|
|
|
Court: Caregivers can't sue Alzheimer's patients
Headline Legal News |
2014/08/06 09:44
|
People with Alzheimer's disease are not liable for injuries they may cause their paid in-home caregivers, California's highest court ruled Monday in a case involving a home health aide who was hurt while trying to restrain a client.
The California Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that people hired to work with Alzheimer's patients should know the disease commonly causes physical aggression and agitation in its later stages. The court majority concluded it would therefore be inappropriate to allow caregivers who get hurt managing a combative client to sue their employers.
"It is a settled principle that those hired to manage a hazardous condition may not sue their clients for injuries caused by the very risks they were retained to confront," Justice Carole Corrigan wrote for the majority.
The law in California and many other states already establishes that caregivers in institutional settings such as hospitals and nursing homes may not seek damages from Alzheimer's patients who injure them. To have a different standard for caregivers working in private homes would give families a financial incentive to put relatives with Alzheimer's into nursing homes, Corrigan said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court OKs suit over San Francisco jail guard rule
Headline Legal News |
2014/07/07 15:16
|
A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit challenging the San Francisco Sheriff's Department's policy of forbidding male guards to work in the women's jail.
The San Francisco Chronicle says a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the policy constituted sex discrimination which the city had failed to demonstrate was absolutely necessary.
The 9th Circuit decision overruled the finding of a federal judge who dismissed the lawsuit after finding that excluding male guards made sense as a way to protect the safety and privacy of female inmates.
The policy was adopted in 2006. The Chronicle says the 35 guards who sued the next year included women who alleged it had increased their work loads and men who said it cost them overtime and possible promotions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court will hear appeal over illegal threats
Headline Legal News |
2014/06/17 10:42
|
The Supreme Court will consider the free speech rights of people who use violent or threatening language on Facebook and other electronic media where the speaker's intent is not always clear.
The court on Monday agreed to take up the case of an eastern Pennsylvania man sentenced to nearly four years in federal prison for posting online rants about killing his estranged wife, shooting up a school and slitting the throat of an FBI agent.
A federal appeals court rejected Anthony Elonis' claim that his comments were protected by the First Amendment. He says he never meant to carry out the threats. He claims he was depressed and made the online posts in the form of rap lyrics as a way of venting his frustration after his wife left him.
At his trial, the jury was instructed that Elonis could be found guilty if an objective person could consider his posts to be threatening. Attorneys for Elonis argue that the jury should have been told to apply a subjective standard and decide whether Elonis meant the messages to be understood as threats.
Elonis' lawyers say a subjective standard is appropriate given the impersonal nature of communication over the Internet, which can lead people to misinterpret messages. They argue that comments intended for a smaller audience can be viewed by others unfamiliar with the context and interpret the statements differently than was intended. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court backs NYC's 'Taxi of Tomorrow' plan
Headline Legal News |
2014/06/13 12:23
|
A plan to remake the New York's yellow cab fleet by requiring owners to purchase Nissan minivans is legal, an appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The Appellate Division's ruling on the so-called Taxi of Tomorrow overturned a 2013 lower court decision that said New York City's Taxi and Limousine Commission had overstepped its authority by requiring taxi owners to buy a specific vehicle.
Writing for the four-judge panel, Judge David B. Saxe called the Taxi of Tomorrow a "legally appropriate response" to the Taxi and Limousine Commission's obligation to produce a modern, standardized fleet.
The city's fleet of yellow cabs has traditionally included a variety of car models modified to serve as cabs. The taxi commission solicited proposals for an exclusive cab design in 2009 and chose the Nissan NV-200 in 2011.
But the Greater New York Taxi Association, an owners' group, said the city was improperly forcing owners to buy a vehicle they didn't want.
Under the plan, cab owners will be required to replace most cabs they retire with the NV-200, which has a suggested retail price of $29,700. Supporters of the cab point to safety features and such amenities as a roomy back seat and a panoramic roof. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High Court Refuses to Block Oregon Gay Marriage
Headline Legal News |
2014/06/06 15:12
|
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to halt same-sex weddings in Oregon while a federal appeals court considers whether a group opposed to gay marriage can intervene in the case.
The order follows an emergency appeal by the National Organization for Marriage, which seeks to overturn U.S. District Judge Michael McShane's May 19 ruling that declared Oregon's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. The group had unsuccessfully tried to intervene in the lower court proceeding after Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum declined to defend the same-sex ban.
The group filed its request with Justice Anthony Kennedy and he referred it to the full court. The justices denied it without comment.
Hundreds of same-sex couples have obtained marriage licenses since McShane's order, including 245 in Multnomah County, the state's largest.
The Oregon case differs from others where the Supreme Court or federal appeals judges have temporarily blocked lower-court rulings, halting same-sex unions while appeals proceed.
In Oregon, the appeal is focused on whether an outside group can intervene in the case, not on the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage ban, so it raises a different set of legal questions.
Lawyers for the attorney general's office have said they won't appeal McShane's ruling and are fighting the National Organization for Marriage's appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Rosenblum, the attorney general, said there were no legal arguments she could offer in defense of the marriage ban that would be consistent with decisions last year by the U.S. Supreme Court and with state laws. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
