Never text while on wheels ~ and even Sender might be liable....

This morning at Thiruvanmiyur signal, a two wheeler rider was busy checking (tampering with) his mobile placed on petrol tank – signal changed – the bus driver nearer horned impatiently – the man with earplugs on, was busy looking at his mobile – the annoyed driver let out some expletives – the boy moved on, still exhibiting no sense and not connected to the road and traffic – vexatious behaviour. ( and he is not alone – there are so many out there in public places)

Some use technology – while many get addicted and allow technology to become their boss.  Any system is good only when it is properly used. About a couple of decades ago, only elites had landlines at home. People coming to make free calls at neighbouring residence and people speaking non-stop in Office lines made very popular jokes. Life has changed …….. now so many carry more than a mobile or have dual sims on their mobiles. People generally speaking – are speaking all the time.

To most the mobile besides being a medium for talking (continuously all the time) – is an utility for sending messages (both audio and video), for games, for taking photos (for posting on social media), listening to music with ears plugged and attention glued elsewhere.  There are service providers who offer unlimited SMS packages which are a hit with users.  It’s common knowledge that texting and driving is a bad idea – do you know that in a number of jurisdictions abroad it is illegal. New Jersey is one of them.

It might appear strange to us – US laws are different and exhibit far outstretched thinking …… while texting while driving for sure is bad – there reported is a case in New Jersey about ‘extended testing’ – that is knowingly texting a person who is on wheels.  Can there be a liability ?

This pertains to an incident that occurred way back in 2009 in a rural high way. The driver behind the pickup truck was a teenager and was dating one, who was an year younger.  They reportedly exchanged 62 texts that day according to court documents. In the opposing lane a man and his wife were cruising in a motorcycle. The teens were having a text chat, volleying each other messages every few moments. Seventeen seconds after the youngboy sent a text, he was calling a 911 operator. His truck had drifted across the double center line and hit the motorcyclist  head-on.

Those on the twowheeler were severely injured with fractures.  The victim losing legs sued not only the opposite vehicle but also the person who had texted to the driver.  It was claimed that the texter was distracting the driver and hence was also a party to the accident.   The plaintiff went on to state that the text sender was electronically in the car with the driver receiving the text and should be treated like someone sitting next to him willfully causing a distraction. 

In principle, there appears to be some agreement as it was ruled that  if the sender of text messages knows that the recipient is driving and texting at the same time, a court may hold the sender responsible for distraction and hold him or her liable for the accident. The sender of messages is reported to be in the habit of sending more than 100 texts a day and was oblivious to whether recipients were driving or not. She nonchalantly stated in her deposition  that she is a young teenager and that’s what they do. 

The Court also ruled that driver is ultimately responsible and has the obligation to keep eyes on the road, hands on the wheel and pay attention to what one is expected to doing.  It is imperative that States crack down on texting while driving and punish errants hard.  Elsewhere in a different ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that a marketing consultant that hired a firm to send text messages for a third party could also be held vicariously liable for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). 

~ and how responsible are you on road …. More than responsibility, ensure that you are in a position to respond to outside environ all the time. Never have your senses of hearing and vision blinded by any distraction, be it technology or otherwise.

With regards – S. Sampathkumar

15^th Oct 2014

Calamitous air tragedy - mourning the death

 

The tragedy in Ahmedabad has stunned and saddened us. It is heartbreaking beyond words.  

 

A London-bound Boeing Dreamliner operated by Air India,AI 171 carrying 242 people, crashed shortly after taking off near the Ahmedabad airport on Thursday in potentially one of the deadliest air disasters in the country in nearly three decades.  The Air India aircraft crashed into residential quarters of BJ Medical College doctors in Ahmedabad's Meghaninagar area. According to reports, there's only one survivor from the incident. 

The aircraft departed from Ahmedabad at 1:39 pm from runway 23. It crashed in just five minutes after take off, according to details shared by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). The Air India flight, a Boeing Dreamliner, was bound for London and the incident took place shortly after takeoff at the Ahmedabad airport.  According to X post of Air India -  the plane Boeing 787-8 aircraft was carrying  242 passengers and crew members on board - 169 were Indian nationals and was  under the command of Capt Sumeet Sabharwal with First Officer Clive Kunder. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) is expected to investigate the Air India plane crash incident. 

Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi grieved the loss, spoke to Home Minister and CM and other officials instructing them  to ensure all possible assistance to those affected.  It is reported that Ex CM of Gujarat Sri Vijaybhai Rupani was among those on board who lost their lives.  The lone survivor identified as Ramesh Vishwaskumar Bucharvada, reportedly jumped from the aircraft at the last moment. In one of the many videos of the Ahmedabad plane crash doing the rounds on social media, the injured surviving passenger was seen walking after rescuing himself from the mishap. 

It is indeed tragic and the pain is calamitous and heartrending. 

There are hundreds of flights taking off and landing at every major airport these days.  The first aircraft accident in which 200 or more people died occurred on March 3, 1974, when 346 died in the crash of Turkish Airlines Flight 981. As of July 2025, there have been a total of 34 aviation incidents in which 200 or more people have died.  The most fatalities on board a single aircraft are the 520 fatalities of the 1985 Japan Air Lines Flight 123 accident. The largest loss of life in a single aviation accident are the 583 fatalities of the 1977 Tenerife airport disaster, in which two Boeing 747s collided.   

Back in June 23, 1985 - Air India Flight 182 en route from Toronto and Montreal to London and Delhi, crashed off the southwest coast of Ireland when a bomb exploded in the cargo hold. All 307 passengers and 22 crew members died. 

 

Air India is the flag carrier of India   owned by the Tata Group (74.9%) and Singapore Airlines (25.1%). As of November 2024, the airline serves 102 domestic and international destinations operating a variety of Airbus and Boeing aircraft and is the second-largest airline in India in terms of passengers carried.    Founded in 1932 as Tata Airlines by J. R. D. Tata, Tata himself flew its first single-engine de Havilland Puss Moth, carrying air mail from Karachi to Bombay's Juhu aerodrome and later continuing to Madras (currently Chennai).   

Money value does not count when hundreds of human lives have been lost yet this would impact Insurance in a big way too… .. there will be Aviation policy covering the Hull, passengers, liability and more.  However, it is most likely to be a program aka consortium and not a single Insurer with heavy reinsurance protection of likely 95% of the risk.  The Hull being declared a total loss could end up anywhere between 700 to 1000 crore depending on age-adjusted insurable value. 

Every Air Carrier owe liability to their passengers.   Under the Montreal Convention - Article 17 — Death and Injury of Passengers —  The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.   T is 100000 SDR (Special Drawing rights)    - value being derived from a basket of five international currencies—the US dollar, the euro, the Chinese renminbi, the Japanese yen, and the British pound sterling. One SDR is valued at Rs 120 approx and hence liability per passenger could be around 1.8 crores approx.  

Leaving all that aside, in this hour of mass tragedy, let us pray for those who lost their lives.  

 
A sad day indeed
 
-      S. Sampathkumar
-      12.6.2025

Costa Concordia : Liability : Italy seeks staggering £177m (€220m) in damages

Costa Concordia is a Concordia-class cruise ship owned and operated by Costa Cruises. She was built at Fincantieri's Sestri Ponente yards in Italy. The name Concordia was intended to express the wish for continuing harmony, unity and peace between European nations.  Costa Concordia entered service in July 2006 and was the largest ship to be built in Italy, at 114,500 tons.  Costa Concordia was indeed a huge ship described in its website as a 'real floating temple of fun that will amaze you’.

On 13^th Jan 2012, in calm seas and overcast weather, under command of Captain Francesco Schettino, Costa Concordia struck a rock in the Tyrrhenian Sea on the western coast of Italy about 100 km (62 mi) northwest of Rome.  This tore a 50 m (160 ft) gash on the port side of her hull, which soon flooded parts of the engine room resulting in power loss to her propulsion and electrical systems.  The vessel was abandoned and people evacuated.  32 people reportedly died in the accident.   The sinking of the cruise ship was cause of International concern and Insurance industry feared that this could well be one of the biggest losses underwritten in Marine portfolio as the estimates ranged  from  $600m-$800m.   Besides the Hull loss and passenger claims, there would be liability claims as well.  There were some reports that the vessel had a high deductible. 

We generally deal with Marine Cargo – insurance ship is known as Marine Hull – the insuring terms would usually be ITC Hulls 1.10.83 or the later version of 1.11.95.  The Policy would cover – Actual Total loss / CTL of the vessel;  vessel’s proportion of General average or Salvage; Sue and labour charges;  collision damage to other vessels or their cargoes together with any legal costs.  Hull policies do cover liability too but are generally restricted to 3/4^th of liability while the balance 1/4^th could be recovered from a P&I club depending upon terms of coverage. If the collision is with a ship which is also owned by the same assured, this will not affect a claim by virtue of ‘sistership’ clause. 

Costa Concordia no longer rests in the same place of accident but has been salvaged and taken for scrapping ……. Here is interesting news from Daily mail that Tuscany and Giglio seek £177m in damages over claims that Costa Concordia disaster tarnished their image and scared off tourists. 

Isola del Giglio  is an Italian island and comune situated in the Tyrrhenian Sea, off the coast of Tuscany, and is part of the Province of Grosseto. Giglio means "lily" in Italian. The island is separated by a 16-kilometre (10 mi) stretch of sea from the nearest point of the mainland. Giglio Porto  is located on the eastern coastal side and hosts the port.  Reports now state that Officials for Italy’s Tuscany region and the island of Giglio are seeking  €220m (£175m) in damages from Costa Cruises, a unit of Carnival Corp, for the 2012 Concordia cruise liner disaster. The ship remained partially submerged near the port of the holiday island for more than two years before being raised and towed away this year in one of the largest and most complex maritime salvages ever completed.

“We will ask Costa for €30min damages to Tuscany’s image,” the region’s president, Enrico Rossi, told a court in the Tuscan city of Grosseto, according to a statement.  Rossi said the region had registered a decline in tourism, and that Giglio had lost 45,000 visitors due to the disaster. A consultant to Giglio’s local government, Carlo Scarpa, asked the same court for €190m in damages, most of it for tarnishing the island’s image. The two officials spoke during an ongoing trial against Concordia’s captain, Francesco Schettino, who is being tried for multiple charges, including manslaughter, causing a shipwreck and abandoning ship. “To reconstruct the image of Tuscany as a top tourist destination will require years of work, substantial investments and costly national and international advertising campaigns,” Rossi said.

Though the lovely Italian island of Giglio they have been dealing with shipwrecks for quite some time, Costa Concordia was dramatically different as there have been fears of this monster could ruin one of Italy’s lesser-known paradises.  Giglio a small island with a 27km coastline, is inhabited by about 2,000 residents. Before the Concordia it was visited by about 24,000 tourists a year, many of them attracted by the island’s natural delights, be they fauna or fowl, scuba diving or hilltop striding. In short, today’s Giglio is an environmentalist’s paradise where almost the only economic activity is tourism. When Costa Concordia ran aground, with its 500,000 gallons of fuel, not to mention five restaurants’ worth of food and 1,300 gallons of olive oil, as well as paints, cleaning fuels and other substances, an environmental disaster of monumental proportions was on the cards – not only for Giglio and the Tuscan archipelago but also for the nearby French island of Corsica. So far that disaster has been avoided by the good action of salvors…….. yet after the towage, there are Qs on  whether there could some  lasting environmental or economic damage has been inflicted on the island?  - by another yardstick, when the media first stomped out here, in January 2012,  there were only few rundown bars and restaurants; now  the port has elegant and chic bars.  

…. The liability claims of a different order are threatening big.  Italian officials are seeking a staggering £177m (€220m) in damages. Tuscany's government wants £25m (€30m) in compensation from Costa Cruises, a unit of Carnival Corp., arguing that its image has been tarnished and tourism has declined significantly.  A separate claim by the island of Giglio, where the 950-ft-long cruiser ran aground in January 2012, has been put in for £152m (€190m).  The mission to upright and salvage the ship had already  cost hundreds of millions of pounds

The 3/4^th Collision liability clause would read : The Underwriters agree to indemnify the Assured for three-fourths of any sum or sums paid by the Assured to any other  person or persons by reason of the Assured becoming legally liable by way of damages for

8.1.1 loss of or damage to any other vessel or property on any other vessel

8.1.2 delay to or loss of use of any such other vessel or property thereon

8.1.3 general average of, salvage of, or salvage under contract of, any such other vessel or property thereon, where such payment by the Assured is in consequence of the Vessel hereby insured coming into collision with any other vessel,

The indemnity provided by this Clause 8 shall be in addition to the indemnity provided by the other terms and conditions of this  insurance. The exclusions to this are :

8.4.1 removal or disposal of obstructions, wrecks, cargoes or any other thing whatsoever

8.4.2 any real or personal property or thing whatsoever except other vessels or property on other vessels

8.4.3 the cargo or other property on, or the engagements of, the insured Vessel

8.4.4 loss of life, personal injury or illness

8.4.5 pollution or contamination, or threat thereof, of any real or personal property or thing whatsoever (except other vessels  with which the insured Vessel is in collision or property on such other vessels) or damage to the environment, or threat  thereof, save that this exclusion shall not extend to any sum which the Assured shall pay for or in respect of salvage  remuneration in which the skill and efforts of the salvors.

The Protection and Indemnity clubs would generally cover : Loss of life, injury and illness of crew, passengers and other persons;          Cargo loss, shortage or damage; Collision; Damage to docks, buoys and other fixed and floating objects - Wreck removal;     Pollution;     Fines and penalties….. vessel diversion expenses and more including unrecoverable GA contributions.

Though there could be still specifically designed covers, the type of liability damages that Costa Concordia is facing now, appears not to be covered under any situation.

With regards – S. Sampathkumar

21^st Nov. 2014.

buying a movie ticket !! ~ lawsuit in USA

16 vayathinile,  Aadu puli aattam,  Aatttukara Alamelu, Agraharathil kazhuthai, Annan oru kovil, Avargal,  Bhuvana oru kelvi kuri, Deepam, Gayathri, Indur pol enrum vaazhga, Kavikuyil, Murugan Adimai, Pattina pravesam, Sila nerangalil sila manihargal, Thalaya Salangaiya, Thunai Iruppal Meenakshi .. .. ..  (pictured here is a theatre in Ponneri for illustration and not connected directly to the post !)

 

Rewinding back – list of some of the movies released in  1977  - MGR Sivaji Ganesan were replaced by Kamal Rajnikanth, there were others too !!  not about Cinema but about people going to movies or rather buying Movie tickets. 

There would be four shows in a days (12 – 4 – 7 – 10) !! Premier Ticket in Devi Paradise would cost Rs.2.90 - - there were two ways – stand in the Queue buy tickets or in the noon go and stand in Advance reservation Q ! [third way – was buying ticket through known persons, some working in theatres!] 

Then there was another too – buying Ticket in Black !  - from touts who would sell 2.90 @ 5 or even 10 depending on the time and demand !!  One of my friends bought a balcony ticket in black in front of a theatre in Aminjikarai and got the shock of life when he learnt that there was no balcony in that theatre !! – and there were people who would buy a black ticket to watch movies like Shivaji, the Boss – having the plot of eradication of black money.    

Read about an interesting case before Delhi Court – in the matter of State Vs   Bankim Chandu Lal   & Ors instituted in 1999 and judgement pronounced in July 2018 – as per chargesheet  in Sept 1997, a   CTC   Squad   of   Indian   Railways conducted a surprise checking in Train No.2472, Swaraj Express, traveling between Jammu and Mumbai, for the purpose of finding out passengers who were traveling by way of  tickets bought from persons who were involved in black marketing of tickets and  also to   find   out   passengers   who   were   traveling   in   the   train   without ticket.  On   checking   they   found   that accused   persons   named   Bankim   Chadu   Lal,   Rajni   and   Atul   Kumar   were   traveling   in   Coach   No.S3   with  tickets  issued   against emergency quota.  During inquiry, it was found that the said tickets were provided on the recommendation of Member of Parliament namely Sh. Raju Bhai Parmar and further enquiry revealed that   the said letter was never issued by him. The accused persons had   told   the   checking   party   that   the   said   tickets   were   arranged through one travel agency   having its office at Chawri Bazar, Hauz Qazi and it was not one authorized by Railways.  

Cricket fans of Chennai know the pain and anguish of trying for IPL match tickets on the official website and designated Pay sites as massive queue of over lakh people would be in waiting.   Have also seen thousands waiting outside Chepauk to get into the queue- and people getting disappointed. Tickets are sold at a very high cost by some people infront of the stadium on the day of the match and surprisingly some buy tickets even after 15 / 18 / 20 overs !!! 

Hundreds of fans of Taylor Swift, Beyoncé and other musicians filed a lawsuit accusing Ticketmaster and its parent company Live Nation of price gouging, alleging both companies have colluded with venues to increase the price of tickets—marking the latest complaint against Ticketmaster following a federal antitrust lawsuit filed earlier this year. 

A lawsuit is a civil legal action by one person or entity (the plaintiff) against another person or entity (the defendant), to be decided in a court. Depending on the remedy sought and the venue where the plaintiff files the lawsuit, the case might be heard by a court of law or a court of equity. 

Kinder Law filed a lawsuit Friday in the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County accusing Ticketmaster and Live Nation of breach of contract, fraud, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and antitrust violations.  The latest complaint—representing 365 fans of Swift, Beyoncé, The Cure and others—expands on an earlier case filed by the law firm in December 2022 and alleges Ticketmaster and Live Nation have engaged in a “pattern of racketeering activity” while violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Live Nation and Ticketmaster “exploit” a relationship with stadium venues owned by Live Nation to “achieve the purpose of their enterprise,” which requires fans to use Ticketmaster exclusively for tickets “at prices that exceed what a competitive market would dictate,” the complaint alleges.

Neither Ticketmaster nor Live Nation immediately responded to a request for comment from Forbes. Kinder Law has requested a trial by jury, though it’s not immediately clear whether their claims will be taken to court. The law firm has requested unspecified damages—suggesting each fan suffered a loss in “the amount of thousands of dollars”—in addition to other punitive damages that would be determined at trial. 

Ticketmaster and Live Nation have become the focus of litigation in recent years, including Kinder Law’s lawsuit in 2022. That complaint is similar to their latest filing and accuses both companies of various charges and antitrust violations following Swift’s Eras Tour, during which millions of fans were unable to acquire tickets, the firm alleges. In 2022, Ticketmaster canceled the general sale for the tour after its website crashed during pre-sale, and Live Nation President Joe Berchtold claimed the issue was caused by scalpers amid a “cyberattack.” The Justice Department and 29 attorneys general sued Live Nation and Ticketmaster in May, accusing the companies of holding a monopoly that caused fans to pay more in fees for tickets.  

 
Liability suits of such nature are virtually unknown in India.
 
Regards – S Sampathkumar
17.11.2024 

robbers flee with 13 crore gold at Krishnagiri ~ how safe is Locker !!!

How do you protect your jewellery and valuables ? Do you have a locker in any bank ? Have you taken any insurance policy covering your valuables ? – if you have a locker facility in a Bank, have you ever read the terms and conditions, especially, the banker’s  liability, if any and if you have a Policy – the terms and conditions of coverage, the policy exclusions and the like !! .. rich keep their jewellery and valuables in lockers and pay for it – some pledge their gold and jewellery and take loan from the bank, paying interest.

In far-flung Krishnagiri, there was a big robbery reportedly worthy Rs. 13 crore gold.   Going by TOI reports, the CCTV footage showed 3 men inside.   It is stated that robbers  got away with close to 48kg of gold worth about  Rs.13.5 crore after they broke into a nationalized bank in Kundarapalli in Krishnagiri district. The branch, located some 20km from Krishnagiri caters to the rural populace of Gundarapalli bordering Andhra Pradesh.  Preliminary investigations suggest that there were three burglars who entered the Bank of Baroda branch through the back door of an abandoned house that shared a wall with the bank. They took advantage of an open door in the building to gain access to the bank, said police.

The heist came to light on Saturday morning when the bank opened the bank around 9.45am. He found the door of the locker room broken open. He called the police and senior bank officials immediately.  After stock-taking operations, it was revealed that loss could be  little more than 6,000 sovereigns of gold (approximately 48kg).  The bank serves around 100 villages in the district and most customers are daily wage labourers and ex-servicemen who had taken loans against jewellery from the bank. “The burglars entered the bank premises easily as the branch did not have any security guards,“ said an officer. Now the village is worrying about the compensation that they might get.  One of them is quoted as saying that she had obtained a loan of Rs.1.5 lakh by pledging 40 sovereigns of gold jewellery.  Similar is the tale of many others, who are daily-wage earners. 

A few of the customers had kept jewellery in the bank lockers for safekeeping. “My husband is an alcoholic and would sell any jewellery I kept at home. So I hired a locker. Now they have been burgled and my daughter’s wedding is in a couple of weeks,” said a 48 year old agricultural labourer from Thippampalli village. Another who saved little by little with her wage from  Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee stated that she had lost all her savings.

Reports suggest that the robbery was not the first in the branch.  “A few months ago, a gold appraiser stole 100 sovereigns of gold from the lockers and replaced it with duplicate jewels. The issue came to light when one of the customers tried to sell his jewels,” said a bank official on condition of anonymity. More than robbers fleeting away with close to 48kg of gold worth – the lurking fear on adequacy of compensation is the talk of the villages.   It is reported that agitated public, who had mortgaged their jewellery with the bank gathered around the branch, even as the police cordoned off the area. Security lapses were evident in the bank that had been servicing the area for over two decades, police sources said. There was no night guard in the bank, and of the five CCTV cameras, two cameras were dysfunctional. One of the cameras along with a dysfunctional sound alarm was placed right at the entrance of the bank. Except for the entrance of the bank that was secured by a sliding shutter, the rear entries were feeble wooden doors and were broken by the burglars.

A higher official of the Bank is quoted as saying that the compensation for the jewellery stolen in the weekend heist will be based on the bank guidelines and master policy. “There are no ifs and buts in this case. Every single person will be compensated,” However, it is unclear if the remediation will be based on the current market value.  Generally, the gross weight value on the date of burglary will be considered, says another senior official with the bank.  Outside the robbed bank, those who had lost their jewels were, however, assured that their loss will be compensated on market value, deducting the loan amount along with the interest as on date of settlement.

Later, there was some calm after the bank put up a notice listing the mortgage accounts that were still intact in the other safe. Five accounts were closed after the owners took back the mortgaged jewellery on payment of the loan amount. 

If it is not mortgaged jewellery, there is no way, the bank could make out as to what was lost from the lockers, if they had been breached.  As per the RBI policy: “The bank will, in no way, be responsible/liable for the contents kept in the locker by the hirer. In case of theft, burglary or similar unforeseen events, action will be initiated as per law.” The RBI has also earlier stated that even if the banks do not know about the contents of the locker, they should take necessary steps to protect the contents in the locker.

With regards – S. Sampathkumar

29^th Jan 2015.

transporting Cargo ~ Courier directed to pay for delay in delivery

Every trader ships their cargo with business interest of earning a profit – that is best achieved by making the goods available where they are in demand.  The profit is determined by demand and supply as also availability at that wanted hour.  Thus delay in transportation – whatsoever be the reason will only affect the trader. 

The conditions of carriage are often in fine print and much difficult to understand.  A Carrier is not an Insurer against delay – but contract of carriage enforces a legal duty to deliver in the agreed time schedule.  However, the bill of lading and contract of carriage specifies that the Carrier is not liable for loss, damage or delay.  It is expressly stated that the Carrier does not undertake that the Goods or any documents relating thereto shall arrive or be available at any point or place at any stage during the Carriage or at the Port of Discharge or the Place of Delivery at any particular time or to meet any particular requirement of any licence, permission, sale contract, or credit of the Merchant or any market or use of the Goods and the Carrier shall under no circumstances whatsoever and howsoever arising be liable for any direct, indirect or consequential loss or damage caused by delay.  If the Carrier should nevertheless be held legally liable for any such direct or indirect or consequential loss or damage caused by delay, such liability shall in no event exceed the Freight paid.

Legal experts however opine that there is potential liability of the carrier for the delay.  Air Carriage prescribes limits of delay in delivery of baggage beyond certain hours and the limits vary between domestic and International flights.  In Sept. 2014, Times of India reported of this interesting case where Courier firm were asked to pay artist Rs. 5 lakh for negligence.

TOI reported that the State Consumer disputes redressal commission directed two courier companies to pay a citybased painter a relief of Rs. 5 lakh for failing to deliver her paintings in time. Padmini Rao, of Kilpauk Garden Road, had couriered five boxes containing 85 oil canvas paintings to New Orleans, Louisiana through two companies -DTDC Courier and TNT India Private Ltd.

Rao's counsel T V Lakshmanan said that her husband Ramachar Murali had booked a booth for the exhibition and sale of the paintings at a four-day Rotary International Convention, which was being held from May 21, 2011. The proceeds from the sale were to be donated to the Rotary Foundation. DTDC courier, which received the paintings on May 12, did not send it to the concerned airline carrier till May 15, Lakshmanan said. Five days later, TNT India, which was to off-load the consignment, “gave a vague assurance“ that the parcel would reach JFK Hub, New York by 1.30pm. Despite Murali's repeated calls to the courier companies underlining the “urgency of receiving the parcel immediately,“ the consignment was delivered only around 11am on May 25, the last day of the convention. Because of the negligence of the companies, Rao suffered “enormous mental agony, and a loss of $6000,“ said the counsel.

Subsequently, the couple moved the Commission stating that the parcel should have taken only three days to reach. They said that in case of an “extraordinary delay,”  it should have been delivered by May 20, adding that when they sought redressal, the Courier firms offered only an apology letter with a paltry sum as compensation. The bench of president R Regupathi, judicial member A K Annamalai, and member P Bakiyavathi said the companies had admitted the delay and had tendered apology. The companies had also offered to return the freight charges. Despite being issued notices, the two firms had, however, failed to appear before the commission. The arguments of Rao and Murali had not been challenged, said the bench, adding that it was a fit case for negligence and deficiency in services.

The Forum  then directed the companies to pay Rs 3 lakh as compensation for the expenses incurred for travel, accommodation, and booking of commercial space at the convention. The bench also slapped Rs 2 lakh fine for causing mental agony and negligence along with Rs 5,000 as case costs.

Insurance coverage is wider than the responsibility of the Carrier.  However, under Institute Cargo Clauses and other insuring terms, delay is specially excluded.   The coverage is worded stating that the Insurer on ship or goods is not liable for any loss proximately caused by delay, although the delay be caused by a peril insured against.

With regards – S. Sampathkumar

9^th Feb 2015.

libel, slander - cheating in Chess !!

For sure, you played Chess in your younger age !  .. .. and those with not so good temperament will kick the opponent  Rook out or take out the opponent Queen on hand when capturing !!

Hans Niemann won his third consecutive game at the US Chess Championship after defeating Samuel Sevian in the 12th round. While all games involving Niemann are now closely watched, debated, and analysed, an unusual situation arose during the game against Sevian which showed the players communicating and Niemann, seemingly annoyed.

Sevian picked up Nimeann’s King from the board, and it seemed he was trying to fix the King’s crown. Niemann protested and asked for his King back.  In the post-game interview, Niemann explained it was a misunderstanding between the players. “The pin of the King was fallen off, so he’s just picked it up, but I was just a bit annoyed because it was on my time“. He revealed that Samuel wanted to glue the piece, but the game continued as soon as he put the King back on the board.

Heard of ‘libel’ (n) -  to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. To uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel.   A person who defames another may be called a "defamer", "famacide", "libeler" or "slanderer".

Twitch is an American video live streaming service that focuses on video game live streaming, including broadcasts of esports competitions, in addition to offering music broadcasts, creative content, and "in real life" streams. It is operated by Twitch Interactive, a subsidiary of Amazon.com.

Hans Moke Niemann is an American chess grandmaster and Twitch streamer. He was awarded the Grandmaster title by FIDE on January 22, 2021.  He is in news now !!  .. .. ..  US chess grandmaster Hans Niemann is suing rival Magnus Carlsen for at least $100m (£89m) after the Norwegian world champion accused him of cheating.  A whopping Rs.826 Crores approx.. 

In an ongoing scandal that has rocked the chess world, Niemann is also suing website Chess.com, which published a report saying he had probably cheated in more than 100 online games. Niemann says the defendants colluded to destroy his reputation and livelihood.  Lawyers for Chess.com say there is "no merit" in Niemann's allegations. In his filing, Niemann, 19, accuses Carlsen of launching a smear campaign against him in collaboration with Carlsen's online chess company Play Magnus, and Chess.com, which has agreed to buy Play Magnus. He is seeking compensation "to recover from the devastating damages that defendants have inflicted upon his reputation, career, and life by egregiously defaming him and unlawfully colluding to blacklist him from the profession to which he has dedicated his life", the lawsuit said.

Lawyers for Chess.com dismissed the allegations, and said the company looked "forward to setting the record straight on behalf of its team and all honest chess players". Carlsen did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Niemann is also suing grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura for repeating the accusations while streaming video content on Chess.com. While streaming, Nakamura said he had no comment. Carlsen is considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time, but lost to Niemann in an in-person game in September. The 31-year-old accused Niemann of cheating, and suggested his rise to prominence in the chess world had been too rapid to be believable.  Niemann said Carlsen was just unable to cope with defeat, and wanted to ruin the teenage player's reputation and ensure Niemann would not beat him again.

Neither Carlsen nor Chess.com produced concrete evidence for their cheating accusations.  In a 72-page investigation published on the site, Chess.com concluded that Niemann probably cheated in more than 100 online games, including some for prize money. Its analysis compared his moves with those suggested by computers - which are better than human players - and considered the probability of his results, among other factors. Niemann had previously admitted to cheating in informal games on the site when he was 12 and 16, but said he had never done so in competitive games.  Following the accusations, Niemann was banned from playing on Chess.com and from in-person tournaments it sponsors.

 

Niemann's lawsuit suggested that the move was made under pressure from Carlsen, whose Play Magnus company is being bought for $83m by Chess.com.  "Carlsen, having solidified his position as the 'King of Chess,' believes that when it comes to chess, he can do whatever he wants and get away with it," the lawsuit said.

BUT in modern World, many libel suits do not see the logical end of any award but end up with financial compromises of unspecified amounts, which are never made public.

Interesting  !! 

With regards – S. Sampathkumar
21^st Oct 2022. 

suing for being too much of lookalike - Tina Turner case

The movie Billa directed by R Krishnamurthy was a turning point in the career of its hero Rajanikant.  The title named after a child kidnapper and murderer was in very bad taste !!    The movie was about a powerful ganglord, who remains elusive of the police net – he jumps into Coovum river when Alexander (played by Balaji) chases him.  Alexander arranges a doppelgänger Rajappa to infiltrate into hardcore group of criminals.   A doppelgänger   is a biologically unrelated look-alike, or a double, of a living person.   

Tina Turner (born Anna Mae Bullock) is an American-born Swiss singer and actress. Widely referred to as the "Queen of Rock 'n' Roll", she rose to prominence as the lead singer of the Ike and Tina Turner Revue before launching a successful career as a solo performer. Turner began her career with Ike Turner's Kings of Rhythm in 1957. Under the name Little Ann, she appeared on her first record, "Boxtop", in 1958. In 1960, she debuted as Tina Turner with the hit duet single "A Fool in Love".  In the 1980s, Turner launched "one of the greatest comebacks in music history". Her 1984 multi-platinum album Private Dancer contained the hit song "What's Love Got to Do with It", which won the Grammy Award for Record of the Year and became her first and only number one song on the Billboard Hot 100. At age 44, she was the oldest female solo artist to top the Hot 100.  Having sold over 100 million records worldwide, Turner is one of the best-selling recording artists of all time. She has received 12 Grammy Awards, which include eight competitive awards, three Grammy Hall of Fame awards, and a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award.  

This is no post on the singer, nor songs nor Grammy awards – but on a news that Tina Turner  sued  a tribute act based in Germany for looking too much like her.  The American singer, past 80 years of age duked out in court with Dorothea 'Coco' Fletcher, aged in her 30s, who performed in an unofficial tribute show called Simply The Best.

It was contended by Turner's lawyers that Fletcher looks so much alike in promotional posters that fans may mistakenly think the real Tina is involved in the show. The case reached Germany's Federal Court of Justice which was looked upon anxiously as  a ruling  could radically reshape the multi-billion dollar tribute act industry.

                          This was a case of Turner  suing over the poster of Fletcher, which she said was  so similar in appearance that it risked confusing fans.  The lawsuit was against Cofo Entertainment, a German firm that represented Fletcher and other tribute acts that imitate Elvis Presley, The Beatles, and Frank Sinatra. Turner first filed suit against the company - based in Bavaria -  when posters for Simply The Best were released.  Her legal team scored an initial victory after a court in Cologne ruled the posters could indeed be misleading to punters !  But the posters were re-designed and Turner lost a follow-up case at the Cologne Court of Appeals, which ruled that the risk of confusion among the public did not outweigh Fletcher's right of artistic expression.

The case then reached the Federal Court of Justice.  Kerstin Schmitt, a lawyer representing Turner, sought to persuade the judges that the posters do not constitute 'art' and are merely advertising.  Turner would like to decide when her name and image are used for commercial purposes,' Schmitt told the court. But Brunhilde Ackermann, lawyer for the entertainment company, hit back - saying the average fan would expect a tribute act to look like the real Tina Turner.

Fletcher, who is originally American, has been performing as Turner for years as an unofficial tribute act.  Only a 'chronically stupid person who looks at everything superficially' would get the two confused, she said. She also warned that a binding ruling on behalf of the court could potentially wreck a multi-billion dollar industry that has long-standing recognition as legitimate. 

Judge Thomas Koch then questioned whether the motivation for Turner's lawsuit is that she endorses a rival official tribute act.  Early this year, the Tina Turner tribute act  won a huge court case against the star, who was suing her because she looked too alike.    In her lawsuit, Turner, who found too many similarities between her and Fletcher's 'lion manes' demanded a ban on the use of her name and likeness from posters advertising the show in case fans thought she was involved in its production. However, Cofo Entertainment tour organiser Oliver Forster argued that the show has been performed over 100 times across Germany, Austria and Switzerland, and no one has ever complained that they did not get to see the real Tina Turner.

The court case  lasted for two years and the Federal Court of Justice finally made its decision by ruling in favour of Fletcher in Feb 2o22.  While the official verdict stated artistic freedom outweighs personality rights, presiding judge Thomas Koch said the controversial posters did not give out the impression that Turner supported or was by any means involved in the show.   The respondent remarked - when the original Tina Turner thinks that the cast member on our show looks so much like her, it still ranks as a special compliment somewhere.'

With regards – S. Sampathkumar
13^th Oct 2022. 

Hospital fined for wrong Eye treatment !!

Eyes  are organs of the visual system. They provide beauty to the face and make us see beautiful things.  They provide living organisms with vision, the ability to receive and process visual detail, as well as enabling several photo response functions that are independent of vision. Eyes detect light and convert it into electro-chemical impulses in neurons. 

Eye is a wonder object, slightly asymmetrical globe, about an inch in diameter. The front part  includes:  Iris, Cornea, Pupil, Sclera, Conjunctiva, .. .. and all these work together to give us the vision that we see !!   First, light passes through the cornea (the clear front layer of the eye). The cornea is shaped like a dome and bends light to help the eye focus. Some of this light enters the eye through an opening called the pupil (PYOO-pul). The iris (the colored part of the eye) controls how much light the pupil lets in. Next, light passes through the lens (a clear inner part of the eye). The lens works together with the cornea to focus light correctly on the retina. When light hits the retina (a light-sensitive layer of tissue at the back of the eye), special cells called photoreceptors turn the light into electrical signals. These electrical signals travel from the retina through the optic nerve to the brain. Then the brain turns the signals into the images you see. .. . and eyes need tears to work correctly !! 

Seen here is Cat’s eye .. ..   a Cat's eye or road stud is a retroreflective safety device used in road marking and was the first of a range of raised pavement markers.  A key feature of the cat's eye is the flexible rubber dome which is occasionally deformed by the passage of traffic. A fixed rubber wiper cleans the surface of the reflectors as they sink below the surface of the road (the base tends to hold water after a shower of rain, making this process even more efficient). The rubber dome is protected from impact damage by metal 'kerbs' – which also give tactile and audible feedback for wandering drivers.

 

Amblyopia (or lazy eye) is the most common cause of vision loss among children. If it is not treated timely and properly, it can stay through adulthood. Amblyopia generally develops from birth up to age 7 years. It is the leading cause of decreased vision among children. Rarely, lazy eye affects both eyes. 

                         Holding an eye hospital, its operating Ophthalmologist and anaesthetist guilty of medical negligence while conducting squint eye correction surgery, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has recently directed them to pay Rs 1 crore compensation to the parents of a patient, who died on the operation table.

The top consumer court held the anesthetist guilty for not warning the operating surgeon about possible reaction from a medication and also held the hospital vicariously liable for the death of the patient 22 years ago. Alleging gross medical negligence and being aggrieved by the same, the complainants approached the NCDRC bench and prayed for Rs. 1,00,20,000/- as compensation. While considering the role of the cardiologist, the Commission noted that "No doubt, the child was about 8 years, school going, thus, there was less possibility of congenital anomaly. But, we cannot ignore that the child was suffering from bilateral squint and chest deformity, which were congenital anomalies. Therefore, the cardiac anomalies cannot be ruled out in this case. Moreover, if one physician (MD) notices functional murmur, then the expected skill from the Super Specialist i.e. the Cardiologist was more and higher degree of care should be there. It is lacking in the instant case and unfortunately, the child was declared fit for GA."  

Considering the fact that there was no chance for the mother of the deceased for having another child, and also after taking note of the fact that the litigation was pending for 20 years, the Commission awarded the complainants with Rs 1 crore compensation and noted, "In the instant case, since, the Cardiologist –has not been arrayed as a party,  monitory liability cannot be fixed upon him, and therefore, the hospital  is held vicariously liable. Accordingly, we direct the Eye hospital  to pay Rs. 85 lakh; the Anesthetist, shall pay Rs. 10 lakh and the operating Ophthalmologist,   shall pay Rs. 5 lakh to the parents of the deceased child (Complainants) within 6 weeks from today. Beyond 6 weeks, the amount shall carry interest at 9% per annum till its realization. The OP-1 shall further pay Rs. 1 lakh towards cost of litigation." 

Makes a sad reading !  

With regards – S. Sampathkumar
6^th Sept 2022 

Liability law suit - Sculptor sued by his son ! - பீரங்கியால் நீ வெல்லாததும், உன் பேரன்பினால் .. .. ...

 வீர விநாயக,  வெற்றி விநாயக,  சக்தி விநாயக,  பேரழகா

தீரா சந்தோஷமும் தித்திக்கும் வாா்த்தையும் எத்திக்கும் தோன்றிட வேணுமய்யா!! 

.. .. ……

பீரங்கியால் நீ வெல்லாததும், உன் பேரன்பினால் அட கை கூடுமே
தாராளமா நீ நேசம் வெச்ச அட தாறு மாறா மனம் கூத்தாடுமே
சீறி பாக்கும் ஆளு முன்னே.. சிாிச்சு பாரு மாறிடுவான் .. .. ..

 

The Ajith starrer song says - instead of stare - smile, and with your affection a potential conflict could be resolved easily !! .  In a Nation obsessed with tiny adjustments (you get into a local train, in seat meant for 4 there are already 6 - another one comes running and gasping for breath, says, please adjust and .. .. you find another 2 somehow sitting together!) .. .. there are angry skirmishes, but there are many situations too, when people kindly adjust and life moves on - in such a society, concept of Legal  Liability may not be fully understood, nor would there such law suits! 

Laurence Broderick is a renowned sculptor specialising in figurative carvings in stone and castings in bronze, often with a nature theme. His best known work is 'The Bull', a public sculpture erected in 2003 at the Bullring shopping centre, Birmingham, which has been named one of the world's top ten public artworks. 

 

‘Liability’ (n) is  one of the most significant words in the field of law, and a complex subject in Insurance. Liability means legal responsibility for one's acts or omissions. Any loss or damage caused by a negligent act of a person / Firm exposes them to public liability and cost of litigation as also the cost of such liability suit will be covered in a liability insurance policy. 

One common example is the Act Policy [Third Party Liability policy] in Motor vehicle Insurance.  In India, as prescribed in the Motor Vehicles Act, every vehicle owner must have a policy covering the liability that might arise out of the use of the motor vehicle in a public place. Employers liability, also known as Workmen Compensation is another where the Employer has liability to their employees for death / injuries ‘arising out of and in the course of employment’.  The  liability related suits, other than those of motor accident victims  are not very high in India and there have not been many complex situations also as compared to some litigant practices in Western countries.  

Read in Mailonline about a strange law suit where, a Sculptor, 87, who created iconic Bull statue in Birmingham's shopping centre is sued for £5million by his sons after cutting them out of his will and leaving everything to the National Trust.  

 

The renowned sculptor who created the eponymous bull statue in Birmingham's Bull Ring has been locked in a bitter £5 million court battle with his sons after cutting them out of his will and leaving everything to the National Trust. One of Britain's top living artists, Laurence Broderick, 87, disinherited his sons Graeham and Roger after they blamed him for the death of their younger brother Ollie in 2019. The artist, who is best known for his six-ton bronze bull sculpture - named one of the world's top ten public artworks - also changed the locks on the family home so that neither sons could get in. 

The once tight-knit family had once worked together, with older son Graeham working alongside his father and mother to finish, market and sell Laurence's art. But grief ripped the family apart in 2018 when Laurence's wife Ingrid was diagnosed with Alzheimer's and the couple's youngest son Ollie died a year later. Ollie died aged 46, having suffered kidney failure from just nine months old. During his life, he had three kidney transplants, as well as dialysis while on the transplant waiting list. He died 'peacefully' in hospital in 2019. 

After Laurence was 'blamed' for Ollie's death by his other two sons, he cut them out of his life and froze Graeham out of the family business, London's High Court heard.  Graeham then sued his father, claiming he was owed up to £5 million by his parents because he had been an equal member of a business 'partnership' with his mother and father for 20 years. 

Strange are the ways of people - relations, kith and kin fighting for property (vaikkal varappau thagararu) is perhaps universal but there always is alternative means of settlement and the news paper reported further that the  father and son have now agreed a settlement, halting court proceedings. 

Graeham had claimed he was rightful owner of a one third share under that partnership of all 'partnership assets,' which he said included his father's artworks and valuable copyrights, plus properties in Bedfordshire and the Isle of Skye.  The case reached court with Graeham telling Judge David Halpern QC from the witness box that he was 'upset and disappointed' with his artist father, insisting 'we have been kind and decent sons'. Born in Bristol, Laurence visited the Isle of Skye in 1978 with his young family, where saw his first wild otter, the subject of many of his subsequent works.  After that, Skye became his second home and he held annual sculpture exhibitions on the island for 26 years. He now divides his time between studios on Skye and Waresley, in Bedfordshire.

Suing his father, Graeham told the judge that he had assisted with making the sculptures since 1991 and, from 1999 until the 'traumatic' falling out in 2019, was in a formal business partnership with his parents. He had worked up to 50 hours a week all year round, he said, with just three weeks off. 'I never thought I'd find myself in this situation. I trusted my parents,' he told the judge. David Parratt, counsel for Graeham, told the judge that the two properties his father uses as artist studios in Skye and Waresley are one third his son's property according to the rules of the partnership, along with the same share of his father's art and the profits of the art business up until 2019. Shining a light on the family breakdown, the barrister told the judge that Graham's evidence should be preferred to his father's. 'It is submitted that these are to be antagonistic, vengeful and spiteful and leave nothing of his assets and property to his two sons. His evidence should be treated with caution for that reason,' he told the judge. 

Graeham  went on to sue his father, claiming that he was owed up to £5 million by his parents because he had been an equal member of a business 'partnership' with his mother and father for 20 years. Damian Falkowski, for Laurence, asked him: 'You are aware that your father has changed his will to leave everything to the National Trust. You must be very angry about that. Has that anger coloured your thinking in relation to this partnership claim?'  Mr Falkowski argued that the artworks, studio properties and copyrights were not partnership property, but were part of Laurence's 'capital assets temporarily lent to the partnership'. He also denied there had been a partnership around his artworks involving his son. For Graeham to have become a 'joint author' of any of his father's work, he would have had to 'contribute substantially to the intellectual creation,' he added. 'It is not sufficient for him to do routine work which does not contribute to the intellectual creation, however arduous that may be and even if the work done is necessary in order that the sculptures could be sold as completed works of art,' said the barrister. 

The trial of the case was set to last four days but at the end of a half day hearing, with Roger poised to give evidence in support of Graeham, father and son agreed a settlement to bring the partnership clash to a premature halt. Details of the settlement were not made public. 

Perhaps the son and the aged father reached a settlement and adjusted each other on the monetary claim. 

With regards - S. Sampathkumar
4^th Aug 2022