| May 10, 2017 |
| New Developments |
| Discovery Sanctions Sanctioned By Alan Hoffman On April 18, 2017 the United States Supreme Court did something unusual: it decided a discovery issue. In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger (2017), it reversed a $2.7 million sanctions order for bad faith discovery misconduct. And in Sec. Nat’l Bank |
…
| March 9, 2017 |
| New Developments |
| Missouri Products Law: Are The Times A-Changin’? By Joe Guffey Missouri, the home of Mark Twain and Harry S Truman, has in recent years become one of the most deeply red states politically. Yet it has also acquired a reputation as of one of the most plaintiff friendly forums |
…
| December 13, 2016 |
| New Developments |
| Auto Manufacturers Partner with Nauto to Improve Driverless Car Technology By Shannon Peters One of the main obstacles to the autonomous vehicle industry is “infrastructure,” but not in the sense typically associated with the term. Since autonomous vehicles come in all shapes, sizes, and powertrain types (gasoline, electric, and hybrid), |
…
| November 8, 2016 |
| New Developments |
| Does Talc Cause Cancer? Scientific Evidence in the Courtroom By Alan Hoffman This year juries returned verdicts totaling nearly $200 million in three Missouri cases claiming that ovarian cancers is caused by using talcum powder products. By contrast, in September a New Jersey Superior Court excluded expert opinions offered to |
…
| August 9, 2016 |
| New Developments |
| GM’s Ignition Switch Litigation Woes Continue By Shannon Peters “Just when I thought I was out…they pull me back in.” That must be what GM’s executives (and counsel) were thinking when the Second Circuit handed down its recent decision overturning portions of the 2015 Bankruptcy Court decision that could have |
…
| June 7, 2016 |
| New Developments |
| Driverless Cars and the Law By Mark Pratzel As driverless car technology evolves, questions continue to arise regarding its legal repercussions. Google, one of the leading forces behind autonomous cars, predicts that they will be available to the public by 2020. Nissan and Tesla are also developing self-driven car technology. And |
…
Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis recently ruled that Remington Arms Company, LLC could not use The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”) to prohibit the lawsuit filed against Remington as a result of the Sandy Hook shootings last December 2012.
Recently the Supreme Court of Missouri held that The Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act (“PLCAA”) preempts a negligence claim but allows a correctly pled negligent entrustment action against a firearm seller. Thus, the PLCAA is not only a hot political topic being discussed by the Presidential Candidates, but also one that is being litigated within the legal system.
In Delana v. Ced Sales, Inc., d/b/a Odessa Gun & Pawn, et al., (2016 WL 1357209 (MO en banc April 6, 2016, not released for publication) defendant Odessa Gun & Pawn (“Odessa) sold a firearm, to a mentally ill child of the plaintiff, Janet Delana, which the child used to kill her own father. Plaintiff telephoned Odessa and asked the store manager, Derrick Dady, to refrain from selling a gun to her daughter, who was severely mentally ill and should not have a gun. Plaintiff also told Mr. Dady that her daughter had purchased a gun at Odessa the previous month and attempted to commit suicide, and said, “I’m begging you, I’m begging you as a mother, if she comes in, please don’t sell her a gun. Two days later, Mr. Dady sold her a gun and ammunition which she used within an hour to kill her father.
Because federal law generally does not regulate firearms in the workplace, employers must know whether they operate in a state that has a workplace gun law and whether any specific requirements or exceptions apply to their business.
During the last several years, more than 20 states have enacted “Parking Lot” or…
On February 3, 2016, Husch Blackwell Labor and Employment attorneys Terry Potter and Robert Rojas presented a webinar on Workplace Safety vs. Workplace Gun Rights. The webinar focused on the legal landscape of current gun legislation, how certain legislation affects employers and the workplace, and how to minimize any risks associated with that legislation. Specifically, the presentation covered state-specific parking lot laws and posting requirements, both of which regulate where and how an employer may prohibit weapons on its property. Parking lot laws make it illegal for employers to prohibit the possession of firearms in personal vehicles on employer-owned property while posting laws require employers to use certain signage to notify employees, customers, and others that firearms are prohibited inside an employer’s buildings or worksite.
