Contact: Elizabeth E. Collins, Brouse McDowell (Akron, Ohio, USA)
Companies such as Uber and Lyft provide a much-welcome alternative to taxis and public transportation. These companies are rapidly expanding into local markets. Uber, for example, has expanded to 57 countries and offers ride-sharing locally in both Cleveland and Akron, Ohio. With their convenience and relatively low pricing, many believe that these ride-sharing companies are a better alternative to taxis and public transportation. However, skeptics are asking if these companies are too good to be true. One important issue passengers should consider involves insurance coverage. What happens if your Uber driver gets into a car accident and you are injured? Does the driver’s personal insurance policy or Uber’s insurance policy, for that matter, cover your injury? What about Uber and Lyft’s own liability for passengers’ injuries? A brief analysis of these concerns follows.
Contact: Matthew Kelly Jr. and Sekou Lewis; Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP (Delaware & Pennsylvania, USA)
A tragic accident often leads to calls for re-examination of a long-accepted part of culture. This past week, after a broken bat at Fenway Park seriously injured a fan, commentators are calling for a re-examination of the baseball rule: stadium owners and operators have only a limited duty to fans to protect them from baseballs or other items flying from the field of play. Every few years the baseball rule is challenged. For example, a 2009 accident at a Houston Astros game resulted in a fan losing her eye. That case wound its way through the Texas courts, with the plaintiff’s claims shut down at both the trial and appellate levels; she did not even garner an audience with the Texas Supreme Court. The baseball rule was too strong.
Contact: Andrew Shute and Matthew Payten, Carter Newell (Queensland, Australia)
Legal professional privilege, also known as client legal privilege, is an important tool to facilitate frank legal advice between lawyer and client, going beyond a mere rule of evidence to be considered a ‘fundamental condition on which the administration of justice as a whole rests’.1
Author: Att. Ezgi Babur
Anti-suit injunctions are issued by national courts or arbitral tribunals, used especially in common law jurisdictions, in order to protect the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals, or to prevent the tribunal from assuming jurisdiction. The general explanations on anti-suit injunctions are analyzed in our Newsletter article published in February.
By: Brad McCullough
One of the more ubiquitous idiomatic phrases used in recent years has been, “It is what it is.” In three consolidated cases decided last month by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the Court turned that phrase around and focused on the question, “Is it what it is?” – or, more precisely, “Is it what it says it is?” On April 23, 2015, Judge Battaglia issued the Majority’s opinion in Sublet v. State, Sept. Term 2014, No. 42; Harris v. State, Sept. Term 2014, No. 59; and Monge-Martinez v. State, Sept. Term 2014, No. 60.1 The cases concerned the authentication of information derived from social media, required the Court to expand on its four-year-old decision in Griffin v. State, 419 Md. 343 (2011), and inquired whether three trial judges had suitably answered whether the proffered social media “was what it says it was.”