Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Criminalizing Product Liability Claims? An Idea from Across the Pond
On July 26, 2007, the Queen of England gave royal assent to the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act of 2007. This statute alters the standards by which companies, including foreign companies, can be prosecuted when the goods and services they provide contribute to the death of an individual. The avowed purpose of the new law is to 'make[ ] it easier to convict culpable' companies. Gary Slapper, Corporate Manslaughter Law Is Vast Improvement, Times Online (London), July 18, 2007, http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2097907.ece ('Slapper Article'). See also U.K. Ministry of Justice, A Guide to the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 3, (Oct. 2007), available at www.nio.gov.uk/guide_to_the_cmch_act_2007_web.pdf_oct_07-3.pdf (explaining that '[t]he new offence allows an organisation's liability to be assessed on a wider basis … ') ('Ministry of Justice Guide').
The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act of 2007 is yet another example of a worldwide trend toward criminalizing the law of product liability. While the idea of establishing criminal corporate manslaughter has been discussed in the United States, it has not gained much momentum. The recent reform in the United Kingdom, however, may rekindle the efforts to criminalize product liability, especially during the course of this election year.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act of 2007
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.