Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Practice Tip: The Earning Capacity of Business Owners
The Small Business Administration reports that in 2005 more than 26 million small businesses were operating in the United States. Chances are that sooner or later any attorney practicing in the personal-injury arena will encounter a matter involving a small business proprietor or co-owner of a business. Personal-injury claims involving lost income to sole proprietors, small business owners, and other self-employed plaintiffs can be perplexing, since there is a tendency to confuse lost profits with lost earning capacity.
Recently, I was asked to analyze a damages claim in a product liability matter brought by the 50% shareholder of a family owned photo-imaging business. The plaintiff alleged that a defective heater in his home exposed him to carbon monoxide poisoning, leading to injuries that allegedly affected his ability to manage and operate his business effectively, which allegedly led to the demise of his photo business.
The plaintiff's damage claim was based on his adjusted (accounting fiction) historical business financial records, which turned actual net losses into net income, then projected the newly found net income into the future. Total damages sought were based on net-income projections for the business of $75,000 per year through 2010, claiming these are the profits the business would have made had he been able to manage it actively. Because he could not manage the business, he tacitly claimed, he lost the future income stream of the business.
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.