Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Case Notes
Punitive, Non-Economic Damages Reduced for Paraplegic Injuries
In Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co., a driver was left paraplegic from a rollover and roof crush accident. In his lawsuit against the car's manufacturer, he claimed there was evidence that the manufacturer knew the vehicle was unstable on flat dry pavement at less than highway speeds and had the technology to make the vehicle stable at a cost of $20 per vehicle, but did not use it. Even given the severity of the injuries, the reviewing court found that the approximately $65 million awarded by the trial court was disproportionate and excessive under California law. It reduced the driver's non-economic damages to $18 million. Under the Due Process Clause, the court also reduced the punitive damages to $55 million, finding that the resulting ratio of two-to-one of the compensatory damages, as reduced, was sufficient.
After it reduced the award of punitive damages and reversed the award of non-economic damages to the driver, the court remanded for retrial on that issue, unless the driver consented to the reduction, in which event the judgment was to be modified and affirmed as modified. Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co., D045154, D045579, Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, 160 Cal. App. 4th 1107; 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 277; March 10, 2008, Filed, As modified Apr. 10, 2008., Modified and rehearing denied by Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co., 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 515 (Cal. App. 4th Dist., Apr. 10, 2008).
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.