Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

News Inappropriate Juror Behavior Strikes Again November 4, 2021 < Back Share to: Several months ago, we reported on the inherent pitfalls of social networking sites, such as facebook, in the realm of jury instructions. http://www.wcmlaw.com/blog/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=539 That case involved a Bronx arson trial, which nearly resulted in a mistrial due to a juror trying to "friend" a trial witness. Facebook and other avenues cyber-contact are obviously the most recent and technological means of potentially inappropriate juror contact. Nevertheless, it would appear that good old-fashioned note passing is still alive and well in Connecticut. In the well-publicized home invasion murder trial currently pending in New Haven Superior Court, an alternate juror purportedly passed a note to a court officer, suggesting that the two meet over the weekend. Rather than play it safe and check the "maybe" box, as a few of us may have in the 7th grade, the court officer immediately (and wisely) turned the note over to the judge. Judge Blue called the note a "spectacular display of poor judgment" on the juror's part, but thankfully elected to continue the proceedings, rather than grant the defense request for a mistrial. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/report_juror_love_note_deliberations_xUOlv2OJVDwdx0VNH4Z8bO The lesson to be taken here is the inherent unpredictability in jury trials. This alternate juror appears to have completely ignored judicial instructions to refrain from contacting persons involved in the proceeding -- in a tragic, home invasion murder trial. If a juror would ignore instructions in a capital trial such as this one, it is not difficult to imagine equally inappropriate, and potentially more damaging juror behavior in a civil action involving admittedly much less serious allegations. To paraphrase former pitcher Joaquin Andujar's comment on baseball, one can summarize jury trials in one word - "you never know." Thanks to Brian Gibbons for his contribution to this post. Previous Next Contact

News NY Court Of Appeals Sends Shocks Through Labor Law 240(1) Claim November 23, 2016 < Back Share to: We previously reported on the appellate decision of Nazario v. 222 Broadway, LLC, in which the First Department held, over a strong dissent from Justice Tom, that a plaintiff who falls from an A-frame latter after receiving an electric shock from a light fixture he was removing had established a prima facie case that his ladder provided him with inadequate protection. The First Department reasoned that because the ladder was not secured so as to prevent it from falling over if plaintiff was shocked while working, the unsecured ladder was a violation of the Labor Law and the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Justice Tom, by contrast, believed that the First Department was straying too far from established Court of Appeals precedent and their sister Departments, all of whom have held that falling from an A-frame ladder after receiving an electric shock, by itself, is insufficient to establish liability as a matter of law. In Nazario v. 222 Broadway, LLC, the Court of Appeals adopted Justice Tom’s dissent without saying so in so many words. The Court determined that questions of fact existed as to whether the A-frame ladder in question failed to provide plaintiff with the necessary protection, and whether plaintiff should have been given additional or alternative safety devices. The Court cited to its earlier decision in Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. Of N.Y. City for further guidance. Sharp-eyed readers will note that Justice Tom had warned his fellow panel members that their decision had departed too far from the Court’s Blake decision, and that the appellate court needed additional evidence concerning whether the ladder was defective or whether additional safety devices were necessary before granting summary judgment to plaintiff. While we await a new decision from the First Department concerning whether additional safety measures were necessary or would have prevented plaintiff’s injury, the Court of Appeals has clearly signaled that it does not believe that falling from a ladder after receiving an electric shock, alone, establishes a Labor Law § 240(1) claim. Thanks to Peter Luccarelli for his contribution. For more information, contact Denise Fontana Ricci at dricci@wcmlaw.com . Previous Next Contact

News Dismantling The Designated Ongoing Operations Exclusion October 29, 2018 < Back Share to: In Tuscarora Wayne Ins. Co. v. Hebron, Inc., the Pennsylvania Superior Court analyzed when a policy’s Designated Ongoing Operations Exclusion may be triggered. In brief, a fire occurred at the insured’s property, when a driver was pumping gas into a vehicle at the insured’s location. The fire caused damage to the insured’s property, and the surrounding neighbors’ property as well. The insured’s policy excluded coverage under its Designated Ongoing Operations Endorsement for ongoing operations including “vehicle dismantling”. On the basis of this exclusion, the insurer commenced a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the policy did not provide coverage for the claimed damages. On summary judgment, the trial court ruled in favor of the insurer. On appeal, the insured argued the trial court erred in finding that refueling a vehicle fell within the policy’s language of “vehicle dismantling”. The Superior Court agreed with the insured. As the phrase “vehicle dismantling” was not defined by the policy, the court looked to the ordinary meaning of the phrase, which generally involved stripping vehicles of their parts. Thus, since the only connection the claimed damages had with “vehicle dismantling” was the fact that the fuel, which started the fire, was being pumped into vehicles that had been dismantled, the Superior Court believed this connection was insufficient to trigger the policy endorsement. Accordingly, this case reveals, Pennsylvania courts will look to the actual operations being performed to determine whether there is a close enough link, as to trigger a policy’s Designated Ongoing Operations Exclusion. Thanks to Colleen Hayes for her contribution to this post. Previous Next Contact

There’s Nothing Here... We can’t find the page you’re looking for. Check the URL, or head back home. Go Home