The Supreme Court holds that home rule protected Cincinnati’s law prohibiting automatic rifles capable of carrying more than 10 rounds, despite a state law that permits guns holding up to 31 rounds.  The case revolved around the fact that state law had not specifically pre-empted municipalities in this regard, so it probably won’t affect the latest effort by our lame-duck legislature, which does abolish local gun laws and, as I understand it, permits the use of Predator drones and uranium-depleted ammunition in state parks.  On to the rest of the courts…

Criminal.  Dueling Panels in the Districts:  8th District holds that “generally” serious physical harm is shown by fact that victim “sustained injuries necessitating medical treatment,” but another panel holds that a sprain requiring wearing of a sprint does not establish serious physical harm, while one panel in 3rd District holds that crossing white line on right side of roadway is not evidence of traffic violation sufficient to justify stop, and another holds that it is… 9th District affirms trial court’s refusal to grant mistrial because of sleeping juror…

Civil.  Good discussion in this 9th District case about elements of negligent entrustment… 8th District rejects theory of negligent misrepresentation in employer-employee matters… Plaintiff died from auto accident and subsequent medical malpractice; 10th District holds that auto insurer not entitled to setoff of UM/UIM benefits for malpractice award… 6th District determines that party who was determined, 10 years after paternity finding, not to be father of child is not entitled to refund of child support paid… Sovereign immunity protects city from claim of negligent false arrest, rules 11th District…

Our “eeeeewww” moment this week comes courtesy of Burrows v. Marc Glassman, Inc., a case from the 8th District involving a slip and fall in the bathroom of a local Marc’s Discount Store.  The plaintiff’s account of what happened is not for the squeamish: 

At deposition, Burrows commented on the deplorable condition of the restroom. She said that the floor was filthy, the waste basket was overflowing with used hand towels, and there was water by the sink. She claimed that the floor was so grimy that her foot stuck to it as she walked across it. Despite all of this, she was at a loss to say exactly what she slipped on.

I don’t know what she slipped on, either, and I don’t want to guess.  The court affirmed summary judgment on the grounds that her failure to identify the substance precluded her from making out a case of negligence, but as far as I’m concerned, the case could have been decided on the basis of express assumption of the risk.  Frankly, just going into a Marc’s requires all the courage I can muster; I’d rather walk the streets of Baghdad in a Mohammed cartoon t-shirt than venture into one of their bathrooms.