Friday, November 23, 2012
Friday's are Law Days at Outside Counsel (sometimes). Here's AllianceBernstein L.P. v Atha, in which the First Department says that a demand for iPhone call logs is one thing, but surrendering the phone itself goes too far. Remarkably, it reversed nisi prius to reach this conclusion, which suggests to me, once again, that judges lag about ten years behind on IT stuff.
Also notable, the novel tort theory that an employer might be vicariously liable for a homicide committed by an employee because the employee was an undocumented alien. Ostroy v Six Sq. LLC says nay: "The claim of negligence per se based on defendant Bradford's alleged violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (8 USC § 1324a[a][1]) in hiring Pillco must be dismissed because there is no evidence that the decedent was among the class of people for whose particular benefit the statute had been enacted (see Fagan v AmerisourceBergen Corp., 356 F Supp 2d 198, 214 [ED NY 2004])." I love it that there are people who could stand up in court and make that argument with a straight face. I have a mental picture of the Appellate Division bench doing a spit take.
Also notable, the novel tort theory that an employer might be vicariously liable for a homicide committed by an employee because the employee was an undocumented alien. Ostroy v Six Sq. LLC says nay: "The claim of negligence per se based on defendant Bradford's alleged violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (8 USC § 1324a[a][1]) in hiring Pillco must be dismissed because there is no evidence that the decedent was among the class of people for whose particular benefit the statute had been enacted (see Fagan v AmerisourceBergen Corp., 356 F Supp 2d 198, 214 [ED NY 2004])." I love it that there are people who could stand up in court and make that argument with a straight face. I have a mental picture of the Appellate Division bench doing a spit take.
// posted by Bill @ 11:30 AM 
Post a Comment