News & Analysis as of

Negligence › Reversal › Duty of Care

Lewitt Hackman

Franchisor 101: Duty of Care

Lewitt Hackman on

The Texas Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s decision against a franchisor based on a theory of negligence after a customer was assaulted by an employee of the franchisee. The court concluded that franchisor did not owe a...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Sox Are ‘Slippery When Wet’: Contractor May be Liable for Injury Caused by Work Installed According to Customer Specifications

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

An Illinois appellate court recently addressed the scope of negligence liability for a slip and fall injury on a newly installed roof at the Chicago White Sox Stadium. In 2013, a maintenance employee slipped on the roof at...more

Payne & Fears

California Supreme Court Limits Liability for Payroll Service Providers

Payne & Fears on

On February 7, 2019, the California Supreme Court unanimously held in Goonewardene v. ADP, Inc., S238941 that a payroll service provider cannot be held liable for errors it makes in issuing paychecks to workers of companies...more

3 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide