Dr. Ananthi Jebasingh, Founder and Director of The Good Samaritan Schools in New Delhi, India will be speaking in Lexington this Thursday, March 1, 2007, at our offices at 4740 Firebrook Boulevard. The event begins at 7:00 PM and will be followed by a dessert reception. It is hosted by Dale Ditto, Tim Philpot, and Mike Troutman.
The Good Samaritan Schools are dedicated to providing education, nutrition, and medical care to underprivileged children from Delhi’s slum communities. Since 1989, when Ananthi took the first child into her home, The Good Samaritan Schools have educated over 7,000 impoverished children.
In a just rendered, but NOT to be published opinion, the Kentucky Court of Appeals in Richardson v. DLC Inc., 2005-CA-001635-MR (February 16, 2007) looked at this language in a release of an employee of Little Ceasar’s Pizza from tort liability:
This release does not release any claim against Little Caesar’s
Pizza and the undersigned expressly reserves the right to
pursue any personal injury or property damage claim against
Little Caesar’s Pizza.
The COA states:
The basic rule is that if an employee/agent is released from liability, then the employer/principal is thereby also released from liability based on the same acts of negligence. Copeland v. Humana of Kentucky, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 67, 69 (Ky.App. 1989). The release of the employee releases the employer from vicarious liability as a matter of law despite language in the release to the contrary. Id. at 70.
The key in looking at when a release of an employee also releases the employer is determining whether the suit against the employer is based on vicarious liability or if there is an independent claim of negligence. In this case, the only claim against Little Ceasar’s was based on vicarious liability even though it was framed as negligence in hiring. An attorney needs to carefully analyze the real basis of the different claims before entertaining a release of any party.
Stan Billingsley (Lawreader) recently wrote an editorial regarding Kentucky’s class action rule (CR 23) which can be found here. While not on point to the aspects of CR 23 that Stan addresses, here is an article on the history of class actions in Kentucky and comparison with the impetus for passage of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. For lovers of legal history, this would be an enjoyable read and would provide a fuller context to the discussion of class actions in general. Here is the link: Kentucky Class Actions
This post by The Greatest American Lawyer describes very well why I like being at a small firm.
Having seen both sides of the practice, I have to say that one of the most fundamental flaws of hourly billing firms is the propensity to attempt to service more clients than is reasonably possible. Their drive to ensure that every hour of everyday is billable creates a mandate that everyone needs to be “choking on the fire hose.” When firm business is down lawyers don’t know what do. Many just kick back and relax, try not to say anything that would trigger the next avalanche of workload. Others go out and try to drive new business.
This moment of relaxation where you are not under any stress to have something out by noon is the time during which a lawyer can really be a lawyer. Firms need to be encouraging those necessary gaps in workload where goals can be defined and strategies can be set and executed.
Click here for the full post.