As a companion must-read article to Tim’s column on the ObamaCare birth control mandate, John Cochrane…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Cato on Contraception Mandate: 'We Should All be Exempt'

As a companion must-read article to Tim’s column on the ObamaCare birth control mandate, John Cochrane of Cato explains why President Barack Obama’s proposed compromise to exempt church-related institutions misses the point:

Our nation is divided on social issues. The natural compromise is simple: Birth control, abortion and other contentious practices are permitted. But those who object don't have to pay for them. The federal takeover of medicine prevents us from reaching these natural compromises and needlessly divides our society.

The critics fell for a trap. By focusing on an exemption for church-related institutions, critics effectively admit that it is right for the rest of us to be subjected to this sort of mandate. They accept the horribly misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable…[more]

February 10, 2012 • 04:52 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Home Jester's Courtroom Golfers Not Liable for Failing to Yell “Fore!”
Golfers Not Liable for Failing to Yell “Fore!” Print
Thursday, May 07 2009

Yelling “Fore!” is etiquette on the golf course following a golfer's errant shot, but the legal system doesn't require it.

In 2002, golfer Anoop Kapoor launched an errant shot out of the rough which ended up hitting his friend, Azad Anand, in the eye, causing Anand to lose sight in that eye.  Anand sued, claiming that Kapoor was liable for failure to yell “fore” before his ball struck his friend.

Although the court expressed its sympathy to Anand, it recently ruled 3-1 in favor of Kapoor, saying Ananad is not entitled to damages and that being hit by an errant ball is an "inherent risk of the game of golf."  The court based its decision, in part, on the fact that Anand's shot was so far off course that a warning would not have been anticipated.

"While we are sympathetic to the fact that plaintiff was seriously injured as a result of this accident," the panel observed, "to conclude that the defendant can be held 'liable' in tort for a poorly-executed golf shot because he may have negligently failed to shout 'fore' is inimical to the rationale underlying the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, and at odds with the public policy goal for its adoption -- to encourage 'free and vigorous participation' in sports and recreational activities."

—Sources:  New York Law Journal and The Wall Street Journal

Question of the Week   
Where does the United States rank in The Heritage Foundation’s 2012 Index of Economic Freedom?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Someone needs to ask Mr. Obama how an increasingly impoverished nation, limping along on food stamps and housing subsidies, is going to pay for the existing beneficiaries, along with 77 million Baby Boomers set to retire in the next 25 years. A president who has impaired the vibrancy of the private sector so badly has long since forfeited the moral high ground."…[more]
 
 
—Mona Charen, Nationally Syndicated Columnist
— Mona Charen, Nationally Syndicated Columnist
 
Liberty Poll   

Should the Obama administration support Israel in a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities?