Latest news with #liability
Reuters
6 days ago
- Politics
- Reuters
Social media companies not liable for 2022 Buffalo mass shooting, New York court rules
July 25 (Reuters) - Several social media companies should not be held liable for helping an avowed white supremacist who killed 10 Black people in 2022 at a Buffalo, New York grocery store, a divided New York state appeals court ruled on Friday. Reversing a lower court ruling, the state Appellate Division in Rochester said defendants including Meta Platforms' (META.O), opens new tab Facebook and Instagram, Google's (GOOGL.O), opens new tab YouTube, and Reddit were entitled to immunity under a federal law that protects online platforms from liability over user content. The case arose from Payton Gendron's racially motivated mass shooting at Tops Friendly Markets on May 14, 2022. Relatives and representatives of victims, as well as store employees and customers who witnessed the attack, claimed the defendants' platforms were defective because they were designed to addict and radicalize users like Gendron. Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Other defendants included Alphabet, (AMZN.O), opens new tab, Discord, 4chan, Snap (SNAP.N), opens new tab and Twitch, all of which Gendron used, the mid-level state appeals court said. Writing for a 3-2 majority, Justice Stephen Lindley said holding social media companies liable would undermine the intent behind Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, to promote development of and competition on the internet while keeping government interference to a minimum. While condemning Gendron's conduct and "the vile content that motivated him to assassinate Black people simply because of the color of their skin," Lindley said a liability finding would "result in the end of the Internet as we know it." "Because social media companies that sort and display content would be subject to liability for every untruthful statement made on their platforms, the Internet would over time devolve into mere message boards," he wrote. Justices Tracey Bannister and Henry Nowak dissented, saying the defendants force-fed targeted content to keep users engaged, be it videos about cooking or puppies, or white nationalist vitriol. "Such conduct does not maintain the robust nature of Internet communication or preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet contemplated by the protections of immunity," the judges wrote. Gendron pleaded guilty to state charges including murder and terrorism motivated by hate, and was sentenced in February 2023 to life in prison without parole. He faces related federal charges that could lead to the death penalty. Questioning of potential jurors in that case is scheduled to begin in August 2026, court records show.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
Social media companies not liable for 2022 mass shooting, New York appeals court rules
Social media companies not liable for 2022 mass shooting, New York appeals court rules (Reuters) -Several social media companies should not be held liable for helping an avowed white supremacist who killed 10 Black people in 2022 at a Buffalo, New York grocery store, a divided New York state appeals court ruled on Friday. Reversing a lower court ruling, the state Appellate Division in Rochester said defendants including Meta Platforms' Facebook and Instagram, Google's YouTube, and Reddit were entitled to immunity under a federal law that protects online platforms from liability over user content. The plaintiffs included relatives or representatives of people who died in Peyton Gendron's racially motivated mass shooting at Tops Friendly Markets on May 14, 2022, as well as store employees and customers who witnessed it.
Washington Post
10-07-2025
- Washington Post
Gun makers lose appeal of New York law that could make them liable for shootings
NEW YORK — A New York state law holding gun manufacturers potentially liable when their weapons are used in deadly shootings was upheld Thursday by a federal appeals court. The ruling Thursday by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan affirmed a decision by an Albany judge. A three-judge appeals panel said the 2021 New York state law was not unconstitutional or vague. The opinion written by Circuit Judge Eunice C. Lee said a lawsuit seeking to stop the law's implementation did not show that the law was 'unenforceable in all its applications.'
Yahoo
01-07-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Texas Supreme Court reverses nuclear verdict involving Werner crash
This story was originally published on Trucking Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Trucking Dive newsletter. The Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of Werner Enterprises for a case involving a fatal crash that was poised to put tremendous liability on the carrier, according to a June 27 opinion. The ruling reverses a state appeals court decision that held the carrier and its driver liable for over $100 million in damages. The Texas Supreme Court described the crash as a tragic accident on an icy interstate. The court dismissed the lawsuit, which involved a F-350 pickup truck crossing a 42-foot median and crashing into a tractor-trailer, killing a 7-year-old boy and injuring other family members. Due to the crash, the boy's sister became quadriplegic. The ruling from Texas' highest court rebuts lower courts that sided with the family in a monumental reversal, following the 2014 crash. While the financial stakes were high, President and Chief Legal Officer Nathan Meisgeier noted the continuing somberness of the fatal crash. 'We have not and will not lose sight of the tragic loss the Blake family suffered because of this accident. Our continued thoughts and prayers are with the Blake family,' Meisgeier said in a news release. The court took a somber reflection of the tragedy, too, but also cast the case differently than lower courts, suggesting the driver "is not liable if his involvement was a mere 'happenstance of place and time.'" While noting the tragedy, the carrier also noted Werner's insurance policies had a maximum liability of $10 million. Insurance largely covered the entire verdict award, the company previously noted, but the Texas Supreme Court ruling means Werner is reversing $45.7 million in liability, including interest, for Q2 2025. 'The Company will also reverse a $79.2 million receivable from its third-party insurance providers and corresponding claims liability for the same amount on its consolidated balance sheet,' according to a securities filing from Werner. The outcome comes at a time where rising costs from inflation have also hit insurance premiums. Carriers from J.B. Hunt Transport Services to Landstar System have noted rising insurance and claims costs in recent quarterly earnings filings. Meisgeier said the recent verdict was a long-awaited win. 'After seven years navigating the appellate process, we are thankful the Texas Supreme Court reached the same conclusion as law enforcement — that the Werner drivers and our company did nothing wrong,' he said. Recommended Reading Texas Supreme Court to hear Werner appeal of $100M-plus judgment Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Irish Times
26-06-2025
- Irish Times
Stable hand who said he hurt back while emptying wheelbarrow loses injury claim against racehorse trainer
A racehorse trainer cannot be found liable for a back injury allegedly suffered by a stable hand when using a wheelbarrow in a 'most unorthodox' manner, a High Court judge ruled. An employer is not liable for 'everyday unfortunate mishaps' to employees that could as easily happen at home just because it occurred on the premises of someone with insurance or means to pay compensation, Mr Justice Michael Twomey said. The courts, he said, should approach such claims with 'common sense and a degree of scepticism'. He made the comments on Thursday, dismissing a damages claim by Mark Lawless against racehorse trainer Adrian Keatley over an injury allegedly suffered on March 9th, 2016, at Rossmore Cottage Stables, The Curragh, Co Kildare. READ MORE His preliminary view was to grant Mr Keatley his costs, but final orders will be made later if the parties cannot agree them. Mr Lawless, who in March 2016 was working as a stable hand for Mr Keatley, claimed the injury occurred when he was emptying a heavy wheelbarrow of soiled hay into a dungstead, a three-sided structure with concrete walls and a concrete floor. His job was to fill 10 to 15 full wheelbarrows daily with soiled hay from horse boxes and empty those into the dungstead. He had worked six to eight weeks for Mr Keatley, but is now working as an auctioneer. Mr Lawless had called engineering evidence in support of his claim that his emptying of the wheelbarrow, which the judge described as 'perfectly fit for use', constituted an 'unsafe system of work'. His key claim at the hearing was that he decided to empty the wheelbarrow when it was on an upward incline of soiled hay, the judge said. It was claimed Mr Keatley was liable for the back spasm he suffered while doing this and the resulting injury. Mr Lawless had said he was filling the dungstead on his own, the judge noted, but a machine operator attended the stables every four to six days to push soiled hay towards the back of the dungstead, intervals 'well within' what Mr Lawless's engineer considered appropriate. A court does not require an engineer to tell it one should empty a wheelbarrow on the flat and not try to empty it on an upward incline, the judge said. That was 'basic common sense'. It was 'curious, to say the least', the claim of injury when emptying the wheelbarrow on an upward incline only surfaced six years after the claim issued in 2017 and only after an engineer took photos showing inclines of material in the dungstead operated by a different racehorse trainer. On the balance of probabilities, the judge did not find it credible that Mr Lawless, who had 'plenty of experience' using wheelbarrows and emptying out horseboxes in his own home, operated the wheelbarrow in the 'unorthodox' manner suggested. It seemed Mr Lawless's recollection of the events was not accurate – that was human nature and not a reflection of the honesty of a witness, he said. Other inconsistencies in Mr Lawless's recollection included a medical note in April 2016 which stated his problem arose from a fall 'while looking after a horse'. Mr Lawless did not damage his back while emptying the wheelbarrow on an upward incline, the judge said. It seemed his injury, if it happened as a result of emptying the wheelbarrow, was an unfortunate everyday mishap when doing the 'everyday task of emptying a wheelbarrow in the usual manner, on a flat surface' and for which his employer 'has absolutely no liability'. Even if Mr Lawless did use the wheelbarrow as claimed, the employer had no liability for not providing a safe system of work because Mr Lawless's task was to ensure the dungstead floor was clear so a flat surface was available from which to empty the wheelbarrow, the judge said. Another ground for dismissing the claim was because the incline claim made at the hearing was not originally pleaded, he said.
