An interesting case is presently pending in the state of Arizona. An alarm was activated at the plaintiff’s uniform laundering facility in Phoenix. Within minutes, the plaintiff’s alarm monitoring company notified the city fire department that it had received a water flow alarm, which indicated the activation of fire suppression equipment at the plaintiff’s facility. The alarm company also reported that a burglar alarm at the facility had been activated.
In a recent Illinois case, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against a municipality and a police officer who responded with other officers to a bank alarm, alleging, among other things, violations of the Fourth Amendment.
The court in a recent Minnesota case noted there is a distinction between willful and wanton negligence and gross negligence. The plaintiff in the case purchased a home alarm system. Later, the defendant alarm company received a low-temperature alarm but failed to contact the plaintiff or any of the account’s contacts. Later, the low temperature caused a pipe to burst, resulting in damage.
The legal principle of sovereign immunity, which makes governmental bodies and employees immune from being sued in their own courts without governmental consent, was the center of a case recently decided in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Tort law defines standard of care as the degree of prudence and caution required of an individual who is under a duty of care (a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that individuals adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could possibly harm others). The requirements of the standard are closely dependent on circumstances.
A recent case in the state of California dealt with a number of issues, including the effect of a liquidated damage clause. In this column, we’ll discuss the issue of whether the plaintiff who recovered the liquidated damage amount was entitled to attorney fees.
A recent case in the state of Rhode Island dealt with the issue of when “the firefighter’s rule” applies. The plaintiff was a firefighter who filed a negligence action against a hospital and a security company. They, in turn, filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that the suit was barred by the firefighter’s rule. The Superior Court agreed with the defendants and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The firefighter appealed.
An Illinois-based legal battle involving an attempt by public entities to take over fire alarm monitoring in Illinois has received national attention for its potential to influence fire monitoring in districts across the United States. While many know that, to date, the courts have sided with the alarm companies operating in Illinois, not as many may know the specific legal explanations for why the courts reached those rulings.
In a case in the state of Colorado, an alarm company was found liable for willful and wanton breach of contract in the failure to perform its obligations for installation, repair, maintenance and offsite monitoring of burglar alarm equipment installed in a warehouse damaged by a fire following a burglary.