Law bloggers may stop blogging and law bloggers are, of course, going to die. But there is no reason their blog should not live on.
The question of what happens to a law blog over time arose yesterday when leading legal tech blogger and attorney, Bob Ambrogi mentioned on Facebook that someone just asked him if he had a succession plan for his blog. Not that his demise is imminent.
AttorneyCarolyn Elefant, also a prominent law blogger responded that she often wonders where ol
Electronic discovery is about technology, its about workflows, its about costs and its certainly about the professionals who do the work. But its important
Franz Klammer was not involved in this incident, but he makes for great art work for the blog.
An interesting case yesterday out of New Yorks Appellate Division, involving a skier that crashed into a snowboarderat the base of the bunny hill, badly injuring the boarder.
Most lawyers wouldnt take such a case due to the assumption of risk doctrine. Ive discussed that before, as it often provides immunity to the one that caused the injury. Assumption of risk,as I describedpreviously regarding an injured softball player, provides that:
a voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participationIf the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty.
So wouldnt that apply to a skier that clobbered another? The defendant in Horowitz v. Chen moved for summary judgment on that basis.
Not so fast, said the appellate court. The defendant, it seems, was moving at 20 to 30 kilometers per hour (yes, that is the way it is written), and the plaintiff was standing in a crowd at the bottom of the beginnersslope.
While participants in sporting activities may consent to the commonly appreciated risks inherent in a sport, the court said that doesnt mean that they consent toconduct that is reckless, intentional or so negligent as to create an unreasonably increased risk.
The court noted that this occurred in or near a marked safety zone, and that the defendant skier was zipping along in this area despitehis awareness of his limited abilities to safely handle such speed under the snow surface conditions presented.
The court also noted the extent of the injuries (not described in the opinion), writing that in view of the significant injuries sustained by plaintiff, reasonable inferences may be drawn that she endured a violent collision, which raises an issue as to whether the speed at which defendant was skiing was reckless under the circumstances.
Now the important part, for New York practitioners. This case came out of New Yorks First Department. (NY has four, for you out-of-towners, the First covers Manhattan and the Bronx.) In rendering its decision, the court cited to two other cases, one in the Third and one in the Fourth.
So this represents a little new ground on the subject area of assumption of risk. If conduct is so negligent as to create an unreasonably increased risk then the assumption of risk doctrine can be overcome, at least for the purposes of surviving summary judgment.
And last, just because I feel like it, the legendary 1976 Olympic downhill run of Franz Klammer:
Thomas M. Wells, photo from his law firm website
Ive said before that Donald Trumpis a one-man bar exam, as his candidacy seems to touch on roughly six bazillion different issues. One could easily create a law blog devoted solely to the legal issues he is involved with that come up on a daily basis from matrimonial, to contracts, to fraud, to defamation, to torture and war crimes and more.
But today, just for kicks, Ill tell you how he may have been inappropriately slimed. Beating up on Trump, you see, is easy pic
Early Saturday morning, a hot air balloon caught fire and crashed into
a pasture, resulting in the death of all 16 passengers onboard. Local
authorities report that the crash occurred at roughly 7:45 a.m. in Lockhart,
Texas, around Jolly Road north of Cistern Road, just 30 miles south of Austin.
The sheriffs office responded to a 911 call reporting a possible vehicle collision. Once responders made it to the scene, they recognized the reported fire as the basket from the hot air balloon.
Officials for the Federal Aviation Administration state that the hot air balloon crashed and caught fire after hitting a high voltage power line. The site where the hot air balloon crashed appeared to be just below the overhead lines that stand nearly 5 stories tall.
The FAA and National Transportation Safety Board head the investigation.
Most people regard used car salesmen with the same determined skepticism as a three-card Monte dealer on the street -- sure that there is some sleight of hand occurring to pull as much money out of their pocket as possible. And perhaps with good reason: John Oliver just exposed the seedy side of auto lending and the predatory tactics used car dealerships will use to screw over car buyers.
Well, add one more scam to the list. Road & Track magazine refers to it as the "spot delivery" scam or "yo-yo sale" and it is costing unsuspecting car buyers thousands of dollars.
On the Spot
Imagine that you have very bad credit and you very badly need a car. (For some of us, this is not a difficult exercise.) Now imagine that a used car dealer sells you a car anyway, telling you how hard it was to get you financing, and sending you and your new-to-you car on your way. A few days later the dealer calls, saying, "Sorry, your financing fell through, you'll need to come back in and put down more money for the car." Or, potentially even worse, you need to finance the car through someone else, usually at a much higher interest rate.
This is illegal to some degree in most states, one of the shadiest car financing scams out there, and one that people fall for time and time again. So what do you do if a dealer says your financing "fell through" and threatens to repo your car if you don't redo the paperwork?
As R&T notes, your financing is an agreement between the car seller and the bank:
Seller sells a car to Buyer and the credit is extended by a Bank. But most finance agreements actually say that the Buyer agrees to make monthly payments on the car to the Seller and that the Seller will assign the financing contract to the Bank. If the Seller is being truthful in stating that the financing "fell through" then the assignment has failed ... the Seller should not have told the Buyer that the assignment had been approved in the first place.
Therefore, the financing is the seller's problem, not yours. You committed to making payments to the seller, and you can continue to do so. If the dealer repossesses the car, you may be able to sue them for theft.
If a used car dealer tells you your financing "fell through," check your financing contract and continue making payments as it specifies. Or better yet, contact an experienced auto attorney in your area and tell them about your case.
When we think of workers compensation, we typically think of someone getting hurt once he or she is already at work or on-the-clock. There has been significant litigation about what happens when worker is injured on his or her way home from work or his or her way to work, and that is covered by what many jurisdictions refer to as the coming and going rule. It should be noted that, generally speaking, a worker is not entitled to workers compensation for travel to and from work absent special circumstances.