Trawling the NFLs Bargain Basement New York Times (blog)
27.08.11
Smart shoppers know that the remainder bin always contains bargains, assuming one is not too picky about quality. That is also true on the N.F.L. free-agent market.
The Indianapolis Colts, nervous about Peyton Manning’s health for their season opener Sept. 11, and about the readiness of his backups Curtis Painter and Dan Orlovsky, coaxed Kerry Collins out of retirement Wednesday. Collins, who is now so gray and grizzled that he resembles Richard Crenna in the Rambo movies, may think that backing up Manning is just like retirement, but these are unusual circumstances.
Manning, who has started 208 consecutive regular-season games, had off-season neck surgery. He said he was optimistic about being ready for Week 1, but he has always taken the Soviet premier approach to inquiries about his health. (Nyet! It is just a head cold!) Collins must be ready to play the opener at Houston, because Manning may not be, and neither Painter nor Orlovsky (who combined for four interceptions in two preseason games) ever will be.
Source:
Commercial amp; Personal bAuto/b: Vicarious Liability not Limited to b.../b
Every once in a while, while putting together a blog post on a particular issue, I run across a case that doesn’t fit into the post I am putting together, but is nonetheless interesting.
Here’s an oldie, but a goodie . . . involving trees:
The Minnesota vicarious liability statute, which generally operates to impose vicarious liability on the owner of a motor vehicle, is not necessarily limited to claims involving the negligent operation of the motor vehicle. In P ., 470 N.W.2d 709 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991) review denied (Minn. Jul 24, 1991), Leander, a permissive user of the dealership’s vehicle, suffered a sudden and unexpected medical emergency while operating the vehicle, ran off the road and damaged plaintiff’s trees. Although it was undisputed Leander went off the road as the result of an unforeseen medical problem and, thus, was not negligent, the statute which created liability for the damage to the trees, Minn. Stat. § 561.04, did not require a finding of negligence. Rather, it imposed liability for injury to trees when trees were damaged without lawful authority. Thus, whether Leander was negligent for causing the damage to the trees was irrelevant. Because Leander did not have lawful authority to damage the trees, he was liable pursuant to section 561.04. In addition, the dealership was liable. The dealership was vicariously liable based on the agency relationship created by section 170.54 (now 169.09, subd. 5a). The court noted that the term “accident” in the vicarious liability statute (which was not defined in the statute) included “an event that takes place without one’s foresight or expectation” or “an event which proceeds from an unknown cause,” (citing . Rather, the statute reflects public policy to hold owners of motor vehicles responsible for damages caused by their permittees and there was no reason to depart from that public policy in this case. (Note that under the federal Graves Amendment, which I have addressed in a few prior posts, the owner of a rented vehicle would not be vicariously liable for the tree damage under similar circumstances).
...
Read more...
