Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Case Briefs
In, Carbis Sales, Inc. v. Eisenberg, 2007 WL 4301285 (N.J. Super. A.D.), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, recently decided a $1 million malpractice claim against a New Jersey lawyer involving a product liability case. The defendants in the case were unsuccessful at the trial level and, as a result, claimed their lawyer improperly defended them in the case. Significantly, defendants' insurance carrier, Safe Step Reinsurance, Inc., joined in the claim against the lawyer. The Appellate Division reviewed this malpractice claim and subsequently granted all parties a second chance to re-litigate this cause of action.
In the product liability suit, Dennis Carr, a construction worker, alleged that he was injured in 1990 after using a ladder defectively altered by Carbis Sales. Safe Step acted as Carbis Sales' primary insurer during the time of the injury. The jury in the product liability lawsuit awarded $600,000 to plaintiff Carr and $100,000 to his wife for her per quod claim. The final judgment therein, with interest, totaled $1,005,842.27.
During lawyer Eisenberg's subsequent malpractice trial in 2006, Carbis Sales and Safe Step presented evidence that Eisenberg spent too few hours preparing for the trial. Also, he apparently failed to call a witness, which failure could have potentially compromised evidence surrounding whether Carr actually fell from the faulty ladder. Eisenberg's counsel, on the other hand, provided evidence that Eisenberg conducted his defense at the trial level as any good lawyer would have similarly done. The jury in the malpractice suit awarded Carbis Sales and Safe Step $362,561.70 in damages attributable to the negligent representation rendered by Eisenberg and his former law firm, Post & Schell, P.C., in the product liability suit.
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?