Archive for the 'Law News' CategoryPage 2 of 3

Nebraska Court Throws Out Claim For T-shirt That Caught Fire

From May It Please the Court:

In 1999, Jeffery J. Marksmeier was wearing an old T-shirt manufactured by McGregor that wasn’t manufactured after 1990.  And he was burning leaves.  While he was burning leaves, he apparently leaned over a little too close to the pile of leaves and his T-shirt caught fire. 

Jeff was severely burned, and to recover for his damages, in 2003, he sued McGregor and a company called Delta Apparel, Inc., which manufactured the T-shirt under license from McGregor.  Apparently in the interim, there has been a change in the materials used to manufacture T-shirts, and Jeff claimed strict liability for using a material that didn’t have flame retardant on it.

Instead, the Nebraska Supreme Court made short work of Jeff’s lawsuit, and dismissed his claims against both McGregor and Delta.  The high court cited Nebraska’s statute of repose for bringing lawsuits against manufacturers of goods that were manufactured more than 10 years before the suit was filed.  The Nebraska court had not had the opportunity to interpret its statute of repose before, but no worries, it found that Tennessee used the same one.  With a hat tip to a series of Tennessee cases, the court snuffed out Jeff’s claims against these two manufacturers. 

Jeff and his mother were unable to testify when they got the T-shirt and how long it had been on the shelf at the store where they bought it.  Jeff even thought the T-shirt might have come from Goodwill.  McGregor, on the other hand, knew exactly when that particular T-shirt had stopped rolling off the manufacturing presses:  1990.  More than 10 years had elapsed between then and the time Jeff filed suit, so Jeff did not pass go or collect $200.

Specialized Law Firms Team Up to Form One Stop Shop

From My Shingle:

With so many large firms moving towards a “one stop shopping model,” what can a small firm or solo with a more specialized focus do to compete? You could try to become a jack of all trades, but in expanding your capabilities, you may compromise quality. Or, you could take the approach of the Birmingham, AL law firms described in this Business Journal story (9/25/06) and join forces to compete without formally merging. From the article, here’s a description of the arrangement:

Goodrich Law Firm LLC, Cunningham Firm LLC and Hahn Law Firm PC announced Monday the formation of Red Mountain Law, a network that will provide expertise through the individual firms in a broader range of legal services. Areas such as wills, trusts and estates and probate will be handled primarily by the Hahn Law Firm. Commercial and residential real estate and loan closings will be assigned to attorneys at the Cunningham Firm. Work involving securities law will be overseen by the Goodrich Law Firm.

Is there a strategic alliance that you can form to expand your business opportunities?

YouTube.com and Copyright Law

From Slate:

“When Google bought YouTube, the conventional wisdom - expressed in op-eds, newspaper articles, and scary editorial cartoons - was that they’d also bought themselves a whole heap of copyright trouble. The New York Times used the phrase “litigation-laden landmine.” Part-time copyright theorist Mark Cuban warned that YouTube would face the same copyright fate as Napster.

There’s only one problem with these theories: the copyright law itself. Under the copyright code, YouTube is in much better legal shape than anyone seems to want to accept. The site enjoys a strong legal “safe harbor,” a law largely respected by the television and film industries for the choices it gives them.

Stated otherwise, much of the copyrighted material on YouTube is in a legal category that is new to our age. It’s not "fair use," the famous right to use works despite technical infringement, for reasons of public policy. Instead, it’s in the growing category of "tolerated use"—use that is technically illegal, but tolerated by the owner because he wants the publicity. If that sounds as weird as "don’t ask, don’t tell," you’re getting the idea. The industry is deeply conflicted about mild forms of piracy—trapped somewhere between its pathological hatred of "pirates" and its lust for the buzz piracy can build.

If the Internet were not a bookstore, or tubes, but rather a red-light district, YouTube would best be imagined as the hotel, and Napster, well, the pimp. YouTube, like a hotel, provides space for people to do things, legal or not. It’s not doing anything illegal itself, but its visitors may be. But Napster, everyone more or less now admits, was cast as the pimp: It was mainly a means of getting illegal stuff. Right or wrong, we seem to accept the benign vision of YouTube as an entity which, unlike Napster, was basically born as a place to showcase stupid human tricks.

The upshot is, as YouTube goes mainstream, copyright’s etiquette rules are becoming clearer. Yes, these sites can make it easier to infringe copyright. But so long as that’s not the principal aim of your company, you have more breathing room today than you once did. And under the emerging regime, if you do cause infringement, you have to be nice about it and make determined efforts to stop it. Apple has learned that dance well, even as its iPods make swapping music all the more part of being American. And YouTube has, in turn, learned from Apple the early lessons of Napster: You can act out in cyberspace. Just don’t be a copyright pimp.”