Legal Radar

Portland Seeking to Halt Uber Operations

Early this week, the city of Portland filed a suit against Uber Technologies and asked for the court to halt the firm’s operations within the city. It’s the latest battle for the ride-hailing app as it tries to aggressively expand worldwide.

The suit, which was filed in the Multnomah County District Court, alleges Uber for carrying out illegal operations as an unregulated transport service. Uber insists that they’re not a transport company but a tech platform.

The city’s director of transport demands Uber to utilize appropriate permits. Portland is set to file civil and criminal penalties against the tech firm and its drivers for carrying our operations without legal inspections and permits.

Portland’s mayor said the primary concern of the city is its safety and equality with taxi companies. Uber indicated it’ll finally be making its launch in Portland. The firm has been collaborating with the mayor’s office for over a year regarding its services within the city.

California Gun Law to Receive Ruling from the Federal Appeals Court

Early this week, the lengthy debate on gun laws has made its way to the spotlight --- out of San Francisco.

A three-judge panel from the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will be hearing arguments as to whether or not the gun law that was passed by Sunnyvale voters in California in the previous year is constitutional.

Gun rights groups, as well the National Rifle Association, are saying the law, which bars residents from possessing gun magazines that holds over 10 rounds, is in violation of the Second Amendment.

Citizens of Sunnyvale claim the law doesn’t intrude on their Second Amendment rights to possess a firearm in their homes for self-defense. Sunnyvale says the limiting the use of magazines makes a lot more sense since they’re used often in mass shooting including the gun shooting incident in Newtown, Connecticut, a few years back.

A California District Judge maintained the law saying that while the law in Sunnyvale had implications of the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment rights issue is said to be “light.”

Unrest in Ferguson Puts Spotlights on Protesters Rights

Clashes between law enforcement officers and protestors in Ferguson, Missouri, are in the spotlight regarding protester rights and crowd control by the police.

Anger over the shooting of Michael Brown, has prompted protests combined with looting and vandalism, as police officers in riot gear threw tear gas to scatter the crowd.

Missouri’s Governor, Jay Nixon, said he has plans for operation shifts in dealing with the Ferguson situation.

Courts have taken the view of the First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly to offer protection to protestors taking part in peaceful protests.

Courts respect the on-street action by police. If a protest ends up being violent, officers can respond with proper violence. In certain instances, officers may have the power to utilize deadly force.

Based on the Missouri law, the use of deadly force can be justified if an officer has reasons to believe it’s necessary to make an arrest or prevent an individual from committing a felony, utilizing a harmful weapon, or inflicting serious injury.

Secret Service Agents Diverted from White House to Monitor Assistant

The primary job of the Secret Service is to protect the White House and president. But recently it has come to light that in 2011 some of the top Secret Service officials were ordered to protect the assistant director of the agency. The assignment “Operation Moonlight” is said to have diverted some of the agents who were supposed to be patrolling the perimeter of the White House to a rural area in La Plata, Maryland. The small town is almost an hour away from Washington. The agents were informed that Director Sullivan was worried about his assistant who was reportedly being harassed by a neighbor.

 Twice a day two agents were sent out to La Plata, Maryland and assigned to monitor the home of assistant Lisa Chopey. From June to August of 2011 the agents made this trip. The agents were actually members of Prowler, a surveillance team which was supposed to patrol the white house compound. The concern is that those agents assigned to Operation Moonlight were increasing security risks of the president.

Media Warns of Consequences of Drone Rule

Some of America’s biggest news agencies are suing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for invading their First Amendment rights by preventing them from utilizing drones for reporting within the U.S.

A dozen news agencies which include the New York Times, Tribune, and the Associated Press, filed a united amicus belief in a legal battle that is challenging the FAA’s authority to drone regulation.

In the brief filing, media agencies disapproved FAA’s general policy of completely banning commercial drones in the United States, saying it’s violating the First Amendment right of gathering reports. The issues is already causing a negative effect on reporting rights from some reporters.

Holland & Knight LLP filed on behalf of media outlets to disapprove FAA’s appeal of a latest ruling that flipped the agency’s initial fine against a drone operator. Regarding the rule, a judge of the National Transportation Safety Board found the drones to be a “model aircraft” and not subjected to FAA’s rule on manned aircraft operations.

The FAA declined the explanation indicating it can go after penalties on any model aircraft that jeopardizes air safety. It appealed the ruling to a complete NTSB.

BNSF Sued Because of Navajo's Lung Disease

Former railroad workers, who are four Navajo Nation members, are all now suffering from lung disease.  As a result, the four workers filed a lawsuit against BNSF Railway.  They allege that due to the exposure to dusty work conditions their lungs and respiratory systems were damaged.  During their work for BNSF, they were exposed to toxic ballast rock, gravel, coal dust and fibers.  And, BNSF failed to provide ventilation, warnings and protection that constitute a safe work environment. 

 

Two of the workers began work for the railroad in the 1940s and the other two in the 1960s.  The effects of the unsafe labor conditions, especially over an extended period of time, took a toll on their bodies and went unnoticed for years.  In cases similar to these, some of the symptoms include shortness of breath, chest tightness, chest pain and abnormal breathing patterns.  The plaintiffs claim that thousands of men were exposed to similar conditions due to BNSF's negligence.

Pro-Pac Distributing Corp. Agrees to Pay $125,000 Civil Penalty

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced today that Pro-Pac Distributing Corporation, of Gardena, Calif., has agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $125,000. The penalty settlement, which has been provisionally accepted by the Commission, resolves CPSC staff allegations that Pro-Pac knowingly failed to report to CPSC immediately, as required by federal law, that two different children's hooded sweatshirts it imported and distributed had drawstrings at the neck.

Children's upper outerwear with drawstrings at the neck and waist can pose a substantial risk of injury or death when the string on the garment catches onto an item such as playground equipment.  CPSC issued drawstring guidelines (pdf) in 1996 to help prevent children from being strangled or becoming entangled by the neck and waist drawstrings in upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts. In 1997, industry adopted a voluntary standard for drawstrings that incorporated the CPSC guidelines. In May 2006, CPSC's Office of Compliance announced (pdf) that children's upper outerwear with drawstrings at the hood or neck would be regarded as defective and as presenting a substantial risk of injury to young children.

About 7,000 of these sweatshirts were sold under the ProClub label at various retailers in Los Angeles, Calif., and Las Vegas, Nev., from November 2008 through December 2008 for around $20.  In July 2009, CPSC and Pro-Pac announced the recall of both of Pro-Pac's hooded sweatshirts with drawstrings due to a strangulation hazard.  Due to the serious nature of this hazard, parents are urged to immediately remove the drawstrings from the sweatshirts or return the garments to either the place of purchase or to Pro-Pac for a full refund.

Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to report to CPSC immediately (within 24 hours) after obtaining information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or fails to comply with any consumer product safety rule or any other rule, regulation, standard, or ban enforced by CPSC.

In agreeing to the settlement, Pro-Pac Distributing denies that it knowingly violated the law, as alleged by CPSC staff.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death from over 15,000 types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction.  Deaths, injuries and property damage from consumer product incidents cost the nation more than $800 billion annually.  The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard. CPSC's work to ensure the safety of consumer products - such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals - contributed significantly to the 30 percent decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 30 years.

Under federal law, it is illegal to attempt to sell or re-sell this or any other recalled product.

To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury, call CPSC's Hotline at (800) 638-2772, teletypewriter at (800) 638-8270, or visit www.cpsc.gov/talk.html. Consumers can obtain this press release and recall information at www.cpsc.gov. To join a free e-mail subscription list, please go to www.cpsc.gov/cpsclist.aspx.

The Law Offices of Frank L. Branson Announces Lawsuits Over Design Flaws, Contractor Errors in Dallas Cowboys Training Facility Collapse

The May 2009 collapse of a Dallas Cowboys practice facility was caused by the structure's faulty design, poor workmanship and a failure to disclose that the building was out of compliance with building codes, according to two lawsuits filed by The Law Offices of Frank L. Branson on behalf of injured Cowboys' scouting assistant Richard Behm and special teams coach Joe DeCamillis.

Mr. Behm and Mr. DeCamillis and several others were injured at the Valley Ranch practice facility during a thunderstorm on May 2 when the roof of the structure split open, causing heavy steel supports to crumple and fall. Mr. Behm was paralyzed from the waist down when his spine was severed by falling debris, and Mr. DeCamillis suffered a serious compression fracture with dislocation of a cervical vertebrae.

The lawsuits charge that the building's faulty tent-like design presented a safety hazard, and that poor workmanship and improper use of building materials caused the structure to be inadequately secured to its concrete foundation. According to the lawsuits, the building designer was aware of the safety problems but performed only a partial temporary repair and represented to the Cowboys that the design defaults had been permanently and adequately repaired.

The defendants include building manufacturer Summit Structures LLC of Allentown, Pa.; marketer and distributor Cover-All Building Systems Inc. of Saskatoon, Canada; engineer Scott Jacobs and engineering services company JCI Holding LLC of Las Vegas; construction contractor Midwest Building and Fencing Inc. of South Haven, Minn.; construction materials supplier Hilti Inc. of Tulsa, Okla.; and concrete contractor Wrangler Concrete Construction LP of Burleson, Texas.

"What we've learned in our investigation is that this tragedy simply did not have to happen," says attorney Frank Branson, lead counsel for Mr. Behm and Mr. DeCamillis. "Our clients would never have been injured if the building had been constructed properly, if repairs were performed as promised, or if those responsible had made any of these shortcomings known. Putting people in this building as it was designed and built was a recipe for disaster."

The lawsuits charge the defendants with negligence and gross negligence and seek unspecified damages, including past and future medical treatment and loss of earning capacity for Mr. Behm and Mr.DeCamillis.

The Law Offices of Frank L. Branson represents clients in cases involving complex product liability, catastrophic injury, commercial air crashes, professional negligence, and business torts. To learn more about Mr. Branson and his firm, visit http://www.flbranson.com.