Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Recent Developments from Around the States
Supreme Court of VA Finds Co-Employee's Assault Did Not Arise 'Out Of' Employee's Employment for Workers' Compensation Purposes.
The Supreme Court of Virginia has held that when an employee's assault on a co-worker is personal and not directed against her as an employee or because of her employment, the resulting injury does not arise “out of” employment so as to preclude a claim outside of the workers' compensation system. Butler v. Southern States Cooperative, Inc., 2005 WL 2898009 (S.C.Va. Nov. 4).
Among Plaintiff Michelle Butler's responsibilities at Southern States Cooperative (Southern State) Middleburg, VA, store, she was required to schedule and make deliveries of agricultural supplies. In August 2003, Butler was required to help Clarence Allen, another Southern States delivery person, make a delivery of feed to a customer. The company had hired Allen knowing that he had been convicted of felony rape and had a felony parole violation on his criminal record. Prior to their interaction during this incident, Allen had often made personal comments to Butler expressing his interest in dating her. During the delivery, Allen cornered Butler in the cab of the delivery truck and made repeated unwanted sexual advances toward her. As a result, Butler decided to file an action in state court against Southern States under the claims of negligent hiring and retention of Allen, respondiat superior for Allen's assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In response, Southern States, besides denying the allegations in Butler's claim, filed a special plea in bar “asserting that the exclusivity provision of the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act, Code ' 65.2-307, barred Butler's claims because her alleged injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment.” The court below sustained the special plea in bar and dismissed Butler's claim, finding it precluded by the workers' compensation system.
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.