Comments on: January 22 roundup

By: Anonymous Attorney

Anonymous Attorney — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:33:28 +0000

John, it’s a sensible question. Traditionally under common law, there was no liability for things like criminal attacks in a parking lot. It was thought that the fault for such things was with the criminal attacker, not the landlord. But criminal attackers don’t have money, and landlords do. So plaintiffs’ attorneys devised a scheme to reach the landlord. They likened the situation to “negligent maintenance of the premises,” i.e., letting a criminal on your property is comparable to allowing your parking lot to fall into disrepair.

Now, it’s a cause of action with increasing viability in many states. Some require that there be “notice,” or several prior criminal incidents, so that the landlord would have known to hire extra security.

By: Skip Frizzell

Skip Frizzell — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:55:44 +0000

Had she been able to keep count after 14 vodka’s would she have a case against the vodka manufacturer?

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:03:33 +0000

A court is not supposed to certify a class action unless it explicitly finds that the attorney and lead plaintiff are adequate representatives. How was this finding made for Mr. Fine?

By: John Rohan

John Rohan — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:04:03 +0000

regarding the shooting lawsuit – I am really curious here. Of course, it is better for some businesses to hire their own security, but since that is the government’s job in the first place, how can private businesses be compelled to do it?