Rumpole has a funny post about the federal buildings here. From what I hear, there are trials scheduled in the new building in May... I'll believe it when I see it.
The AP's Curt Anderson reports here that Ashley Dupre is on video saying she is 18 and consenting to the Girls Gone Wild video:
The release came one day after series founder Joe Francis and his companies were sued for $10 million in Miami federal court by Ashley Alexandra Dupre, who claims she was only 17 at the time and too young to sign a binding contract. Dupre, now 22, also accused Francis of exploiting her image and name on various Internet sites.
In the new release, Dupre appears covered by a terrycloth towel and gives her name as Amber Arpaio. An unseen questioner asks if she is 18.
"Yes I am," Dupre answers in a strong Southern accent.
"Do you know what 'Girls Gone Wild' is?" the questioner asks.
"Yes I do," she replies with a laugh.
"Can I use this on 'Girls Gone Wild'?" she is asked.
"Of course you can," Dupre answers.
The video also displays a New Jersey driver's license with the Amber Arpaio name and a birth date that would have made her appear to be in her 20s.
Not so good for her lawsuit...
UPDATE -- the lawsuit fell before Judge Lenard.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
9 comments:
Tort 101
Negligence Per Se
Violation of State Law,
causing damages
Strict Liability - no, no, no, sexual pictures of minors (doesn't matter if they lie)
Amend Complaint
Motion for Summary Judgment
Damages Trial
Girls Gone Wild Pays
Not so fast my friend. The complaint says GGW was selling the videos and referring to websites using the correct name for the girl...meaning that they knew the id was false.
No negligence per se in Florida.
Who's worse Joe Francis or Roger Clemens?
12:45
You must be one of those persecutors on this blog that isn't admitted in Fla. Take a look at deJesus v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 281 So.2d 198 (Fla. 1973) and then try to say negligence per se doesn't exist.
The Admiral knows his state law.
Someone should tell the Florida Board of Bar Examiners and Bar Bri about that. Negligence per se does not exist in Florida and it is a trick question on the Bar Exam. The existence of a statute only creates a duty. May be a technicality, but still the law.
While its been a few years since I took the Bar Exam (and passed with one of the better scores) I do remember that much.
ps. notice the year on the case you cite for authority.
"The courts of Florida have long recognized that the violation of a statute may be utilized as evidence of negligence." Fla. Dep't of Corr. v. Abril, 969 So. 2d 201, 205 (Fla. 2007). Notice that violation of statute is only "EVIDENCE" of negligence. Not Negligence per se. This is different from negligence per se.
You are wrong. Whether it is negligence per se depends on the nature of the statute.
Post a Comment