Shrinking the Clergyperson Exemption to Florida\u27s Mandatory Child Abuse Reporting Statute

All states currently require certain persons to report known or suspected cases of any maltreatment of a child, and to testify in court concerning that abuse if the case goes to trial

Keeping that Doggie in the (Car) Window Safe: Recommendations for Driving with Canine Companions

Part I of this article uses the empirical research of experts (animal behaviorists, ethologists, and cynologists) to explain reasons canine companions and their humans love riding together. It also highlights the potential risks when dogs distract drivers. Acknowledging that only a few studies exist, it provides whatever statistics are available and posits that data strongly suggest dogs who are roaming free in a car cause or at least contribute to many accidents. This means, in addition to drivers and passengers in other vehicles and even pedestrians, these animals represent a significant potential danger to themselves and occupants of their car in one of two respects. First, they can distract the driver in any number of ways and cause or contribute to an accident. Second, they can become deadly projectiles if there is a collision (or even just the need to stop short). Part II tackles the important question of how to significantly decrease the number of canine-involved accidents. This section analyzes the relevant cases and laws in the United States. It briefly contrasts what is happening in other places in the world, including the United Kingdom where it is illegal to drive with an unrestrained dog. Doing so actually permits insurance companies to reject any resulting claims. Then, after conceding the impossibility of eliminating all such mishaps, Part III explores ways to protect human and nonhuman animals when a crash occurs. These include the need to collect information about collisions where dogs distracted the driver similar to what was done when deciding that adults need to wear seat belts and children must be in safety seats. Finally, the Conclusion provides several recommendations

Scuba Diving Buddies: Rights, Obligations, and Liabilities

A common misconception is that scuba diving is dangerous; the reality is that divers are more likely to be hurt in their cars driving to the dive site than in an underwater accident. Arguably one reason the sport is so safe is the widespread, and often mandatory, use of the buddy system.A buddy expects his partner to perform a variety of tasks, which include assisting during an emergency. However, a glaring omission in the legal literature is the important issue of what happens when a diver\u27s failure to act results in his buddy\u27s death or serious injuries. This article explores whether a diver (or his heirs) can recover damages resulting from his buddy\u27s negligence.Part I provides a succinct discussion of scuba diving. It contains a very brief history, summarizes basic training courses, and then highlights the sport\u27s growing popularity and safety concerns.Part II focuses on buddies. It looks at who they are, obligations the buddy relationship creates, and solo diving as a possible alternative.Part III analyzes the few existing appellate decisions and suggests three reasons for the scarcity of cases. First, the reality is that because buddies tend to be friends or even relatives, they are unlikely to sue one another. Second, a dive partner generally does not have deep pockets, so suing a buddy often seems pointless. A third hurdle is the legal doctrine that imputes the negligence of one joint venturer to all, preventing, or at least severely limiting, any damage award.This section also reinforces the importance of a recreational diver having a competent buddy. One reason is that most participants never advance to a high level of proficiency. Further, because many divers wait years between dives, their skills decline and their need for an experienced partner increases. As ability generally improves with practice, the person who has logged a greater number of - as well as more recent - dives is likely to be better prepared to help if something goes wrong. Finally, recognizing that these suits are probably going to become more frequent as society becomes more litigious, Part IV recommends steps divers can take to avoid potential liability while minimizing the likelihood of injuries to themselves and their buddies: (I) Obtain insurance; (2) Draft and sign specific liability releases; and (3) Carefully select qualified partners and always properly perform the obligations of a buddy

Note to Athletes, NFL, and NBA: Dog Fighting is a Crime, Not a Sport

Phyllis Coleman, Note to Athletes, NFL, and NBA: Dog Fighting is a Crime, Not a Sport, 3 Journal of Animal Law & Ethics 85 (2009). Americans were finally forced to face the issue of animal abuse and professional athletes when investigators discovered 66 pit bulls, in addition to dog fighting equipment, at a home owned by pro football\u27s most electrifying quarterback. Although Michael Vick insisted he did not live in the house, and initially denied knowledge of any such activity on his Virginia property, stories of his involvement continued to swirl around the Atlanta Falcons\u27 franchise player. On July 17, 2007, Vick and three others were indicted by a federal grand jury for competitive dog fighting, procuring and training pit bulls for fighting, and conducting an illegal enterprise across state lines. On August 27, 2007, Vick pled guilty to one count of conspiracy. Shortly thereafter, Commissioner Roger Goodell suspended Vick from the NFL indefinitely and without pay. Approximately a month after the federal guilty plea, a Surry County (Virginia) grand jury indicted Vick on one count of conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities and to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture. His jury trial, originally scheduled for April 2, 2008, had to be delayed until June 27 because of the difficulty of transporting federal prisoners back to the state to face charges. While Vick is probably the most famous sports figure to have been accused and/or convicted of fighting dogs, sadly there are many others who also participate. Nevertheless, the issue of players abusing animals has almost escaped discussion, or even notice, in law reviews. To fill the gap, this article grapples with important questions concerning athletes involved in illegal dog fighting. Part II includes a brief history, description, and analysis of dog fighting. Part III reviews relevant laws including the recently enacted federal Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act. However, despite the fact that the underlying reasons to criminalize the conduct are the same no matter who causes the harm, it appears that the legal system may treat professional athletes differently than others who fail to properly protect and care for dogs, cats, and other domesticated critters. If true, this means it is even more important that professional sports leagues step in and punish participants in these illegal competitions. Part IV provides examples of sports figures who exploit or otherwise injure dogs through training them, and forcing them, to fight. While no appellate decisions exist yet, this section reviews a number of incidents reported in the media. Finally, in seeking to fashion a just and fair response, Part V proposes a concrete solution that will not only punish the guilty player for his criminal acts, and his team if they knew about the problem and allowed him to continue on the field or court, but will also benefit the real victims, the animals

Joseph F. Smith, 1985-86

In admiralty, Professor Joe Smith teaches about navigating through dangerous waters and the importance of salvage

Interview with Phyllis Coleman and Mark Dobson - Professors of Law

Law school, Parker building, facilities, Johnny Burris, Ovid Lewis, President Feldman, 9th Avenue Building, union building, Ferrero, Fischler, Joel Berman, Bruce Rogow, Joe Smith, Rolling Hills Country Club, Peter Thornton, Larry Hyde, Don Llewellyn, dean, full ABA accreditation, Uni-trust, scholarship, LSAT, Goodwin, John Anderson, Joe Harbaugh, Roger Abrams, leadership, fourth-tier, George Hanbury, Association of American Law Schools, AAMPLE Program, Summer Conditional Program, Alternative Admissions, Career Development Officehttps://nsuworks.nova.edu/nsudigital_oralhistories/1029/thumbnail.jp

Restricting Medical Licenses Based on Illness is Wrong - Reporting Makes It Worse

Part I of this article briefly explores the licensing and disciplinary processes. Because each state board has broad discretion in reaching its decisions, an illness might be ignored in one state, trigger only periodic monitoring in another, and be grounds for sanction in a third. As the duty of every state board is the same - to protect patients from incompetent doctors - this disparate treatment is absurd. The implicit notion that the impact of a physician\u27s illness on his ability to practice changes depending on a state line is not credible. Although statutes and cases may use different language to define incompetence, there is fundamental agreement that doctors in every state should practice with skill and safety. Part II exposes fundamental defects in the current reporting to national data banks. The goal of preventing incompetent physicians from injuring a series of uninformed patients in several states is commendable. Implementation is not