Weekly Roundup
Several months back, I wrote about the case of Kirchner v. Shooters, where the plaintiff's decedent had gotten drunk at a bar in the flats, decided to relieve himself at the end of a pier, and instead fell into the river and drowned. The court here held that it was an open and obvious hazard, affirmed the grant of summary judgment, then certified it to the Supreme Court. The other day, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Why? Because the appellant had stopped payment on the $40 check for the filing fee.
Me, I think I would have just filed a notice of dismissal and let them keep the forty bucks.
Anyway, on to the courts...
10th District reverses Court of Claims, holds that University of Cincinnati wasn't negligent in student rape case because rape wasn't foreseeable... also applies workers comp "coming and going" rule to find that employee wasn't in course and scope of employment at time of auto accident, and company (and its insurer) thus not liable to plaintiff... 6th District upholds summary judgment in slip and fall on oil slick in parking lot of gas station, finds hazard "open and obvious"...
Defendant's confession was admissible, says 3rd District, because although evidence showed he he refused to sign Miranda waiver, he said that he wanted to talk to officer... 9th District upholds conviction for child endangering based upon woman's allowing her daughter to be abused by woman's boyfriend; court noted that boyfriend "had developed the nickname 'Chester the Molester' among the residents of the trailer park" where the couple lived. Trailer park, huh? Who woulda thought... Failure to call witnesses not ineffective assistance of counsel, rules 12th District, where record doesn't show they would have been any good... 1st District tosses speeding conviction because state never identified laser device which tracked defendant, thus trial court could not take judicial notice of its reliability...
One of the interesting things about doing this blog is I'm always learning things I didn't know. How many times have you had a trial where the jury comes back with the question, "Can we hear the testimony of so-and-so?" Everybody chuckles, the judge shakes his head, sends back a note saying "use your best recollection," and that's that. Turns out that the judge has full discretion to have the testimony of any witness reread to the jury during deliberations. At least that's what the 5th District says, and they seem to have the case law to back it up.
Comments