November 2, 2013
10/31/2013 // West Palm Beach, Florida, US // JusticeNewsFlash // Justice News Flash // (press release)
Kansas City – The Missouri Supreme Court is set to make a decision regarding whether a team mascot can be held liable for the injuries sustained by a fan at a Kansas City Royals game. As reported by The Christian Science Monitor, the court is weighing whether the “baseball rule,” which protects teams from lawsuits over fan injuries linked to field, court, or rink events, applies to an incident in which a man alleged he was injured after being hit by a hot dog thrown by a mascot.
John Coomer claims he was injured at a Royals game in 2009 when Sluggerrr, the team’s lion mascot, threw a foil wrapped wiener into the stands that struck him in the eye. He reportedly had two surgeries after the incident.
His attorney, Robert Tormohlen, is quoted in the report as stating, “If a jury finds that the activity at issue is an inherent and unavoidable risk, the Royals owe no duty to their spectators…No case has extended the no-duty rule to the activities of a mascot.”
As noted in the report, oral arguments were heard by the Supreme Court in September, but there has yet to be an indication on when a ruling may be issued.
This report is provided by Justice News Flash – Kansas City Legal News
Address: 215 South Olive Suite 300 W. Palm Beach FL 33401
February 1, 2013
01/31/2013 // West Palm Beach , Florida, US // JusticeNewsFlash // Justice News Flash // (press release)
New York – A judge has dismissed a lawsuit against ConAgra Foods Inc. filed by a group of consumers claiming the company’s Hebrew National hot dogs in addition to other products did not meet the standards for being kosher. As reported by Reuters, U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank in St. Paul federal court ruled the dispute was not within his jurisdiction because it was faith-based.
The plaintiffs in the case alleged that ConAgra did not follow proper religious procedures in processing and packaging the products in question and sought unspecified damages in addition to other terms.
Frank is quoted by Reuters as writing in his decision, “Any judicial inquiry as to whether defendant misrepresented that its Hebrew National products are “100% kosher” (when Triangle K, an undisputedly religious entity, certified them as such) would necessarily intrude upon rabbinical religious autonomy.”
“It is Triangle K and its Orthodox rabbis who make such determinations…Naturally, therefore, this court cannot determine whether defendant’s Hebrew National products are in fact kosher without delving into questions of religious doctrine,” the judge further noted.
Justice News Flash delivers the latest in New York legal news.
Address: 215 South Olive Suite 300 W. Palm Beach FL 33401
October 29, 2012
10/29/2012 // San Francisco , CA, USA // Keller Grover LLP // Eric Grover // (press release)
San Francisco, CA — Since the rise in popularity of social media networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, there has been an ongoing debate as to whether or not it is lawful to fire someone for the content on an employee’s social media pages. A ruling by National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has recently clarified some of the issues in the debate by determining that certain social media postings are not protected under federal labor law, reports Eric Grover, a Bay Area employment lawyer. A separate ruling addressed corporate social media policies for employees.
In the case addressing corporate social media policies, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 371 brought a case against Costco Wholesale Company alleging that Costco’s social media policy violated employee rights provided by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRB determined that the policy is “overly broad,” and that these broad policies are unlawful, ABC News revealed.
The social media policy read: “Employees should be aware that statements posted electronically (such as online message boards or discussion groups) that damage the Company, defame any individual or damage any person’s reputation, or violate the policies outlined in the Costco Employee Agreement, may be subject to discipline, up to and including termination of employment.”
According to the NLRB, such far reaching workplace social media rules could be understood by employees as an attempt to restrict certain rights outlined in the NLRA.
In a separate case that clarified issues regarding social media communications, the NLRB determined that the firing of a car salesman was not a wrongful termination because the employee’s social media updates were not protected under federal laws.
The Chicago-area salesman reportedly posted a pictured of an SUV accident on his Facebook page with a caption that read “Oops.” A 13-year-old apparently hit the gas by accident during a test drive and the car ended up in a pond. The employee also made other Facebook postings that mocked the dealership for providing hot dogs and bottled water by stating, “No, that’s not champagne or wine, its 8 oz. water. “ The latter posting was deemed to be protected communication, but was not related to his termination.
The NLRB determined that social media postings are only protected under the NLRA if they concern working conditions or wages. Virtually everything else is posted at an employee’s own risk.
The director of NLRB public affairs, Nancy Cleeland, stated, “We want to be sure employees know that under federal labor law, they have a right to discuss their wages and working conditions with each other, and to join together to try to improve them. Those rights have existed since the National Labor Relations Act was enacted in 1935. Today, we are merely extending those protections to new forms of communication, such as Facebook. But not all work-related social media posts are protected, and some behaviors can cause an employee to lose protection”
Address: 1965 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103
Url: San Francisco employment lawyer | Los Angeles employment attorney
July 15, 2011
07/14/2011 // WPB, FL, USA // Personal Injury Lawyers News // Nicole Howley
Valparaiso, IN — A 7-year-old boy was bit by an alligator after another visitor of the theme park fished the gator out of his habitat and invited children to come pet it. The boy was bitten on Sunday evening, July 10, 2011, at Zao Island family entertainment center and amusement park at around 6:45 p.m., reported by CBS Chicago.
According to officials, the alligators at the indoor-outdoor amusement park are kept in an outdoor pound, which is enclosed with a fence along U.S. Route 30.
The park allows visitors to feel the alligators with hot dog chunks that are strung on the end of poles provided to the visitors by the park.
The man reportedly made a noose out of the string and used it to pull the alligator out of its habitat. The man then invited the nearby children to come over and pet the reptile.
Ryan Strand, 7, of Concord, N.C., was bitten while petting the gator, which prompted the man, his wife and four kids to flee the scene and get into a dark-colored extended cab pickup truck and drive away.
Strand was treated at the scene by emergency medical services and was transported to an area hospital for further treatment of injuries on his right index finger.
An employee of Zao Island was able to identify the woman with the man as a 24-year-old Portage, Ind. resident. When police spoke with the woman she was uncooperative and wouldn’t reveal the man’s name.
Investigations are underway.
Legal News Reporter: Nicole Howley-Legal news for Indiana personal injury lawyers.
Url: West Palm Beach Personal Injury Lawyer News
November 20, 2010
11/16/2010 // WPB, FL, USA // Personal Injury Lawyers News // Nicole Howley
Chappaqua, NY—The hopes and dreams of two 13-year-old boys were crushed, after a New York suburb politician called the cops on the boys, who were selling baked goods in a park without a permit. The boys say they were being entrepreneurs, who hoped they would make enough money to open a restaurant, reports MSNBC.
On October 9., police officers were called to the boy’s stand in the Gedney Park, after receiving a phone call from New Castle Councilman Michael Wolfensohn. The boys, Andrew DeMarchis and Kevin Graff, were on their second day selling cupcakes, brownies and Rice Krispie Treats for $1 each, according to The Journal News in Westchester County.
Wolfensohn reportedly asked the boys if the treats were for charity, but when they boys said they weren’t, the councilman alerted police.
The boys, and two of their friends Zachary Bass and Daniel Katz, were hoping to open a restaurant with the proceeds of their baked goods stand. On their first day, they made $120.
“All vendors selling on town property have to have a license, whether it’s boys selling baked goods or a hot dog vendor,” Wolfensohn said.
Permits to sell items in the park cost $150 to $350 for two hours, in addition to a $1 million insurance certificate.
Andrew DeMarchis told The Journal News, “We were being entrepreneurs, but now I feel a little defeated.”
Legal News Reporter: Nicole Howley
Url: West Palm Beach Personal Injury Lawyer News
July 29, 2009
Legal news for New Jersey product liability attorneys. The Cancer Project launched a class-action lawsuit against manufacturers on fears of cancer link.
New Jersey product liability attorneys- class action lawsuit sues hot dog makers for colorectal cancer link in a American Institute for Cancer Research study.
Newark, NJ—The non-profit organization called the Cancer Project has launched a class action lawsuit against many big hot dog manufacturing companies. The Washington D.C.-based group filed the lawsuit on behalf of three New Jersey residents in the Superior Court of Essex County on Wednesday, July 22, 2009, as reported by the Tristatehomepage.com.
The class-action consumer fraud lawsuit, which targeted many food manufacturers that produce hotdogs, stated the manufacturing companies of hot dogs neglected to warn consumers about the link between hot dogs and colorectal cancer. The Cancer Project based their lawsuit on a 2007 study conducted by the unaffiliated American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR). The study revealed eating the equivalent amount of one hot dog of processed meat raises a persons risk for getting colorectal cancer by 21-percent. The named companies in the lawsuit include Nathan’s famous, Kraft Foods/Oscar Mayer, Sara Lee, Con Agra Foods and Marathon Enterprises. The consumer watch group is demanding warning labels to be added to the packaging of hot dogs, which would state: “consuming hot dogs and other processed meat increases the risk of cancer”. The AICR responded to the lawsuit and release a statement saying, “the AICR does not take a position on the need for warning labels”.
Nicole Howley—Legal news for product liability lawyers in New Jersey.
March 29, 2009
Downers Grove Sara Lee Corp. Recalled 1,728 pounds of Ball Park hot dogs.
Chicago, IL (JusticeNewsFlash.com)–As reported by the Chicago Tribune on Friday, the Downers Grove food product company, Sara Lee Corporation www.saralee.com, voluntarily recalled 1,728 pounds of its Ball Park brand hot dogs. According to the national and international consumer goods company, the hot dogs were mislabeled and were recalled because of a packaging error. The product recall involves Ball Park Beef Franks with a packaged “Use by May 08 09 P8740A” and UPC Code 5450010002.
Ball Park Cheese Franks were mislabeled as Ball Park Beef Franks placing people with allergies to milk, poultry and pork at risk of serious injury. Consumers with known food allergies specifically refrain from ingesting the product they are allergic to because of the severe medical injury and possible death allergic reactions may cause. Company executives for Sara Lee refused to say where the recalled hot dogs were sold but they did confirm none were sold in the Chicago area. There have been no reports of illness or injury.
JusticeNewsFlash.com news for Chicago product liability lawyers.