Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 390: Listen and Learn -- Vicarious Liability (Torts)
Life With GDPR: Episode 41-Morrisons at the UK Supreme Court
Life With GDPR: Episode 22- Morrisons’ and vicarious liability
Potential for Vicarious Liability Under the Graves Amendment
Sterry v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, 8 N.W.3d 224 (Minn. 2024) places Minnesota governmental employers on the same footing as private employers for the purposes of vicarious liability. The State, cities, and...more
An employee of a Domino’s Pizza franchisee, returning from a pizza delivery, collided with a motorcyclist who suffered serious injuries. After a Pennsylvania jury found Domino’s (as franchisor) vicariously liable for the...more
A recent Florida appellate decision offers a valuable blueprint for insurers and corporate legal teams seeking to limit exposure in questionable vicarious liability claims. In Campo v. Uber Technologies, Inc., the Third...more
A federal court in North Dakota recently denied a motion to dismiss vicarious liability claims against the corporate entities constituting the Subway franchise system. C.S. v. Subway Worldwide, Inc., 2025 WL 472475 (D.N.D....more
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently affirmed a judgment holding Domino’s Pizza vicariously liable for a motorcycle accident involving a franchisee’s delivery driver. Coryell v. Morris, — A.3d —, 2025 Pa. Super. 28...more
A federal court in Ohio recently granted, in part, defendants’ motion to dismiss various TVPRA claims and denied their motion to transfer in a suit concerning alleged sex trafficking at two Red Roof Inn locations in Virginia...more
The International Franchise Association’s Annual Convention is always filled with useful take home information for franchise practitioners. Last week, I attended the session “Proactive Strategies for Franchisors to Prevent...more
Doe A.F. v. Lyft, Inc., No. 23-3990-KSM, 2024 WL 4479912 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 2024) - The plaintiff alleged that a Lyft driver sexually assaulted her during a rideshare purchased on Lyft’s app....more
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227, was enacted in 1991 “to protect the privacy interests of residential telephone subscribers,” according to the act’s legislative history. The TCPA provides for a...more
Contour IP v. GoPro: Federal Circuit Offers Insight into Alice’s Step One Analysis. In Contour IP v. GoPro, the Federal Circuit reversed a summary judgment order invalidating two of Contour IP’s patents directed to...more
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued another important ruling for brokers, upholding that a claim for negligent hiring against a freight broker was preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration...more
The Serrano/Ducksworth defense. If you know what I’m referring to, you don’t need to read any further. But if you don’t, well, please read on....more
U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals - N Am Sugar v. Xinjiang Goldwind - personal jurisdiction - Stalley v. Lake CI Warden - § 1983, deliberate indifference...more
Having handled copyright photo infringement cases for years now, one common defense I hear raised by business owners who are found to have infringed my client's copyrighted images is "I am not to blame, I hired a webmaster or...more
A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana demonstrates how a defendant may successfully challenge personal jurisdiction when the facts fail to show vicarious liability through a...more
A California federal court granted summary judgment in favor of Red Roof Inns, a hotel franchisor, on sex trafficking claims brought under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, or TVPRA....more
A federal court in California recently granted summary judgment in favor of a hotel franchisor on sex trafficking claims brought under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). J.M. v. Red Roof Inns,...more
On August 1, 2024, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in O’Reggio v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities that the definition of “supervisor” set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State University to...more
In a win for employers, the Connecticut Supreme Court defines “supervisor” narrowly for purposes of vicarious employer liability under Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act - Under Connecticut’s civil rights law, an...more
When it comes to workplace-related incidents, the question of liability can often be complex and nuanced. One common scenario involves damage to an employee's car while parked in the employer's parking lot. This article...more
N.Y. Labor Law § 241(6) requires owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed at or lawfully frequenting a construction site. If a worker is injured on a construction...more
Ryanair accused Booking.com of several CFAA violations based upon Booking.com, through a third-party partner, accessing the password-protected "myRyanair" portion of the Ryanair website. Ryanair alleged, and the jury found,...more
On July 29, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court held in Doe v. Alpena Public School District that the state’s civil rights law, Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”), does not provide a cause of action against an educational...more
A “supervisor,” for purposes of a Connecticut state hostile work environment claim, is an employee who is empowered by an employer to take tangible employment actions, the Connecticut Supreme Court recently held in O’Reggio...more
Can a student harassed by another student bring a lawsuit against the school for allegedly creating a hostile environment under state law? On July 29, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court answered no....more