|
|
|
Court: Caregivers can't sue Alzheimer's patients
Industry News |
2014/08/05 15:26
|
People with Alzheimer's disease are not liable for injuries they may cause their paid in-home caregivers, California's highest court ruled Monday in a case involving a home health aide who was hurt while trying to restrain a client.
The California Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that people hired to work with Alzheimer's patients should know the disease commonly causes physical aggression and agitation in its later stages. The court majority concluded it would therefore be inappropriate to allow caregivers who get hurt managing a combative client to sue their employers.
"It is a settled principle that those hired to manage a hazardous condition may not sue their clients for injuries caused by the very risks they were retained to confront," Justice Carole Corrigan wrote for the majority.
The law in California and many other states already establishes that caregivers in institutional settings such as hospitals and nursing homes may not seek damages from Alzheimer's patients who injure them. To have a different standard for caregivers working in private homes would give families a financial incentive to put relatives with Alzheimer's into nursing homes, Corrigan said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court to take up Missouri execution case
Industry News |
2014/07/17 12:03
|
A last-minute stay from a federal judge has put a Missouri inmate's execution temporarily on hold.
John Middleton was scheduled to die one minute after midnight Wednesday for killing three people in rural northern Missouri in 1995. With less than two hours to go before the execution, U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry granted a stay, ruling there was enough evidence of mental illness that a new hearing should be held.
Courts have established that executing the mentally ill is unconstitutional.
Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster appealed to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but that court adjourned for the night without a ruling.
It was a confusing end to a day that saw a flurry of court actions. Perry first granted a stay early Tuesday, but that was overturned by the appeals court. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn the appeals court ruling and declined to halt the execution on several other grounds, including the contention by Middleton's attorneys that he was innocent of the crimes.
Middleton's attorneys then went back to Perry, who once again granted a stay.
However the appeals court eventually rules, the case is likely to end up again in the U.S. Supreme Court.
If the stay is lifted, the state could execute Middleton at any time Wednesday. The death warrant expires at midnight Thursday and if Middleton is not executed by then, the Missouri Supreme Court would have to set a new date. State witnesses and media were told to report back to the prison by 10:30 a.m.
Middleton, 54, would be the sixth man put to death in Missouri this year — only Florida and Texas have performed more executions in 2014 with seven each. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court debates 'straw purchasers' gun law
Industry News |
2014/01/24 13:16
|
The Supreme Court on Wednesday debated whether a Virginia man who bought a gun for a relative in Pennsylvania can be considered an illegal straw purchaser when both men were legally eligible to purchase firearms.
The justices heard an appeal from Bruce James Abramski Jr., a former police officer. Abramski bought a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, in Southside Virginia, in 2009 and transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pa., who paid him $400.
Abramski was arrested after police thought he was involved in a bank robbery in Rocky Mount, Va. No charges were ever filed on the bank robbery, but officials charged him with making false statements about the purchase of the gun.
Abramski answered “yes” on a federal form asking, “Are you the actual transferee buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.”
Abramski’s lawyers told the high court that since he and his uncle were legally allowed to own guns, the law should not have applied to him.
Feds to limit use of shackles at immigration court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anti-whaling activist to testify in US court
Industry News |
2013/11/08 14:19
|
A fugitive anti-whaling activist known for confronting Japanese whaling vessels off Antarctica is due to testify about his actions in a U.S. court Wednesday.
Paul Watson, founder of the Oregon-based Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, is expected to take the witness stand in a contempt of court hearing in Seattle.
The Japanese whalers argue that the organization 10 times violated an order barring its vessels from attacking or coming within 500 yards of the whaling ships. They've asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to impose fines of $100,000 for each violation, though they suggested the court waive those fines as long as the protesters stop confronting their ships.
The case is part of a long-running fight between the protesters and Japan's whaling fleet, which kills up to 1,000 whales a year, as allowed by the International Whaling Commission.
Japan is permitted to hunt the animals as long as they are killed for research and not commercial purposes, but whale meat not used for study is sold as food in Japan. Critics say that's the real reason for the hunts.
For several years, Sea Shepherd operated anti-whaling campaigns in the Southern Ocean. Activists aboard its vessels would hurl acid and smoke bombs at the whalers and drag ropes in the water to damage their propellers. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
