserters asylum. In November 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, two US military deserters who had unsuccessfully applied for asylum before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The IRB had concluded that the two men would receive a fair trial if they were returned to the US and that they would not face persecution or cruel and unusual punishment. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
