Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

News Trying to Claim Your Boss is Doing Two Things At Once? Think Again. (PA) July 1, 2016 < Back Share to: On June 29, 2016 the PA Superior Court dismissed the appeal by underlying plaintiff Neidert from an order granting compulsory non-suit to underlying defendant Albert Charlie III. Neidert sued Charlie when he was injured while working at Riley’s Pub. Charlie owns the business and also owned the building where Riley’s Pub is located. Neidert sought damages on the theory that Charlie is not exempt under the Workers’ Compensation Act because he was acting in a “dual capacity” with respect to his ownership of the building. Neidert claimed that as the building owner, Charlie owed him a separate duty to ensure the building was safe. Charlie moved for summary judgement after he was served with the complaint and was denied. At trial however, Charlie made an oral motion for compulsory nonsuit, which was granted. The issue on appeal, among others, was whether the dual capacity exception applied. The Superior Court noted that this doctrine has only been applied in one case and the exception is extremely narrow and that it “does not apply where the employee’s compensable injury occurred while he was actually engaged in the performance of his job”. This case is useful in understanding truly how narrow the dual capacity exemption is interpreted. It will serve as a model for future suits and can be used to defeat such claims by plaintiffs. Thanks to Remy Cahn for her contribution to this post, and please email Brian Gibbons with any questions. Previous Next Contact

There’s Nothing Here... We can’t find the page you’re looking for. Check the URL, or head back home. Go Home

News Happy Holidays from your Friends at Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP December 20, 2023 < Back Share to: ​ WCM would like to wish warm holiday greetings to our friends and clients across the United States, the UK and other parts of the world. We just celebrated the holiday season this past week with our WCM family, and as we take a break to celebrate with our families and friends at home, w e look forward to our continued collaboration with you all in 2024 and beyond. And one of these years, we're going to get all of our offices together (including our newly opened West Palm Beach office) for one big holiday party -- and we'll need a Nakatomi Plaza-sized venue for that. Happy Holidays! Previous Next Contact

News Bar owner criminal liability for serving intoxicated employee December 19, 2007 < Back Share to: In Supreme Court, Putnam County, a bar owner is on trial for allegedly allowing alcohol to be served to an off-duty employee directly before she drove head-on into another motorist, killing both drivers. This article covers the expert witness testimony and other evidence regarding the level of intoxication of the off-duty employee at the time of the fatal crash. http://lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071218/NEWS04/712180362/1023/NEWS07 Previous Next Contact

News NY 1st Dept: Plaintiff's Testimony Alone As To Lighting Insufficient To Defeat SJ November 10, 2009 < Back Share to: In Brodie v. Gibco Enterprises, Ltd., the plaintiff, a patron in the defendant’s restaurant, tripped and fell on a single step that separated the bar from the dining area. The plaintiff claimed that the lighting in the bar area was inadequate. The restaurant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the area above the step was lit by a recessed lighting fixture in the ceiling and that the step neither was inherently dangerous nor constituted a hidden trap. The lower court granted the defendant’s motion and the plaintiff appealed. In affirming the decision, the First Department found that the plaintiff's testimony alone, without any other admissible evidence as to the sufficiency of the lighting or the inherent danger of the step could not defeat summary judgment. Thanks to Ed Lomena for his contribution to this post. http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_07930.htm Previous Next Contact

News WCM Is Pleased To Introduce Our 2022 Summer Associates July 7, 2022 < Back Share to: New Jersey Ryan Dame is a rising 3L at Brooklyn Law School who will graduate early in December 2022 as part of the accelerated program. Ryan is a graduate of the University of California, San Diego with a degree in political science. Prior to joining WCM, Ryan served our country as a member of the United States Marine Corp. where Ryan was a collateral duty quality assurance representative and a master training specialist. Most recently, Ryan interned with ECPAT-USA and for a civil judge in Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County. Steve Kaufman is a rising 3L at Cardozo School of Law and a graduate of the University of Miami where Steve earned a degree in history with a minor in entrepreneurship. Prior to joining WCM, Steve interned for a civil judge in Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County and interned with a commercial law firm with a focus on domain transfers and securities regulation. Steve also dabbled in the music industry during his undergraduate years. New York Sara Cardamone is a rising 3L at St. John’s University School of Law and a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh with a degree in communication and sociology. Prior to joining WCM, Sara interned for a civil judge in Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County and interned with the New York State Division of Human Rights with a focus on assisting in the investigation of discrimination complaints. Andrew Henriquez is a rising 3L at St. John’s University School of Law and a graduate of Brown University with a degree in public policy and economics. Prior to joining WCM, Andrew participated in a variety of internships, including with the Office of the New York City Comptroller, Bureau of Law and Adjustment and also worked as an assistant paralegal at an immigration firm. Andrew has also volunteered with the Consumer Credit Court Observation Project and the New York City Community Emergency Response Team. Michelle Palagi is a rising 3L at Cardozo School of Law and a graduate of Baruch College with a degree in industrial/organizational psychology. Prior to joining WCM, Michelle interned with an employment law firm and the Orthodox Union and participated in a divorce mediation clinic. Michelle speaks many languages including Hebrew and Georgian. Mark Rodriguez is a rising 3L at Brooklyn Law School and a graduate of Siena College with a degree in history. Prior to joining WCM, Mark interned with a New York law firm with a focus on medical malpractice, sexual assault and personal injury cases and was a legal fellow with Touro Law Center. Mark is an avid Mets fan. Alexa Schimp is a rising 3L at St. John’s University School of Law and a graduate of The Catholic University of America with a degree in philosophy. Prior to joining WCM, Alexa was a legal extern for the Girls Scouts of America, interned with Legal Outreach and was a legal resource assistant for an intellectual property firm. Alexa is a literature buff with a focus on WWII/Holocaust history and also dabbles in experimental cooking. Brian Tully is a rising 3L at St. John’s University School of Law and a graduate of the University of Virginia. Prior to joining WCM, Brian participated in various judicial internships and externships, including with Surrogate’s Court – 10th District Nassau County and New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County. Pennsylvania Sydney Kockler is a rising 3L at Villanova University School of Law and a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh with a degree in political science and communication. Prior to joining WCM, Sydney participated in various internships and externships, including with the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, and Bravo with a focus on research-based blogs and developing social copy to accompany web posts for Facebook and Twitter. Jack McGuire is a rising 3L at Villanova University School of Law and a graduate of the University of Notre Dame with a degree in economics and minors in computing digital technology and public service. Jack also was selected for Notre Dame’s study abroad program and did a semester on Berlin, German. Jack’s vast interests include chess, juggling, basketball, soccer, badminton and volleyball. Prior to joining WCM, Jack interned with the US Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Domenica Tomasetti is a rising 3L at Villanova University School of Law and a graduate of The Catholic University of America with a degree in political science with a minor in psychology. Prior to joining WCM, Domenica interned with one of the justices of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, was a legal research assistant for a Villanova professor and interned with the Office of the District Attorney in Delaware County. Domenica was also an assistant women’s basketball coach while at Catholic University. Previous Next Contact

News Cell Phone Update: Potential Liability for Texting a Driver (NJ) August 27, 2013 < Back Share to: What did we do before texting was invented? Although some people believe that it is quaint and outdated, we actually spoke to each other. Sometimes we talked by telephone or in person. Now, texting is a preferred method of communication with its own grammar, spelling and acronyms. Like any new techology, texting has a dark side. At its worst, it can distract drivers from the hazards of the road, sometime with fatal consequences. We know that a "texting driver" may have both criminal and civil liability if an accident ensues but what about someone who texts a driver who then causes a serious accident? Can the third party who sent the driver a text be liable as well? In Kubert v. Best, Kyle Best, age 18, was driving his pick-up up truck when he apparently received a text message from his 17 year old friend. Momentarily distracted by the text, he crossed the double yellow line and struck a couple riding a motorcycle, causing them both serious personal inuries. The couple sued Kyle as well as the friend who sent him the text. The lower court ruled that the texting friend had no duty to refrain from sending the text and the plaintiffs' appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint but held that a person may be liable for sending a text message to the driver of a motor vehicle only if he knows or has reason to know that the recipient will read the text while driving. In this case, plaintiffs' proof fell short of the mark so the dismissal was affirmed. But the door is now wide open to impose liability for an accident on a person not physically present in the motor vehicle if the sender of a text is aware that the receipent may receive and review the text while driving. If you have any questions, please email -- or text-- Paul at pclark@wcmlaw.com   Previous Next Contact

News Federal Court Finds That Concealing Artwork Does Not Infringe On Artists’ Rights December 3, 2021 < Back Share to: In 1993, artist Samuel Kerson painted two murals in the halls of Vermont Law School. The murals, titled “The Underground railroad, Vermont and the Fugitive Slave,” were intended to depict “the evils of slavery and the actions of abolitionists and activists in Vermont who aided slaves seeking freedom from the Underground Railroad.” Nevertheless, the law school received numerous complaints that the murals were racist and made law students uncomfortable. As a result, the law school announced plans to conceal the murals, which prompted a lawsuit by Kerson. Kerson alleged that covering the murals would violate his rights under the Visual Artists Rights Act (“VARA”), which vests artists with the right “to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work, which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation.” Kerson argued that permanently covering the murals “distorts, mutilates, or otherwise modifies” his work in violation of the act. In seeking to dismiss Kerson’s lawsuit, the law school argued that covering the murals does not violate VARA because the work would not be destroyed or modified, only removed from view. They further argued that the school should not be compelled to show art that it does not agree with. The U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont agreed with the law school, holding that covering the work does not violate Kerson’s rights under VARA. In interpreting the statute, the court held that the decision to cover the work does not amount to modification or destruction of the work. The court equated the proposed concealment with an art owner’s decision to not display artwork, which is permitted under VARA. The court stressed that the murals were merely being removed and stored in a different way, just as a work may be removed and stored by a gallery. Kerson plans to appeal the decision and the outcome of the case has potentially significant implications for artists, art galleries, private owners, and art insurers. Pending further guidance from the 2nd Circuit, the District Court’s decision impacts the VARA rights of artists and defines what owners are permitted to do with works of art. Thank you to Alexandra Deplas for her contribution to this post. Please contact Andrew Gibbs with any questions. Previous Next Contact

News Vague E-mails not a "Signed Writing" under Copyright Act (NY) November 16, 2009 < Back Share to: Under the Copyright Act, the transfer of an exclusive license, including a license for distribution of a copyrighted work, must be effected through a signed writing from the copyright owner or its agent. The Copyright Act grants copyright owners a number of “exclusive rights,” including the right to distribute the work “to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership.” 17 U.S.C. § 106(3). Recently, in Weinstein Co. v. Smokewood Entertainment Group, LLC, plaintiff alleged defendant had conveyed the exclusive right to distribute a movie owned by the defendant through a series of confirmatory e-mails regarding the deal. When the defendant instead conveyed distribution rights to another company, plaintiff filed suit in federal district court, New York. Briefly, the substance of plaintiff’s e-mails were, “We are pleased to confirm our deal.” While the defendant’s responses were not outright rejections of plaintiff’s claims, the defendant commented on remaining, unsettled, details regarding the negotiations. The Court held that if a copyright owner's intention in writing is unclear -- even deliberately so -- there is no legally valid transfer. The purpose of the signed writing requirement is to ensure that the copyright owner deliberately transfers its ownership interest in such a way that provides the parties with a clear guide to their rights and responsibilities. Because the e-mails between the parties here failed to accomplish that, the Court dismissed the Complaint. If you would like more information regarding this post, please email mbono@wcmlaw.com . http://pdf.wcmlaw.com/pdf/einstein%20decision.pdf Previous Next Contact

News Is the Value of Art Going Down? January 16, 2013 < Back Share to: Given our fine arts practice, we are tuned in to market value fluctuations since those fluctuations often dictate what an insurer must pay when a covered loss occurs. If this recent article is to be believed, the value of art is beginning to go down. If true, this could be good news for insurers. For more information about this post, please contact Bob Cosgrove at rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com .   Previous Next Contact

There’s Nothing Here... We can’t find the page you’re looking for. Check the URL, or head back home. Go Home

News Eagles Win! February 12, 2018 < Back Share to: Some of you may have heard that the Philadelphia Eagles just won their first Super Bowl. It's kind of a big deal down here in Philadelphia. So for those who have interest in such things, enjoy the pictures of the Eagles' celebratory parade that our very own Clayton Thomas took from our office windows. Previous Next Contact