I finally caught the Dateline NBC show on the local murder case of Teri Lee -- the 3M employee whose ex-boyfriend broke into her house and murdered her and her new boyfriend.
As you recall, I blogged earlier that the show would be on last Monday (See "Bill Harper ready for his close up on NBC's Dateline"), but the program wound up being preempted locally by the weather coverage of the massive thunderstorms that we had here that day.
Kare 11 broadcast the Dateline on the case last night. Most of the coverage (I'd say about 99.5 percent) was devoted to the criminal trial. Harper, who is representing Lee's family in a negligence suit against the company that installed her (supposedly) state-of-the-art alarm did not appear on the show at all. Apparently Harper wasted his time talking to the Dateline crew, only to have the footage left on the cutting-room floor. Perhaps they could have fit more on the civil case in if they had just done one less advertisement for a hair-care product. But then again, that might be asking too much.
Showing posts with label negligence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label negligence. Show all posts
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Friday, August 10, 2007
Bill Harper ready for his close up on NBC's Dateline
Woodbury attorney Bill Harper is about to get his 15 minutes of fame. Well, OK, it's actually more like an hour of TV network prime time devoted to a case which he is handling. Harper is representing the family of Teri Lee, who was murdered when her ex-boyfriend broke into her home and shot both her and her new boyfriend. The assailant was convicted on two counts of murder.Lee's family is suing the company that installed the state-of-the-art security system on Lee's house. They allege she never had chance because the system was defective and provided no warning.
Minnesota Lawyer is running a story on the case in Monday's edition, but you may also want to catch Bill on TV. The show on which he will appear is NBC's Dateline, which airs locally Mondays on KARE-11 at 9:00 p.m.. The Minnesota case is currently scheduled to be shown this upcoming Monday.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Negligent hiring claim KO'd
Can an insurance company be held liable for negligently hiring an agent who allegedly used her position to bilk a vulnerable adult out of $104,000?
No, the Court of Appeals answered today in Johnson v. Peterson, et al. (The appellate court upheld dismissals of claims for negligent hiring, training, retention and supervision.)
The agent allegedly convinced the vulnerable man to give her the money to be used for medical emergencies faced by her and her family and because of her "dire financial situation."
In upholding the dismissal of the negligent hiring claim, the court found an employer cannot be liable on such a claim in the absence of evidence it was foreseeable an employee would pose a threat of physical injury at the time of hiring, or the employee inflicted a physical injury.
"The complaint only alleges emotional distress that may have caused heart problems and anxiety disorders," wrote Judge Christopher Dietzen. "But emotional distress is not a physical injury."
No, the Court of Appeals answered today in Johnson v. Peterson, et al. (The appellate court upheld dismissals of claims for negligent hiring, training, retention and supervision.)
The agent allegedly convinced the vulnerable man to give her the money to be used for medical emergencies faced by her and her family and because of her "dire financial situation."
In upholding the dismissal of the negligent hiring claim, the court found an employer cannot be liable on such a claim in the absence of evidence it was foreseeable an employee would pose a threat of physical injury at the time of hiring, or the employee inflicted a physical injury.
"The complaint only alleges emotional distress that may have caused heart problems and anxiety disorders," wrote Judge Christopher Dietzen. "But emotional distress is not a physical injury."
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Dog-owner liability laws: Do they have enough teeth?
Three times in the past month, a Twin Cities resident has been attacked by a pit bull, a fact that's been hard to miss thanks to extensive news coverage of the attacks. But lost in the headlines is the fact that dog attacks aren't at all uncommon. Since 1999, St. Paul has recorded an average of about 300 dog attacks (including dogs going after other animals) per
year -- that's more than five a week. But because of the relative severity of the attacks, and the reputation pit bulls have for being bred to attack, their stories get more attention.
Odds are, at least one of the recent attack victims will receive overtures from a personal injury attorney, if they all haven't already. It's not hard to find signs of negligence, such as the easily-cleared three-foot fence the owner of the dogs in the most recent attack used to contain them. And it's hard to blame the victims of such a trauma for wanting compensation for their injuries.
Minnesota's laws are unusually favorable toward bite victims. Here, dog owners are liable for damages resulting from attacks, including all medical bills directly and indirectly associated with the attack, psychological counseling, loss of earnings, disfigurement, and pain and suffering. And in Minnesota, the dog's "owner" can be anyone who harbors the dangerous animal, even a landlord who lets the dog onto his property.
Is this a case where stricter regulation of pets such as pit bulls could prevent not only tragic attacks, but also future lawsuits? Or would that be singling out breeds -- again, such as pit bulls -- that, according to many animal experts, are as gentle and loving as other breeds but are made mean by negligent owners?
year -- that's more than five a week. But because of the relative severity of the attacks, and the reputation pit bulls have for being bred to attack, their stories get more attention.Odds are, at least one of the recent attack victims will receive overtures from a personal injury attorney, if they all haven't already. It's not hard to find signs of negligence, such as the easily-cleared three-foot fence the owner of the dogs in the most recent attack used to contain them. And it's hard to blame the victims of such a trauma for wanting compensation for their injuries.
Minnesota's laws are unusually favorable toward bite victims. Here, dog owners are liable for damages resulting from attacks, including all medical bills directly and indirectly associated with the attack, psychological counseling, loss of earnings, disfigurement, and pain and suffering. And in Minnesota, the dog's "owner" can be anyone who harbors the dangerous animal, even a landlord who lets the dog onto his property.
Is this a case where stricter regulation of pets such as pit bulls could prevent not only tragic attacks, but also future lawsuits? Or would that be singling out breeds -- again, such as pit bulls -- that, according to many animal experts, are as gentle and loving as other breeds but are made mean by negligent owners?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
