Liability roundup

3 Comments

  • Re: Daimler v. Bauman/Mallory, this looks like a case where corporations have more rights than individuals. Burnham means physical presence equals jurisdiction for individuals.

  • RE: BIPA.

    I am confused. If it is unlawful for a company to do something and they do it, they are arguing that nothing can be done to make them stop? I have an idea. Follow the law in the first place and you won’t have to pay up. Note: I am not saying that the law is good, just that it is what it is. I would most certainly advocate against forcing companies to pay damages to someone who was not injured.

  • The corporate-service issue is simpler than that WLF article wants to make it. The corporation isn’t amenable to service because it registers, it’s amenable to service because it has (at least in some instances) a local agent authorized to accept service who is capable of being served in person while in the jurisdiction. SPO is on the right track.

    Also, the WLF piece blithely skims over the issue of what constitutes “doing business” for purposes of those registration statutes. A lot of commercially advantageous activities don’t.

Join the Discussion

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.