Michigan Business Lawyer Blog

Target Corporation has agreed to pay $6 million in damages and retool its website to make it fully accessible to blind customers as part of a class action settlement that was filed today. The case was filed in 2006 in San Francisco federal court by the National Federation of the Blind on behalf of blind people who said they couldn't access the site.

There are specialized keyboards that blind people can use to operate computers. Certain software can be used to convert websites and documents into Braille writing and audible speech. But, these technologies won't work if a website isn't programmed correctly, which is what the National Federation of the Blind claimed about Target's website.

The case has been on the radar screen of many major online businesses because the core issue concerns whether the protections of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act can be applied to a business's website. In another similar case, the federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Southwest Airlines' website was not subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, the plaintiffs in Target case successfully argued that the close link between Target's real world stores and its website made the website a "place of public accommodation," which triggers the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This case is having repercussions around cyberspace. Even before Target settled its case, Amazon.com and Radio Shack made agreements with national blindness organizations to improve their websites for customers with visual impairments.

There are a number of legal issues that must be addressed when a Michigan business publishes a website. It is crucial to involve a Michigan business lawyer who understands the Internet and e-commerce issues in order to fully protect a Michigan's business's virtual presence.

Posted by Michael J. Hamblin | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Litigation , Technology & Law

Bookmark:

Often when there is a business dispute, the last thing the parties want to do is sit down and work things out. This is especially true when these disputes actually wind up in court. Many times, however, the best thing for all involved is to sit down with a mediator and see if there might be some common ground upon which the dispute can be settled. Often, as that great trial lawyer Abraham Lincoln observed, the result can be a significant savings in legal fees, expenses and wasted time.

Mediation is an "alternative dispute resolution" process whereby a neutral third party facilitates communications between the disputing parties. The mediator can help the parties (and their lawyers) identify issues and explore possible settlement solutions that are mutually satisfactory to both parties. The mediation process is confidential and a mediated settlement is totally voluntary. The parties are free to accept or reject any ideas or solutions that the mediator tries to introduce or explore.

Typically, the parties can select their own mediator. Although parties are free to choose whomever they wish to serve as their mediator, if they cannot agree, the court having jurisdiction over their case can choose a mediator for them from an approved list. A mediator is typically a well-respected lawyer, and many times a retired judge who can bring his or her years of judicial experience to bear in privately resolving a dispute.

Many Michigan courts have formal mediation programs to encourage early settlement of lawsuits. One such program is the Oakland County Circuit Court mediation program. By all reports, this program is having a positive impact on the litigation process in Oakland County.

Litigation is serious business. If you are faced with a business dispute, in whatever form, you should contact an experienced and knowledgeable Michigan business litigation lawyer so that your rights can be enforced and a satisfactory resolution to that dispute can be achieved.

Posted by Michael J. Hamblin | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Litigation

Bookmark:

The jury is a time honored and essential part of the American justice system. The American jury system traces it roots to the Magna Carta, which is widely viewed as one of the most important legal documents in the history of democracy. An excellent summary of the history of the American jury system can be found at the website for the Missouri federal courts.

In essence, the job of a jury is to decide the disputed factual issues in a case. The presiding judge is tasked with resolving any legal issues that arise. However, as business and corporate litigation grows more complex, many wonder whether a jury of ordinary citizens can continue to play a meaningful role in these kinds of cases.

In many business disputes, the important issues revolve around extremely technical issues and facts, the testimony of expert witnesses, and other complexities of the business world. This trend in business litigation poses many difficult challenges to even those who are well versed in these subjects. Many believe that having a jury of ordinary citizens try to sort out these issues leads to bad decisions.

An interesting blog post in the online Illinois Business Law Journal takes the position that juries should not be used in complex business litigation. In support of its position, the post states the following:

"It is questionable whether juries are capable of understanding certain complex corporate legal issues sufficiently. It is evident that corporate litigation disputes are becoming more convoluted with expert testimonies, longer trials, and an overall abundance of facts and issues. It only seems necessary that a change occur."

The purpose of this post is not to take a position against the jury system. Obviously, it is an extremely important part of the American justice system and must continue to play a prominent role in the administration of justice. But, with the business world, and related litigation, growing ever more complex, it seems to be a legitimate and reasonable question whether it is fair to expect juries to competently tackle such challenging subjects as patent and trademark disputes, computer and Internet issues, and complex business and financial matters.

Posted by Michael J. Hamblin | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Litigation

Bookmark:

We all know how unreliable hearsay can be. The legal system recognizes this unreliability by providing for the exclusion of hearsay evidence from both criminal and civil trials. In Michigan, this exclusionary rule is contained in Michigan Rule of Evidence 802.

However, there are exceptions to the general rule that excludes hearsay evidence. The rationale behind these exceptions is that in certain situations hearsay evidence can be very reliable and should be allowed as evidence in court proceedings. One of these exceptions is what is commonly known as the "business records" exception. In Michigan, this exception is contained Michigan Rule of Evidence 803(6). To qualify for this exception, the business record must meet a number of requirements.

First, it must be some form of memo, report, record or other data compilation of an act, transaction, occurrence, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis that is made at or near the time of that act, etc. by a person with knowledge. Second, the record must be kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity. Third, it must be the regular practice of the business activity to make the record.

This rule of evidence provides that the definition of a "business" includes businesses, institutions, associations, professions, occupations, and callings of every kind, even if they are not conducted for profit.

The "business records" exception to the hearsay rule can provide a way to have crucial evidence admitted in court proceedings. It is important for any Michigan business or entrepreneur who is faced with a court proceeding, whether as a plaintiff or defendant, to have an experienced and knowledgeable Michigan business litigation attorney who can help them present their case and protect their interests.

Posted by Michael J. Hamblin | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Litigation

Bookmark: