Archive for the 'Torts' CategoryPage 2 of 9

You Can Get Cited For Leaving Your Child Unattended in a Library

Curtis, at the Oregon Library Association Legal Ease pre-conference, you mentioned that Oregon has a law that applies to unattended children left in a public libraries.  Could you tell us more about it?

Curtis Kiefer:  Six years ago when we were reviewing our code of conduct for the library, we were going through a period when many young children were being left at  the library for extended periods (4-8 hours) or not being picked up at library  closing time.  As we often do, we look at what Oregon law has to say on a  particular issue, write our policy and have it reviewed by our City Attorney.  We found that the statute cited below could be applied to libraries.

Is there a specific age that the law applies to?

Kiefer: I am including the language in the Oregon Revised Statutes (2005) that addresses age.

163.545 Child neglect in the second degree.

(1) A person having custody or control of a child under 10 years of age commits the crime of child neglect in the  second degree if, with criminal negligence, the person leaves the child  unattended in or at any place for such period of time as may be likely to endanger  the health or welfare of such child.

(2) Child neglect in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743  §174; 1991 c.832 §2]

So far we have invoked this once when a father loudly announced to his young daughter that he was leaving because she wouldn’t get off an educational software computer.   He left, we called the home where the mother responded with, “Oh he does that,” and then we called the police.   Once the police became involved (I believe he received a citation) he threatened to sue the library.  Once legal counsel was consulted he found that he didn’t have a case.  That was the last we heard of the incident.

Self-Destructing Toilet: Woman Sues Trump Taj Mahal

Toilets are dangerous.

I didn’t know that. But know I do. They can put you in jail. They can give you serious injurious. I officially call for a ban on toilets and I expect all our loyal readers to join us in this mission to eliminate this scourge from the Earth.

But really, there’s been a recent upsurge in lawsuits involving everyone’s favorite bathroom fixture. You might recall the lady who screamed at her toilet and was almost put in jail. The brief rundown of that post was that a lady was getting irate and furious about her overflowing toilet. She started shouting expletives around and calling for her daughter to get a mop to clean the mess up. Neighbor is a police officer, calls the cops on her, and she gets cited for disorderly conduct.

Now the toilet strikes again. Its blood-lust cannot be controlled, you can only hope to contain it. And Donald Trump is pissed.

The self-destructing toilet incident

Jean Ciocci, a 74 year old woman from Philadelphia, was staying at the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City. She decides to use the toilet in her room. CRACKKKK! The toilet breaks away from the wall - taking her down with it! Can you even imagine sitting on a toilet and it tears away from the bathroom wall? I mean, you sit down, its your private time to relax and get away from the world, and boom, you’re on the floor with a overflowing toilet on top of you. To add injury to insult, she suffered serious injuries which resulted in a disability in her arm. That’s major toilet damage!

She sued the Trump Taj Majal.

The result

The Trump Taj Mahal Casino believes it to be hard for Jean Ciocci to be able to prove her case. Even after this statement, they decided to settle with Ciocci for $1.2 million dollars - Ciocci accepted.

“I think the Trump casino behaved responsibly in terms of recognizing that the toilet wasn’t properly mounted and by offering a fair settlement in this case. We’re hoping she’ll be able to use some of this money to make improvements to her house so she’ll be able to get around,” said Daniel J. Mann, who is Ciocci’s lawyer.

When will toilets stop their destructive warpath? Stop the madness!

Burger King Files Lawsuit Against McDonalds Over Game Pieces

From Trademark Blog:

Burger King franchisee alleges that McDonalds is liable for false advertising in connection with statements made by McDonalds not about Burger King but about McDonalds’ own promotions (which in itself was interesting - it turns out that a company that McDonalds paid to run one of its sweepstakes promotions had embezzled winning game pieces, therefore representations made by McDonalds that its sweepstakes was fair, was false - however McDonalds pled an intervening cause defense).
Anyway: given that the Lanham Act accords standing to any person who believes that they are likely to be damaged by the bad act in 43(a), does the BK franchisee have standing:

11th Circuit: No. There is a five factor test in the 3d Circuit case, Conte Brothers, 165 F.3d 221, 225 (3d Cir. 1998) that weights factor such as proximitiy of the bad act to plaintiff’s harm, the speculativeness of the damages, and possibility of duplicative damages, among other factors, and in this situation, found that the franchisee was too far from the action to have standing.

Phoenix of Broward v. McDonalds
, 06-14726 (11th Cir June 22, 2007).