Lock Him Up.

Last year, I wrote about Sheriff Tom Dart disobeying eviction orders. It appears that the courts are finally taking notice.

The Sun-Times reports that Sheriff Dart has been fined $1,400 for a six month delay in carrying out an eviction order. That fine is not nearly enough. The fine should have been equal to or greater than the lost rent suffered by the landlord during that time period. Or, it should not have been a fine at all. Take a hint from this post's title.

By the way, the article also notes that the Sheriff plans to appeal. Why not?? He's spending the taxpayers' money. He'll probably spend hundreds of thousands of dollars appealing this $1,400 fine. Anything to keep his name in the papers!

Watch where you walk!

In a recent Cook County Court of Appeals case, Judge Antonietti decided that Metra did not owe Donald Pence a duty to tend to a protruding bolt from a railroad tie.

Both the arguments and decisions were very interesting. Pence, on his way to the Metra train, tripped and fell from a protruding railway tie bolt. As a result he sustained what I assume is a colles fracture. (A common fracture in the wrist as people try breaking their fall with their hands). Pence argued Metra owed him a duty as a passenger to maintain its premises. However Metra claimed they owed no duty to Pence because Pence was not a passenger at the time of his trip and fall and he did not walk in the designated pedestrian crosswalk.

J. Antonietti affirmed the lower court’s opinion stating, “while Pence may have intended to be a passenger on a Metra train, he had not yet become a passenger at the time of his fall. Pence had not yet reached a ‘proper place to be transported’ and we cannot say that Metra had even impliedly accepted him for transportation.” Skelton, 214 Ill. App. 3d at 572.

Moreover The Tort Immunity Act applied because Pence did not walk in the designated pedestrian crosswalk, rather he walked in the middle of the intersection. Therefore Pence was “not an intended and permitted user of the property”.

Moral of the story, watch where you walk and use crosswalks.

PLCAA and Gun Saftey

The purpose of the PLCAA is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products. In a recent Illinois Supreme Court case Adames v. Sheahan the court found, among other things, that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), prevented the Beretta Corporation from being held liable for the wrongful death of a young boy.

In an unfortunate circumstance Billy Swan a 13 year old boy accidentally shot his friend, Josh Adames. Billy first discovered three guns in his parent’s bedroom. They were in a lock box (which the court determined to be unlocked). Billy’s father owned them, as he worked for the Cook County Sheriff’s office as a correctional officer.

[Billy Swan’s Testimony]
“Billy picked up each gun and examined it. Billy said that the magazine or clip was in the Beretta. When Billy picked up the Beretta, he pushed a button that released the magazine. Billy could see the bullets in the magazine. Billy then put the magazine back in the Beretta. Billy moved the slide at the top of the gun and a bullet popped out. Billy again removed the magazine and put the bullet back in the magazine. Billy repeatedly removed and replaced the bullets and magazine from the gun. Billy knew that the Beretta was loaded when the magazine was in the gun, but thought it was unloaded when the magazine was taken out. He thought that the bullet came out of the top of the magazine when the handgun was fired, and did not know that a bullet remained in the chamber.”

After playing with the guns for several minutes, Billy saw his friend, Michael, and invited him inside. Billy showed him the guns. Minutes later another friend Josh came over and was also invited in. Billy released the magazine and put it in his pocket. He then pointed the gun at Josh and pretended to fire, he pulled the trigger, and the boys ears began to ring.

I’ve been thinking about this case recently, trying to figure out whether a firearm manufacturer has a duty to protect the users of its product? It is definitely not an easy task. On one end of the spectrum I ask myself, why should a manufacturer of a firearm have a duty to protect someone whose actions they have no control over, yet on the other end of the spectrum shouldn't stricter safety precautions be required to maintain this limited liability by a firearm manufacturer? Personally I’m leaning towards the latter.

A magazine disconnect is an internal mechanism that engages a mechanical safety such as a block or trigger disconnect when the firearm's magazine is removed. Arguably a simple and inexpensive mechanism would have prevented the Beretta 92FS in Billy’s hand from being fired.

The PLCAA, became law as of October 26th, 2005. Ironically as of January 1st, 2006 California deemed handguns without a chamber load indicator or a magazine disconnect mechanism to be unsafe, and as a result new handgun designs without either of the two safety features are now against the law.

Although the Beretta 92FS Billy held did have a chamber load indicator, it was arguably "not sufficient to warn a user that the chamber had a bullet in it because the user could hardly see the indicator." [Expert Testimony]

Should more states follow a stricter requirement for firearm manufactures? I feel if you’re giving gun manufacturing companies less liability, then yes stricter standards need apply.

Opinions welcome...

I'm surprised we don't see more of this...

A lawyer who attended the University of Chicago Law School has been accused in an ethics complaint of lying about his grades when he applied for a summer position at Sidley Austin. Click here for an article from the ABA Journal. The article says that this guy altered the grades from twenty of his classes on the transcript that he submitted to his prospective employer.

I'm sure you all read about starting salaries at the mega-firms rising to $160,000 for new associates last summer. I don't think that number went up this year due to the slowing economy, but that is still a huge amount of money for someone's first job out of law school. I wonder how much lying, cheating, and back-stabbing goes on to land one of those jobs. This is the first instance that I have seen reported, but I am sure that there are many more that have gone unreported.

And just to kick him while he is down, the ABA Journal also reports that this guy flunked out of medical school before he became a lawyer.

Only in Cook County

As any Cook County resident knows, it is time for the annual Homeowner's Exemption (and Senior Exemption & Freeze) paperwork to be submitted. I was extremely excited to learn that you could apply for the exemption online this year. The instructions said something like file online and save time....or something along those lines. In my mind, online filing eliminates two potential problems with receiving the exemption. First, you do not have to risk the U.S.P.S. losing your exemption in the mail (or it being found in a dumpster five years later). Second, it takes it out of the hands of County employees who could lose it, enter it wrong, not enter it at all, etc. Cook County entering the 21st Century, right? Wrong.

So I apply for the exemption online and everything is going smoothly and quickly. There is a code to enter along with the PIN. It asks you to verify your informaiton and certify that you owned the house as of Jan 1. At the bottom of the page I hit SUBMIT. It opens a new page where it says "YOUR EXEMPTION IS NOT COMPLETE UNTIL YOU PRINT THIS CERTIFICATION, SIGN, AND MAIL IT TO THE ASSESSOR."

What?!? Huh? Only in Cook County could some wizard on high decide that we are going to make things for the taxpayer easier, quicker, cheaper, and smoother by turning a one step process into two. I could have just mailed in the original paper form, rather than doing all the hoopla online and then having to mail it anyway.

Hopefully Todd Stroger's third cousin twice removed will personally handle my exemption in the fourteen hours he works this month.