Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Case Notes
No Contractual Indemnification for Negligence
The seller of a product that causes injury to an employee cannot maintain a third-party complaint for indemnification against the employer where the contract between the seller and the employer does not provide for indemnification for negligence and the only claims filed against the seller by the employee were for negligence. Baker v. Wayne-Dalton Corp, Civil Action No. 02-1772, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Jan. 19, 2004.
Keith Baker was injured while operating a press in the course of his employment by Allstar. Baker sued each company believed to be involved in the design and manufacture of the press and its component parts. After motion practice, one of the two final defendants was Wayne-Dalton, which sold the press to Allstar. Wayne-Dalton filed a third- party complaint against Allstar, claiming that Allstar was contractually obligated to indemnify Wayne-Dalton against Baker's claims. The district court dismissed the third-party complaint. It held that the contract between Wayne-Dalton and Allstar did not contemplate negligence claims. Although the contract provided for indemnification in certain circumstances, negligence was not among them. Because Baker only filed negligence claims against Wayne-Dalton, the third-party complaint could not be maintained.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.