Go to navigation Go to content
Toll-Free: (888) 497-3410
Phone: 516.791.5700
Law Offices of Jonathan M. Cooper

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 accidentsslip and/or trip and fall accidentsauto 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:

 


8/27/2012
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

When an Owner Is (Or Isn't) Vicariously Liable tor a NY Worksite Injury

Long Island, NY worksite accident attorney Jonathan Cooper discusses when an owner is - or isn't - vicariously liable for an accident under NY law.

Category: Keyword Search: injury

2/1/2012
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

Signed Release Form Doesn't Bar Soccer Injury Claim, Says NY Court

Despite signing a release form, an injured soccer player's trip and fall claim can proceed, says a NY court. Long Island, NY attorney Jonathan Cooper explains.

Category: Keyword Search: injury

11/14/2011
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

Suffolk County Jury Denies Teen Injured in School Lacrosse Game

Long Island, New York school negligence attorney Jonathan Cooper discusses how a Suffolk County jury turned away a teen injured in a school lacrosse game.

Category: Keyword Search: injury

10/24/2011
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

Child Hit in Head at Baseball Practice Didn't Assume Risk, Says Nassau Court

Some NY courts, like this Nassau County one, are increasingly allowing sports injury cases to survive dismissal. Long Island, NY lawyer Jonathan Cooper explains

Category: Keyword Search: injury

7/28/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

De-Bunking Some Myths About Defective Products Lawsuits Under NY Law

In this article, Long Island, New York products liability lawyer and author of the guide to New York defective products cases, Jonathan Cooper, explains why some commonly held ideas about the viability and prevalence of products liability lawsuits are terribly mistaken. For additional information on this topic, please visit www.ProductsLiabilityBook.com or www.JonathanCooperLaw.com.

Category: Keyword Search: injury

5/1/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)
KXAN of Austin, Texas recently reported on the Consumer Products Safety Commission's issuance of a recall of this dangerous home gym equipment which poses a major safety hazard to users of the defective product, as there is a risk of suffering serious personal injuries, particularly amputated fingers.

Category: Keyword Search: injury

4/26/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)
After a trial that recently took place in Brooklyn's federal court, a jury found that Black & Decker, which manufactured the lawnmower, was liable to the plaintiff, who lost his fingers in the cutting blades of one of its lawnmowers, because the lawnmower was defectively designed. The significance of this case lies in the second part of the jury's finding, however: although the jury held that the lawnmower was defectively made, in that the Black & Decker lawnmower's on/off switch was too readily turned on, which was a safety hazard, and further held that this defect was a significant factor in causing the plaintiff's personal injuries, they also held that by forgetting to unplug the mower before performing maintenance on the machine, the plaintiff was 90% responsible for his own accident. Consequently, despite finding that the plaintiff's loss of his fingers was worth $2 million, the plaintiff was only awarded $200,000.

So, why is case is blog-worthy? Because it provides one of the clearest demonstrations of how New York's comparative negligence doctrine works in a practical way. More importantly, I believe that this case shows the wisdom of some facets of our judicial system, in this case, the comparative negligence doctrine.  Although some might be inclined to side with Black & Decker in this case, and might even go so far as to say that the plaintiff should never have brought this lawsuit, especially considering the high degree of culpability that the plaintiff bore for his own accident (I admit that I probably would have rejected this case had it come to my office for this very reason) I think that this attitude is wrong both on public policy grounds, as well as for this specific case and plaintiff. Simply put, had this case never been brought, Black & Decker would have had no incentive to make their lawnmower safer for consumers by making it more difficult to accidentally engage the power switch, even though it is apparently a relatively simple modification. And without this case, the plaintiff would have been denied monetary compensation that Black & Decker owes him for their share of the fault for his accident.


Category: Keyword Search: injury

4/23/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

After reviewing the Consumer Products Safety Commission's progress reports regarding 25 recalled products and finding that several of the reports were either completely lacking critical information or internally conflicted, non-profit group Kids In Danger concluded in its annual report that the CPSC could not effectively determine whether these recalls were in fact successful or effective. In addition, the report opined that the CPSC's oversight of its product recalls was insufficient, because not enough was or is being done to notify consumers of the product recalls, as a result of which many of these dangerous products are remaining in consumer's homes or school facilities, rather than being taken out of circulation.

The CPSC's response to this report, which predictably defended their record on the recalls, also contained a somewhat interesting claim: according to their spokesman,  the primary method by which the CPSC  determines if its recalls are working is by waiting to see whether they are still receiving reports of problems with the product.

From this statement, it seems like the CPSC's follow-up on any one of its product recalls is largely, if not purely, reactive. Thus, theoretically, the CPSC would determine that one of its recalls failed only after someone suffered a tragic accident or traumatic personal injuries.

I, for one, would have hoped that this massive governmental agency, whose mission statement accepts responsibility for assuring the safety of our children from unsafe toys and other recreational and household products, would have a far more scientifically sound and proactive method for assessing the success of a product recall.



Category: Keyword Search: injury

3/16/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)
Congress' investigation into the facts underlying a head-on collision between two trains that resulted in hundreds of injured passengers and several fatalities has unearthed some extremely disturbing facts, particularly that one of the train's operators seems to have missed a critical signal because he was distracted by text messages he was either sending or receiving on his mobile phone at the time. For more on this topic, please read our article here.

Category: Keyword Search: injury

2/11/2009
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)
I just found a very interesting series of articles discussing how the new breed of cars that run on hybrid or electric technology are actually too quiet. Although, given the loud cacophany that usually bombards New Yorkers' senses, this contention would seem absurd, a recent scientific study confirmed complaints raised by the Federation for the Blind that unlike regular gasoline-consuming vehicles, these cars fail to adequately warn pedestrians or other oncoming vehicles of their speed and approach, and thereby pose a greater safety hazard and potential for bkie or car accidents or injury. To read our fuller discussion of this topic, please see our article here.

Category: Keyword Search: injury