Threat Of Liability Research Articles

Accommodating the Securities Laws to Employee Benefit Plans

The recent decision of the Supreme Court in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Daniel' is a pyrrhic victory for those who argue for a rational accommodation of the securities laws to employee benefit plans. While the threat of liability under Rule 10b-52 of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may have put fear in the hearts of many,3 that threat was only a minor aspect of the irrationality of trying to govern employee compensation arrangements by laws designed for vastly different purposes. Although the relatively narrow Daniel opinion may have removed the immediate fear, the decision has only increased the likelihood of continuing an unduly complicated set of rules for coordinating many legitimate employer-employee desires within a securities law framework.

Legal Liability and Highway Design and Maintenance

The threat of liability arising as a result of highway defects has commanded more respect for legal guidelines and dictums. The general rule of law is that a highway traveler using the highway is entitled to have that highway maintained in a reasonably safe condition. Warning signs must be placed where there are possible dangerous conditions; safety barriers are necessary where safe travel requires them; and lighting is required where a peculiar condition renders it necessary, traffic signals are generally under the rule of governmental capacity. Several recent cases which illustrate the progression of judicial thought to its present day sophistication in the area are thoroughly examined. Especially pertinent are the comments of the court in Martin versus State Highway Commission on the Federally inspired safety program. Language: en