A jury has awarded $1.5 million to a Ridgefield man for damages caused by an exploding tire. It is believed to be one of the largest personal injury awards in the history of Danbury Superior Court.
Factual background: Plaintiff was checking bolts on one of his car’s wheels when the tire exploded. The force of the explosion knocked the Plaintiff into a stone wall. He suffered damages to both his hands and hearing loss in one of his ears.
There are two types of damages in a typical personal injury case:
1) Economic or compensatory damages. These damages are designed to reimburse the victim and to compensate for lost wages, diminished earning capacity, medical expenses and the cost of future anticipated medical expenses. These damages are easier to quantify and therefore tend to be easier to calculate.
2) Non-economic damages include pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, mental anguish and permanent disability. These damages are not as easily quantified by a specific dollar amount.
The “tire case” should not be read as an absolute in terms of what damages a Plaintiff may recover in a product liability or negligence case involving hearing loss. Instead, the case illustrates that damages are calculated and evaluated on a case by case basis after consideration of both the economic and non-economic damages.
Remember Courtney Love? You know – the former lead singer of Hole and perhaps better known as Kurt Cobain’s widow. Well seems Love should be more careful when “tweeting.”
She was sued for defamation (libel) by a fashion designer over comments Love made on her Twitter and her MySpace blog.
The case was settled out of court. The price tag for Love’s tweets? A cool $430,000 for the fashion designer.
The lesson here is this: libel is libel regardless of where the statements are written. This clearly includes defamatory statements made online via social media.
A New York judge has ordered that a Long Island mother make her two children available to talk to their father via Skype, an online video conferencing service, as a condition of her move to Florida.
This is the first time such a condition has been made on a case in New York, the New York Law Journal reports. But last year, the New York Times reported that a number of states have begun allowing for “virtual visitation,” giving judges the option to keep non-custodial parents in contact with their children via e-mail, instant messaging and Web cams.
In the New York case, Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Jerry Garguilo, in Baker v. Baker, ordered that the mother, at her own expense, “will see to it, prior to re-location, that the Respondent, as well as the children, are provided the appropriate internet access via a Skype device which allows a real time broadcast of communications between the Respondent and his children.”
The couple has been divorced since 2008 and the mother, who is unemployed, is planning to move to Florida where she can live with her parents and find work.
In granting the mother’s request over the father’s objections to his children moving, Garguilo noted that common sense makes clear that a move aimed at finding a better way to support the family is necessary.
I had no idea what skype was until my 15 year old niece from Florida came to visit this summer. She used skype to maintain contact with her boyfriend. That may be an acceptable alternative to going out on a date. But I have concerns about using skype for visitation or parenting time. While the judge in this case may have been well-intentioned there is simply no substitute for face to face, hands on parenting time with ones child. I agree that there may be circumstances when this is the only way to maintain some form of parenting time but I would hope these cases are rare. How does a parent help with homework, throw a baseball or give a hug with skype?
Anyone have any experience with skype and visitation? Was it ordered by a judge in lieu of visitation or in addtion to regular and consistent visitation?
Temporary Restraining Orders in Connecticut are heard in the Family Court.
Here’s how they work:
The person requesting the Restraining Order in Connecticut (Applicant) must file an Application (found online and at all Clerk’s Offices) along with an Affidavit. The Affidavit must set forth the specific reasons as to why the Applicant needs protection. For example, history of violence, current threats and any other facts showing “immediate and present physical danger to the Applicant.” The circumstances in the Affidavit should not be exaggerated. If they are, the Applicant may lose credibility at a hearing before a judge.
Once filed, the Application and Affidavit will be presented to a judge. The judge may 1) grant the restraining order on a temporary basis pending a court hearing within 14 days; 2) schedule the matter for a hearing within 14 days but not grant the Application on a temporary basis or 3) deny the Application.
If a hearing is scheduled, the Respondent must be served with all the filings and any other orders issued by a judge five days before the hearing date.
At the hearing, the Applicant must show that he or she has been “subjected to a continuous threat of of present physical pain or physical injury by another family member or household member.” If a judge grants the restraining order it can last no longer than six months. However, prior to the expiration of the order the Applicant may request that the order be extended.
In addition to orders designed for the Applicant’s protection, a judge has the authority to enter orders for the protection of the Applicant’s children such as changing custody or limiting visitation.
Contact me online or call me in my Fairfield office at (203) 259-5251 or my Stamford office at (203) 356-1475 to arrange a consultation about Temporary Restraining Orders.
Your child got in trouble. Enough trouble that he or she was arrested. There’s a court date scheduled in Juvenile Court. Here’s brief summary of the process:
A legal separation is similar in all respects to a divorce. Court orders are entered regarding custody, support, property distribution etc.