The Kiley Law Firm Blog

                If you are ever called for jury duty, the lawyers will say that they are looking for jurors who will be impartial.  They’re lying.  Any trial lawyer worth his salt wants jurors who will favor his client.  The jury system works when each lawyer is able to “strike” the jurors who would seem to favor the other litigant.  Each lawyer can “challenge” and eliminate any and all jurors who admit that they are predisposed to favor the other side.  But what about the jurors who say they will be fair but harbor sympathies for one side or another?  Luckily, each lawyer has a certain number (usually three) of “peremptory challenges” which may be exercised to remove a juror who the lawyer believes may harbor secret or latent sympathies for the other litigant – or worse, hate your client.  Sorting the jurors who favor your client from the ones who won’t is a tricky business. 

                Historically, attorneys select jurors based on intuition and formulaic profile.  Some lawyers hire jury consultants to render expert insight into human behavior.  But looking for jurors who will “like” your client is more of an art form than a science project.  Most people harbor prejudices of one type or another.  These are not always nefarious and many come from innocent practical experience.  Juror “number one” might like cab drivers because she’s married to one.  Juror “number two” – who’s actually ridden in a cab – might think that cab drivers are inherently reckless.  Oops . . .  there I’ve divulged one of my biases.  The problem with jury selection is that the average person doesn’t like to admit that he or she may be prejudiced, especially when challenged by a lawyer in front of the other members of the jury panel.  “Mrs. Smith,” the lawyer might ask “I know that your son was killed by a cab driver driving on the sidewalk in Manhattan, but won’t you will be fair to my client?”  In truth, it’s not that Mrs. Smith won’t be fair; she can’t be fair.  And that’s understandable.  As far as I know there was only one Mother Theresa and she’s dead and won’t be in the jury pool.  The only way that a juror may truly be fair is to recognize and admit his or her inclinations.

                The challenge for the trial lawyer is to discern a candidate’s personal history and predispositions in the space of a few minutes.  This is why attorneys profile potential jurors based upon career, education, geographic origin, race and ethnicity.  By profiling, the lawyer may seem to be showing his own prejudices.  In fact, he’s trying to intuit the jurors’ prejudices and has to rely on stereotypes to do so.  Homeowners and shopkeepers typically don’t like people who bring lawsuits when they trip and fall.  Elderly white people from Douglaston Manor typically fear black rappers from Jamaica.  Kindergarten teachers typically cry when they hear that a little child was hurt in a car accident.  Bankers typically don’t like anyone who sues for money damages (unless, of course they themselves are injured.)         

                It’s illegal to racially profile jurors, as the United States Supreme Court outlawed this practice in the case of Batson v. Kentucky,476 U.S. 79 (1986).  Mr. Batson was a black man who was convicted of burglary.  During voire dire (jury selection), the prosecutor peremptorily challenged all four black people on the jury panel.  Batson’s conviction was overturned on appeal because his jury was exclusively composed of white people.  The stated reasoning behind the Court’s decision was that a man is entitled to be tried by a jury which represents a cross section of his community.  Of course, the Court’s unstated conclusion was that a black man charged with burglary in Kentucky doesn’t have a puncher’s chance to be acquitted by twelve white people.  In reality, the Batson jurors may have been fair-minded, color-blind people and Mr. Batson may have been caught red-handed.  It’s just that the case didn’t pass the “smell test.”  Yet in making its decision the Supreme Court Justices expressed their own prejudices against white southerners.  Why did they do so?  Because guaranteeing a fair trial for Batson was more important than offending the sensibilities of the jurors whose liberty was not in issue.  Since Batson, courts have extended the prohibition against profiling to include gender-based jury challenges but the courts have expressed no opinion about other types of profiling.    

                In fact, racial and sexual profiling continues to be an acknowledged, if sub rosa, jury selection technique.  An injured plaintiff typically wants a jury composed of liberal-minded, soft-hearted, generous, empathetic people.  Defendants typically prefer conservative, unemotional, and financially prudent people.  The risk in stereotyping is that people are not always who they seem to be.  So it’s important to get a feel for the person behind his or her job, race, color, address or educational background.  Therein lies the rub and it’s most important to ask questions of the juror which will provide insight as to their character, thought processes and personal experiences. 

Next: Picking a Jury in Queens County

“Eeeney, Meeney, Miney, Moe”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

With Valentine’s Day approaching, no doubt many men are considering a marriage proposal to their significant others.   But before “fools rush in”, consider this: Who gets the engagement ring if the wedding is called off?  Believe it or not, there is a law in New York State that contemplates such eventualities.   

Civil Rights Law § 80-b states that “nothing in this article [contained] shall be construed to bar a right of action for the recovery of chattel . . . or the value thereof . . . when the sole consideration for the transfer of the chattel . . . was a contemplated marriage which has not occurred . . .”  Section 80-b is intended “to return the parties to the position they were in prior to becoming engaged, without rewarding or punishing either party for the fact that the marriage failed to materialize.”  Gaden v. Gaden 29 N.Y. 2d 80, 88.

However, consider where the proposer is in the midst of a divorce that has not been finalized before the proposal.  Such was the unfortunate fate of the Romeo in Listoken v. Kreitman  2007 NY Slip  Op 34260.  Listoken sued his former fiance Kreitman for the return of the $76,000.00 engagement ring kept by Kreitman after their breakup.  The Court found that since Listoken was married at the time of the proposal, the enagement ring could not be recovered on the grounds that  “an agreement to marry under such circumstances is void as against public policy . . . and it is not saved or rendered valid by the fact that the married individual contemplated divorce and that the agreement was conditioned on procurement of the divorce.” Lowe v. Quinn 27 N.Y.2 d, 397, 400  (1971)

Public policy, however, does not proscribe a return of the ring in situations where unbeknownst to the plaintiff, the defendant recipient of the ring was still married. In Shoenfeld v Fontek 67 Misc 2d 481 (1971), the unmarried male plaintiff sought to recover property he gave to the married female defendant in contemplation of their marriage, which ultimately did not take place. The defendant argued that no recovery was permissible because she was already married, and an impediment to the marriage therefore existed. The Supreme Court determined that the rule precluding recovery in such cases “is not intended to bar an action for the return of property by an innocent party, not aware of the other’s disability to contract a marriage at the time of the “engagement’”.

Of course, the foregoing rules apply only to a ring given as an engagement ring.  If there were reasons other than a contemplated marriage why the gift was given, such as part of a birthday or holiday celebration, the ring may not be subject to return.  Where there is a genuine dispute as to the circumstances under which the ring was given, a trial may be necessary to determine the facts.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Despite the seemingly endless number of ATMs to be found in every neighborhood, sometimes it is just easier to pay for small items with a credit/debit card. This avoids he imposition of costly ATM fees or a pesky Canadian trio will try to steal your money.

More often than not, once you get to the register with your bottle of water or bagel and present your card, you will be met with a shake of the head and a point to a hand-written sign that says “$________ minimum for all credit/debit transactions.” Well, if the handwritten sign attached to the register says so, it must be true, right? The answer, unfortunately is, maybe.

Until 2010, most credit card networks prohibited merchants from setting minimums for credit card transactions. A coalition of retail and small business organizations asked Congress to change this. The request received little notice because it was just a few short lines of text that made up the nearly 900 page Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act .The law states that merchants can set a credit card minimum purchase of up to $10.00, as long as they treat all cards the same. It also allows the Federal Reserve to review and increase the minimum payment amount.

 When confronted with this, if the sign says $10.00 minimum and all you have is a bagel and you want to pay by card, you are going to have to load up on additional items to reach the minimum. If however the minimum is above the $10.00 limit, consumers can report violations by merchants by contacting their issuing banks using the numbers listed on the back of their credit cards or contact the card company directly.

¹  (Sidel, Robin. ATM Fees Heading Higher.  16 Mar. 2011.  The Wall Street Journal.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703566504576202792887598636.html.

²  (Peltz, Jennifer.  3 Men From Canada Charged with NYC ATM Scam.  16 Nov. 2011.  The Wall Street Journal  http://online.wsj.com/article/AP686ce864c7d34238a8a1f8dad077a1bb.html.

³ 111th Congress (2009 – 2010) H.R.4173.  Page 698. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr4173enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr4173enr.pdf.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Lately, we’ve been flooded with mail from readers with legal problems and questions. I thought it would be appropriate to use the Kiley Blog to post some of the better ones.

A desperate housewife posed question about divorce law:

Dear Blogger,

My husband doesn’t seem to understand me and won’t communicate. I try to engage him in conversation but he mostly just grunts in response. I try to put the spark back in our marriage but he only says, “Fire . . . bad.” He’s abusive, but usually focuses his anger on local villagers carrying pitchforks. Sometimes, I think he’s a real monster. Do I have grounds for divorce?

Signed,

The Bride of Frankenstein

Dear Bride,

You’re in luck. On October 13, 2010, the New York State legislature passed a no-fault divorce statute. You can now bring an irretrievable-breakdown divorce action under D.R.L. §170(7). Good luck finding a process server.

 A merchant wrote a question about the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C):

Dear Blogger,

I wanted to order a supply of straight edge razors, but my office manager accidentally ordered a pallet of double blade Gillette Venus razors. They’re so safe. You can’t even nick someone with one. Do I have to take delivery of them?

Signed,

The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Dear Barber,

§ 2-507 of the UCC regards Effect of Seller’s Tender; Delivery on Condition. Sub-section

(1) provides that “tender of delivery is a condition to the buyer’s duty to accept the goods and, unless otherwise agreed, to his duty to pay for them.” If I were you, I’d keep them, break them in half and sell them to the old lady at the end of the street who’ll stick them in apples and give them to trick-or-treaters.

Another reader asked a question about criminal law:

Dear Blogger,

I’ve been a very bad boy and committed mass murder. Well, to be truthful, I’ve committed several mass murders. You see, it’s a sequel thing and the movie-going public can’t seem to get enough. Now, I’m concerned that I may be caught and prosecuted. I’ve got two questions. First, I’ve got a contract for two more pictures. Can my director be convicted for aiding and abetting me? Second, what’s the difference between consecutive and concurrent sentencing.

Signed,

Freddy (Last name withheld upon request)

Dear Fred,

If your director is directly responsible for the actus reus (guilty act), he’ll be considered your joint principal and could be charged for the actual crime. But if he merely encourages you to “go with it” and be creative, he’d only be guilty of being an accessory to your crimes. As to your second question, New York State Penal Law § 70.25 (2) provides that concurrent sentences must be imposed “for two or more offenses committed through a single act or omission, or through an act or omission which in itself constituted one of the offenses and also was a material element of the other.” As for the applicability of your facts to the law, I have to admit that I’m not a fan of the genre. You’ll have to ask Roger Ebert.

This reader was named the as beneficiary in his probate a neighbor’s will but was frustrated by the probate process.

Dear Blogger,

I helped a neighbor write his biography and he named me as the sole beneficiary in his will. The man was pretty much a loner and only came out at night. I’d have to confess that he was a little batty. He was very old when he died and I can’t find his birth certificate. Also, he grew up in a remote section of Romania and I can’t seem to find his family. What should I do?

Signed,

Bram Stoker

Dear Bram,

You’ve got a problem. The New York State Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) requires you to locate his heirs at law. If he had no spouse or children, you’ll need to research his family tree all the way back to his grandparents on both sides. You’ve got to diligently do your research. If I were you, I’d spend the money to hire a genealogist. Why not go with him and make a vacation out of it. I’ve heard that Transylvania is beautiful this time of year.

Dear Readers,

Keep those questions coming in. I’ll be happy to answer them or not, depending on my moods.

Sincerely,

The Blogger

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

In the 3^rd Millennium, prehistoric man picked up his hunting and gathering tools and moved to Mesopotamia to live with his fellow former cavemen. Thus, began civilization. The dawn of the next day witnessed the first dispute between adjacent landowners. It probably started over something minor. Perhaps Uruku’s camel too frequently fertilized Ebarbar’s front lawn. An argument ensued over picayune matters and quickly escalated to a full-blown feud until Ebarbar finally settled the matter by burying the hatchet . . . in Uruku’s skull.

After Hammurabi codified the laws, the hatchet solution became passé. So was spawned the first lawyer. Five thousand years later people still fight with their neighbors and lawyers are still busy.

Not-so-neighborly disputes arise over boundary lines, shared driveways, noise complaints and innumerable other actual or perceived injuries. To solve these problems, I advise my clients of their five options:

You can sue the bastards, but civil litigation is costly.

You can do like Ebarbar did, but criminal defense attorneys are also expensive and felony murder can get you a long prison term.

You can try to work it out.

You can ignore it.

You can move.

If the offense is minor, I always advise the client to choose option three and fallback on option four. No matter how many times your neighbor puts his trash cans on your side of the driveway, it’s not worth it to sue him. If you do, it will cost you money, time and aggravation. And it won’t solve the problem. You’ll find yourself mired in the quagmire of trench warfare which will make you paranoid and anxious. You’ll never again feel that you are at “home sweet home.”

Some offenses cannot be ignored or excused. If your neighbor paves over your lawn to make a larger driveway for his boat and RV, his encroachment impairs the value of your land and clouds your title – perhaps making it unmarketable. What can you do in such a case?

First, you should research the title to your property to see who owns the land in question. Check for easements, which are recorded agreements permitting adjacent property owners to use or cross your land. It may be that a prior owner gave your neighbor the right to place his driveway next to your geraniums.

It is essential to know your property line. Where does your land end and his begin? Only a licensed land surveyor can make that determination. It’s expensive to obtain a new survey. But if your surveyor can locate an existing survey, he can compare it with the “meets and bounds” description in your deed. He will measure your property by reference to fixed points such as intersections. The surveyor researches available property records and compares adjoining properties. He then measures distances with references to compass points to identify your property lines. Ask the surveyor to “stake the property” so that you can see for yourself and show your neighbor.

If your inspection reveals that your neighbor’s driveway is less that one foot inside your property line, a title company will insure the property as such deviations are minor. However, if own a small lot, a one foot encroachment can be significant regardless that your ownership is insured. Then, it’s your call whether to make an issue of it.

If the surveyor confirms that your neighbor’s driveway extends more than one foot onto your land you must take action to remedy the problem and reclaim the land. Even if you don’t mind the intrusion, it may prevent you from selling the house if your buyer can’t get title insurance or his mortgage lender determines that the value of the “lost” property severely impairs their investment. In the worst case scenario, an obvious, obtrusive and offensive use of your land for more than ten years will allow your neighbor to take the property by “adverse possession.”

What then can you do? Machiavelli once said, “There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.” But he didn’t have to pay a lawyer or live next door to his mortal enemy. Decide if the encroachment really bothers you or significantly impairs your use of the property. If not, one solution is to negotiate and sign a Boundary Line Agreement, by which you may permit your neighbor to use the land with the understanding that he doesn’t own it. It’s a good compromise. He keeps his driveway and avoids the cost and inconvenience of relocating it. You keep good title to the property and avoid the cost of litigation. You both avoid conflict which is essential to your sanity and peace of mind. Remember. You live here. This is “home” where you should be safe and happy.

The Boundary Line Agreement can be drafted so that it will expire upon a future event, such as when your neighbor sells the property or needs to repave the driveway. That provides a permanent but bloodless solution.

If you’ve tried unsuccessfully to resolve the problem amicably, it will be easier to justify spending the time and money to sue him.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

As reported in the New York Law Journal today, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has governmental immunity against liability for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center by terrorists who parked an explosive-laden truck in its underground parking lot, a narrowly divided state Court of Appeals ruled this morning.

Six people were killed in the attack and hundreds were hurt. Many of those injured and the survivors of those killed argued in suits that the Port Authority ignored repeated warnings by security experts about the vulnerability of the parking garages to bombers.

Today’s ruling overturns a decision by the Appellate Division, First Department, which found the Port Authority 68 percent responsible for the attacks and the terrorists 32 percent responsible. The Port Authority has argued for years that it makes no sense to hold the agency twice as responsible for the damages for an attack willfully launched by terrorists.Now a 4-3 majority of the state’s highest court has accepted the agency’s position.  The governmental immunity doctrine is “intended to afford deference to the exercise of discretion by the officials of municipalities and governmental entities,” especially with regard to the allocation of limited police resources, Judge Theodore T. Jones Jr. wrote for the majority.  “Governmental entities cannot be expected to be absolute, infallible guarantors of public safety, but in order to encourage them to engage in the affirmative conduct of diligently investigating security vulnerabilities and implementing appropriate safeguards, they must be provided with the latitude to render those critical decisions without threat of legal repercussions,” Judge Jones wrote in Matter of World Trade Center Bombing Litigation v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 217.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

It’s been a memorable August on Long Island punctuated by two rare natural disasters – an earthquake and a hurricane. The earthquake did little more that shake our buildings and our nerves. But Hurricane Irene’s unleashed fury caused billions of dollars in property damage. Yesterday’s Newsday headline pronounced that the LIPA bill to restore power would exceed $100 Million. Surely we’ll all pick up a piece of that unwelcome tab; but what about the individual costs that many people incurred. Power outages caused basements to flood, freezers to defrost and young children to go through video-game withdrawal.

The storm was the cause for disaster but its proxies were the trees which downed our power lines. Some were uprooted and others lost limbs. But whether they were killed or merely became amputees, their kamikaze missions claimed thousands of victims.

An Irish client of mine was knocked to the ground by a large falling tree limb. He sustained minor injuries but was saved from being serious hurt when the fence he walked beside deflected the brunt of the blow. When a witness told him that he was lucky the fence was there, he retorted with typical Gaelic sarcasm that if was really lucky he would have been walking on the other side of the street.

Thankfully, most of the casualties were inanimate, but the associated financial pain was acute nonetheless.

So after you’ve paid for the damage to your car, roof or fence, do you have any recourse against the owner of the tree? The answer is . . . maybe. Property owners owe a duty of care to neighbors and passersby to keep their properties free from dangerous conditions. However, the owner is not responsible in the event an “act of God” causes the tree to fall. Irene was a bad storm, but bad storms are expected events. God wil lnot take the blame if your obviously rotted tree falls in a rainstorm because you didn’t bother to cut it down.

The owner’s duty of care is only triggered when he knows about the dangerous condition (actual notice) or should know about it (constructive notice). The law is different for municipalities such as towns and cities which are only liable if they receive prior written notice that the tree presents a hazard. Even then, they are exempt unless the aggrieved party serves written notice of his intention to sue within ninety days after the accident. (See §50 (e) of the Municipal Law of the State of New York). Municipalities are otherwise exempt from liability by governmental immunity, a hangover from feudal times when being a peasant was never pleasant.

Next: What to Do if You’ve Been Damaged

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Personal injury plaintiffs are routinely derided by the general public as phonies. Certainly, there are unscrupulous plaintiffs and lawyers who bring smear-job lawsuits. But too few people are cognizant of the dark side of the defendant’s defense.

If you bring a lawsuit for personal injuries, §3121 of the Civil Practice Laws and Rules of the State of New York (CPLR), permits the defendant’s insurance company to hire its own doctors to physically examine you. The purpose is obvious. Defendants have the right to verify whether a plaintiff is actually injured and the extent to which the injuries are permanent and/or disabling. Defendants euphemistically refer to these tests as “Independent Medical Examinations” or “IME’s” because the CPLR gives them the right to evaluate the plaintiff separately from what the plaintiff and his doctors may claim. To describe the defendant’s physical examination as “independent” lends an aura of righteousness to the endeavor as though only the defendant’s doctor may uphold his sacred Hippocratic oath to practice his profession ethically and without outside influences. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The doctors who conduct the examinations are paid by the defendants’ insurance companies. They serve at the whim of the insurance company. In so doing, many take a “hypocritical” oath. The doctor who too often determines that a plaintiff is seriously or permanently injured finds himself out of favor with his patron and unemployed. But certainly not all.

More often than not, the defendant’s doctor renders his services at a bulk rate. He may be paid only $100.00 per examination. How does he do it? Volume. He overbooks his appointments and examines plaintiffs in assembly-line fashion. He doesn’t dictate a full report but uses fill-in-the-blank templates forms to save time. Rare is the occasion when the physician spends more than five minutes examining the plaintiff. Rarer still is the occasion when the physician determines that the plaintiff is truly injured as a result of the defendant’s negligence.

Generally, there are five different methods by which the defendant’s doctor plies his tawdry trade to refute a plaintiff’s claim of injury:

(1) IT’S ALL IN YOUR HEAD: By this approach the doctor pejoratively references the plaintiff’s symptoms as “subjective.” If the plaintiff says that he has pain and can’t move his arm, the doctor claims that he has objectively measured the plaintiff’s range of motion and finds that he is not so restricted or that his range of motion is “within normal limits.” But what is normal? A thirty-year-old athlete can swing his arm in a wider circle than a fifty-year-old fat man who won’t get off the couch unless he needs to reach the cooler. Most times the examiner makes no distinction. God help the couch potato.

(2) NOT MY FAULT: Another twisted method is to claim that the plaintiff’s problems are “pre-existing” or the result of “degeneration.” True, few people more than forty can avoid the aging process. But how may the IME doctor explain that the plaintiff was asymptomatic until his Volkswagon Beetle was struck from behind by a teenager in his father’s Range Rover? Too frequently they ignore such facts or do not let themselves be fooled by the truth.

(3) THIS TOO WILL PASS: Sometimes IME doctors are faced by the physical evidence that the plaintiff is irrefutably and uncontestedly injured. How then may he serve his master? In such a case, the doctor must resort to a fallback position – “the plaintiff’s injuries are temporary.” Sure, little Joey still limps four years after breaking his ankle. Shortly he will fully recover.

(4) HALLELUJAH! JESUS SAVES: Another artifice in the IME arsenal is the technique wherein the defendant’s doctor proclaims the plaintiff remarkable recovery. Like a Pentecostal Preacher, he asserts that the plaintiff may throw away his crutches and walk.

(5) THE RORSCHACH APPROACH: Perhaps most sinister are the physicians who do not physically examine a plaintiff, but “review” the radiological records instead. The doctors who prepare such reports are uniquely positioned to practice medicine without a patient. Behind the cloak of a shadowbox they offer their not-so-professional opinions. Ask one man to look at an inkblot and he sees a monkey with an accordion. The next man sees a ballerina smoking a cigar. So if the plaintiff’s radiologist says that an MRI film shows a herniated cervical disc, the defendant’s doctor may say that the findings are evidence of degenerative osteophyte formations. Put the film in front of the jurors and call it what you want. The average person can’t tell. As Harry Truman said, “if you can’t convince them, confuse them.”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The sport of golf is enjoying unprecedented popularity these days.   Long Island is home to literally hundreds of private and public golf courses,  many offering some of the finest golf courses in the Country.    New private and quasi-private golf clubs continue to be built, particularly in Suffolk County.  In addition, despite the sluggish economy, the number of corporate and charity golf outings seems to be growing exponentially.  The combination of these factors has led to an increasing menace which threatens public health……… the “hack” golfer.

So what happens if you are injured on (or off)  the golf course as a result of a stray ball or other condition?  Do you have any remedies?  Unfortunately, with slim exceptions, the answer is usually, “No”.

With many sport related injuries, the courts often apply the doctrine of “Primary Assumption of Risk”  which holds that individuals who engage in a sport or recreational activity consent to assume the commonly appreciated risks that are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport.   Thus, the golfer should be keenly aware of the commonly appreciated risks associated with golf, of which the courts have found many, inluding the following:  1) being struck by an errant golf ball even when a fellow golfer fails to warn of his intent to strike  the ball. See Anad v. Kapoor, 15 N.Y. 3d 946;  2) slipping and falling while descending a staircase leading from cart path to tee box. See Mangan v. Engineer’s Country Club, 79 AD 3d 706; 3) slipping on wet grass. See Lombardo v. Cedar Brook Golf & Tennis Club, 39 AD 2d 818; and falling in mud.  See Carracino v. Town of Oyster Bay, 247 AD2d 501… all situations where the courts dismissed the injured parties claims.    

And for the golf “hackers” out there,  take solace (along with the author) in knowing that the New York State Court of Appeals has determined that generally, a golfer may not be held liable to the individuals located entirely outside the boundaries of the golf course, who happen to be hit by a stray ball.  See Rinaldo v. McGovern 78 NYS 2nd 729, where the court dismissed the claims of the plaintiff who was struck by an errat ball while driving his motor vehicle  on a public road abutting the golf course.  

So keep taking that driver out of the bag… and keep a good eye on your fellow golfer.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Tomorrow my wife Maria and I will bring our daughter, Ally, (and loads of our money) to Harvard where she will begin her freshman year. She has been packing for two weeks and I will need to rent a small semi to get all her things to Boston. I remember my parents sent me to Colgate with a trunk full of jeans and flannel shirts, some toiletries, and a winter coat (which I started wearing in October, I might add).

I’m sure that some of the differences between what I brought to Colgate and what Ally will bring to Harvard are gender-based. But the technical toys and modern conveniences that she has at her disposal are so far removed from my college experience to make me think I went to school during the dark ages. For instance:

• Ally has a 3G Droid cell phone on which she can surf the internet; I had quarters and waited in line to use the hall phone at Center Stillman Hall;
• She will have sushi and sashimi at a posh student “eatery”; I ate slop at the SAGA mess hall if I was hungry enough to brave the alpine trek from the Freshman Quadrangle to the bottom of Cardiac Hill and back up again.
• She has an Apple computer and word-processing software to prepare “documents”; I knew a coed in West Stillman who would type my term paper for money IF I gave her enough lead time. Oh. And I also had all the apples I wanted if I was desperate enough to brave the ice and wind down the mountain and back up again;
• She has an I-Pod so small she can carry it in her hip pocket; I had a turntable that traveled no farther than the longest extension cord.
• She will have wi-fi, hi-def and cable television with over 200 channels; my dorm had a rabbit ear-ed black and white TV that played three Syracuse stations.

Then again, my parents paid $5,500/year in tuition, etc.; Maria and I will pay $55,000.00. Why is it that I feel I have been shortchanged twice?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post