The LACBA Student Lounge Blog

Strict Liability for Chimp Owner?

In a Connecticut case seeking $50M in damages, lawyers are arguing whether the defendant in the case can be strictly liable. The argument is that defendant, Sandra Herold, is strictly liable for owning a wild animal and that the defendant was negligent and reckless for doing so. Here, the chimp caused nearly fatal injuries to the plaintiff.

According to a Law.com article, Mathew Newman, lead counsel for the plaintiff in the case, characterized the activity as ultra-hazardous. On the other hand, a lawyer for the defendant points to the challenge that the plaintiff in the case faces, namely that in Connecticut tort law, there are no cases of strict liability.

Tort lawyers throughout the state are watching carefully for a potential change in Connecticut tort law.

Details on this story at Law.com.

CA Cyber-Bullying Law as of January 1, 2009

In addition to losing the right to text while driving, on January 1, 2009, cyber-bullying will now be illegal in California. Reported in the Sacramento Bee and according to the new law, school authorities will be able to suspend or expel students who bully other students online, with text messaging or by other electronic means. Here, cyber-bullying will be added to school codes which have, up to this point, only focused on direct physical or verbal harassment.

The Megan Meier case: a 13-year-old Missouri girl hanged herself after being rejected by someone she thought was a love interest. Lori Drew, the mother of one of Megan's friends created the fictional MySpace page under the name of "Josh Evans". After Megan's death, Drew was convicted of misdemeanor counts of accessing computers to inflict emotional distress.

Bullying goes hi-tech:

In September, the Vallejo City Unified School District passed a sweeping policy banning students from using computers or cell phones to send harassing or threatening messages, or to cheat on exams. District spokesman Jason Hodge said officials became alarmed by students sending text or instant messages to incite campus fights. In some cases, he said, altercations were incited by students wanting to make cell phone videos to post on YouTube.

Torti's Change to Tort: The Good Samaritin

As any law student knows, being a "good Samaritin" may not necessarily be a good thing. That  has become even more true in California. In the case of Van Horn v. Watson the California Supreme Court held that "good Samaritin" exemptions from civil liability only apply to trained professionals providing emergency medical care, not to a non-professional providing help in an emergency situation.

The case the court was dealt with involved a car crash. Van Horn was riding in a car driven by Watson, with another passenger, Freed. Torti was riding in another car driven by Ofoegbu. Watson lost control of his car and crashed into a light pole. Ofoegbu pulled over and both he and Torti got out of the car to help Watson, Freed and Van Horn. Watson was able to exit on his own, and Ofoegbu merely opened the door for Freed. Torti, however, physically removed Van Horn from the car by lifting her out. Torti claimed this was necessary because she believed the car was about to set on fire. That is disputed by the other parties. It turns out that the assistance rendered may have worsened Van Horn's injuries. Van Horn is now a parapalegic as a result of the accident.

Ultimately, the decision by the Court narrows the scope of California's existing "good Samaritin" law and prevents it from being available to a non-professional in an emergency situation. This means that someone could be found liable for causing damage to another, even if they're doing it for the other's benefit. To read more commentary on this case, read an article on the case by the L.A. Times.