New York Noncompete, Trade Secret & School Negligence Blog
This blog by the six-time published author Jonathan Cooper, is intended to educate the general public about issues of interest, particularly innovations and changes in the law, in the areas of non-compete agreements, breach of contract matters, school negligence (and/or negligent supervision), construction accidents, slip and/or trip and fall accidents, auto accidents, and, of course, defective or dangerous products.
For additional information on any of these topics, readers are encouraged to download these FREE e-books:
- To Compete or Not to Compete: The Definitive Insider's Guide to Non-Compete Agreements Under New York Law
- When Schools Fail to Protect Our Kids
- When You Don't Have a Written Agreement
- Why Most Accident Victims Do Not Recover the Full Value of Their Claim
- Why Are There So Few Successful Defective Products Lawsuits?
Comments (0)
Graco Adds 403,000 Car Seats to Recall - & May Not Be Done
Earlier today, Graco added to its car seat recall - and it appears that the recall may become even larger, explains NY product recall attorney Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)
When School Negligence & Defective Products Law Collide
There are some occasions when the law regarding school negligence and defective products intersect, explains a NY school injury & defective products lawyer
Comments (0)
For July 4, Some Scary Statistics About Fireworks
Long Island, NY defective product lawyer Jonathan Cooper discusses some published statistics regarding fireworks.
Comments (0)
Risk of Ingestion By Small Children Leads to Recall of Toy Magnetic Balls
Amazon recently recalled its high-powered toy magnetic balls due to a risk of ingestion by small children.
Just Buying a Defective Product in NY Doesn't Mean You've Hit Lotto
Just because you bought a defective product in NY doesn't mean you've hit the proverbial jackpot, explains Long Island, NY defective product lawyer Jonathan Cooper
Following Several Burn Incidents, Pourable Fuel Gels Recalled
Long Island, NY defective products lawyer Jonathan Cooper discusses a recent safety recall of pourable fuel gel in response to several burn incidents.
New AAP Report Significantly Alters Car Seat Recommendations for Infants & Children
Long Island, NY defective product lawyer Jonathan Cooper discusses new car seat guidelines. For additional information, please call 516-791-5700.
Why Capping Damages in Defective Products Cases is a Bad Idea (Hint: It's Not Putting More $ in Plaintiffs' Pockets)
Long Island, NY defective products lawyer Jonathan Cooper discusses why damages caps in defective products cases are a bad idea. (www.ProductsLiabilityBook.com)
CPSC's New Flammability Rules for Carpets & Clothing to Become Effective Jan. 26
Author of the Free Guide to NY Product Liability Cases, "Why Are There So Few Successful Defective Products Lawsuits?" (www.ProductsLiabilityBook.com), Long Island & Queens, New York product liability lawyer Jonathan Cooper discusses the new flammability regulations that will go into effect on January 26. For additional information on this topic, please contact Jonathan Cooper directly at 516-791-5700.
Preemption: Why Some Failure to Warn Claims in NY Are Barred By Federal Law
In this article, Long Island, New York defective products lawyer Jonathan Cooper discusses how the doctrine of Federal Preemption effectively bars some failure to warn claims. For additional Free information on defective products lawsuits generally, and how they operate under New York law, please visit www.ProductsLiabilityBook.com, or contact Mr. Cooper directly at his Long Island office at 516.791.5700.In this particular case, there was a stark factual discrepancy between the plaintiff, who alleged that he was pushed off the roof of a 3 story apartment building by a police officer that was chasing him, and the police officer's claim that the plaintiff was in the process of running away from the police when the plaintiff lost his grip on the roof's ledge.
The jury sided with the plaintiff, finding more credible the claim by plaintiff. I suspect that the reason they bought plaintiff's version of events is because he conceded that the police officer did not intend to push him off the roof; according to the plaintiff, the police officer merely intended to push him off of a short 2 foot high paparet wall. And by conceding that small point, or "giving a little," he got a lot: the jury awarded him $4.6 million in damages for his personal injuries, which were quite severe: a fractured spine which resulted in paralysis.
This study seems modeled after those discussed in our earlier articles, Food Manufacturers Group Publishes Proposals to Improve Defective Product Recalls and New Report Finds Government Recalls of Defective Products Ineffective, and reaches similar conclusions: in order to have any chance at improving consumer safety, defective product recalls must be brought into the new millenium, using modern technology. Unfortunately, it seems that the conclusions of this new FDA study break little to no new ground. Stated differently, tell us something we don't know that can actually help remove safety hazards from consumer's hands.
Building A Winning Case
Lawyer Jonathan Cooper talks about his favorite blog and a recent postWhen Food Poisoning Lawsuits Go Too Far (Even Outside New York)
In this article, Long Island, NY product liability and food poisoning attorney Jonathan Cooper discusses how some products liability claims should never be brought for the simple reason that the evidence clearly indicates that they lack merit. For additional information on how products liability and food poisoning cases operate under New York law, please download or order a copy of Jonathan Cooper's FREE guide to New York products liability cases from www.ProductsLiabilityBook.com.This ruling was rendered in the criminal law context, but apparently applies in the civil context as well, including cases dealing with small business or commercial litigation, personal injury or defective products lawsuits. And this can have very real economic and other consequences, such as where one of the defendants to a defective products lawsuit is a foreign manufacturer or distributor, or where the “silent” partner of a small company is a venture capitalist who lives more than 6,000 miles away.
In the end, I am not convinced that face-to-face confrontation is uniquely able to reveal the truth, particularly given the technological advances that would render these witnesses in remote locations to view the entire courtroom – including their adversaries. To the contrary, I think that this ruling effectively dealt the search for truth a harsh blow, because it will prevent numerous important witnesses from telling their stories before juries.