Fireworks may be fun, but are they a recreational activity?  This case got started when the Land O’Lakes Wisconsin Lions Club held its annual Fourth of July festivities, which included flag raising, a parade, a picnic and fireworks.  John, who was a volunteer, was told to clean out the firing tubes after each detonation with a stick with protruding nails.  Unfortunately, one of the tubes blew up in his hands causing severe and permanent injuries.  John sued the Lions Club, which defended on the grounds that the Recreational Immunity Statute protects landowners who make their property available for recreational activity, which is defined as any outdoor activity undertaken for the purpose of exercise, relaxation or pleasure.  The Court concluded that regardless of whether fireworks are recreation, John’s intent was to work and not relax or recreate, and negligent instructions given to him had nothing to do with recreational activity.  So be careful this July Fourth, for if the fireworks don’t work, liability is clearly in the air.

THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW™
John “Jack” Kosky and Dorothy “Dolly” Kosky v. International Association of Lions Clubs, et al., April 29, 1997, Cane, J., 210 Wis.2d 463, 565 NW2d 260

Podcast: Download

If you’re sexually dangerous and you’re sentenced to prison, can they keep you locked up even though your sentence is up?  This case involved Roger, who pleaded guilty in federal court to violating a federal law making it illegal to cross state lines with intent to engage in a sexual act with a minor.  Tom was sentenced to 120 months in prison, but when his sentence was up, the Bureau of Prisons moved to commit him under a new federal law that allows the government to commit civilly and indefinitely federal prisoners who’ve completed their sentence but who’ve been proven to be sexually dangerous by clear and convincing evidence.  Roger appealed arguing that while states may be able to adopt such laws, Congress does not have general police powers.  But the Court upheld the law on the grounds that Congress has authority under the Commerce Clause to deal with sex offenders who often travel between states.  The issue is headed for the Supreme Court.  But in the meantime, Roger will stand committed, done in by the Commerce Clause, which in the case of sexually dangerous persons means business.

THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW™

U.S. v. Tom, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 08-2345, 5-13-09, U.S. Law Week, Vol. 77, No. 45, Pg. 1719, 5-26-09

Podcast: Download

If you’re in trouble because of urine trouble, is there anything you can do about it?  This case involved new regulations requiring certain transportation workers, such as those involved in aviation, to submit to observed urine tests where somebody watches during the procedure.  Also those taking the tests have to raise their shirts and lower their clothing to prove the urine they’re submitting is really theirs.  After the workers sued, the Court acknowledged that direct observation testing is highly intrusive but ruled the regulations are necessary because of products that exist for the adulteration of urine, including a prosthetic device that is a dead ringer for real human anatomy, including being color matched.  The Court noted that undercover federal investigators regularly managed to adulterate their urine specimens and the inference that people were using cheating devices was eminently reasonable.  So when you’re in trouble because of urine trouble, you’re in plain view all around.  Let’s just call it a case of peer review.

THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW™

BNSF Railway Company v. Department of Transportation, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 08-1264, May 15, 2009, Tatel, J., U.S. Law Week, Vol. 77, No. 45 Pg. 1721, 5-26-09

Podcast: Download