|
Tuesday, August 02 2011 |
|
American Atheists, a nonprofit group based in New Jersey, has sued the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, among others, demanding that the World Trade Center Cross be removed from the September 11 Memorial and Museum.
According to news reports, the plaintiffs allege that the cross has actually made them physically ill: “The plaintiffs, and each of them, have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer damages, both physical and emotional, from the existence of the challenged cross. Named plaintiffs have suffered, inter alia, dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish from the knowledge that they are made to feel officially excluded from the ranks of citizens who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack and the lack of acknowledgement of the more than 1,000 non- Christian individuals who were killed at the World Trade Center.”
The symbol in question is a cross-shaped steel beam found amid the rubble in the days after the terrorist attacks of September 11th. For the past several years it has been displayed outside a nearby Catholic church; recently it was moved to the site of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum. American Atheists claim that because the cross is a religious symbol of Christianity and the museum is partly government financed and is on government property, the cross’s inclusion in the museum violates the United States Constitution and state civil rights law. “The challenged cross constitutes an unlawful attempt to promote a specific religion on governmental land,” the lawsuit charged. Plaintiffs are seeking removal of the cross or “equal representation.”
“If the cross is presented in a way that ties it to the history of its discovery and the religious perception of it by some firefighters or neighbors, then the museum would be framing it as a historical artifact, rather than as a symbol deserving religious reverence,” said Ira C. Lupu, a professor at the George Washington University Law School and an authority on faith and the law. “I think if it were framed in that way, it could be effectively defended on the merits.”
Joseph C. Daniels, president and chief executive of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, said that the cross was clearly of historical significance and that the lawsuit was “without merit.”
—Sources: National Review and The New York Times |
|
|
Monday, July 25 2011 |
|
A Brooklyn, NY, woman is suing luxury store Chanel after the ring she was trying on got stuck on her finger.
Rosy Mizrachi Gindi was trying on rings at the Chanel store on East 57th Street in New York City when she realized the expensive ring (valued at over $10,000) was stuck on her finger. After the old-time remedy of slathering up your finger in lotion failed, Gindi wound up in the emergency room for three hours.
Doctors were able to remove the ring without cutting it or Gindi's finger. Now, she's suing Chanel for unspecified damages in Brooklyn Supreme Court.
—Source: NY Post |
|
Wednesday, July 20 2011 |
|
Sixteen people from Edison, NJ, are suing a local Indian restaurant after being served meat samosas rather than vegetarian samosas.
According to news reports, the 16 people are devout Hindus and do not eat meat for religious reasons. Thus, they claim they specifically asked their server several times whether the samosas had meat in them, to which the server at the Indian restaurant, Moghul Express, replied that they didn't even make meat samosas. When the plaintiffs ate the samosas, which tasted of meat, they inquired again of the contents and this time allegedly were told they did contain meat.
The plaintiffs decided to sue for emotional and monetary damages, claiming that eating meat had caused them serious spiritual harm, which could only be rectified by an expensive pilgrimage to the Ganges River. They asked Moghul Express to pay for the trip.
A lower court ruled that the suit was inadmissable. On appeal, the New Jersey Appellate Court found that the plaintiffs' case met the basic prima facie qualifications to proceed and the remanded the case back to the Superior Court.
—Source: Huffington Post |
|
Wednesday, July 13 2011 |
|
A Mississippi woman sued her local Penny Pinchers and its store manager after she injured herself while running away from a dog that was in the store.
Lentra Outlaw, who is terrified of dogs, claimed that a dog came charging down the aisle toward her, prompting her to leap atop a freezer. The jump aggravated a previously existing hip injury.
Outlaw sued Penny Pinchers and Cindy Scott, the store manager who owned the vicious attack dog, 4-month-old Sophie, a Dachshund puppy weighing in at just under four pounds. According to news reports, Scott had been bringing the dog to work every day and it had never attacked anyone.
A Mississippi state court jury found for Outlaw and awarded her $130,000, finding Penny Pinchers 70 percent at fault and Scott 30 percent to blame. On appeal, the Mississippi Court of Appeals took note of a previous Mississippi Supreme Court decision that held that dogs are not dangerous per se and that to impose liability on a dog owner for personal injuries, a plaintiff must show the dog had a propensity for violence and that the owner knew it. The appeals court went on to hold that a premises does not have to be completely safe from any hazard — only reasonably safe — and that the plaintiff’s own actions can be considered in determining liability.
“We acknowledge Outlaw’s extreme fear of dogs,” Judge Thomas Griffis wrote for the court in overturning the jury’s verdict. “However, we cannot say that it was reasonable for Penny Pinchers to anticipate that anyone, even someone with a great fear of dogs, would have such a reaction to Sophie’s presence in the store.”
—Source: San Francisco Examiner |
|
Tuesday, July 05 2011 |
|
The University of Colorado is suing two manufacturers of "defective" toilet paper after amassing $40,000 in plumbing problems.
According to news reports, the university's Board of Regents filed the lawsuit in Boulder County District Court alleging the toilet paper, distributed by Waxie Enterprises Inc. and manufactured by Royal Paper Converting Inc., was to blame for overflowing toilets in 27 academic buildings on the Boulder campus in the spring of 2009 alone. The suit claims the damage to the plumbing from the "defective" toilet paper cost more than $40,000 to repair and that plumbing contractors had to be called. In addition to plumbing costs, the university is asking a jury to award other costs associated with the "inconvenience and hassle" for eight claims, including breach of contract and negligence.
"In one instance, the University of Colorado was required to saw-cut concrete and excavate sewer pipes in order to remove an auger from a sewer line that was so bound up and clogged with toilet paper that it became stuck in the plumbing line," the suit states.
A Waxie Enterprises official said he was unaware of the lawsuit and declined to comment on the allegations.
—Sources: upi.com and dailycamera.com |
|
|
|
