Online Dating Can Be a Dangerous Proposition

As more and more people search for a soul mate online, it’s important to be aware of the dangers: Dating sites on the Web can be populated by predators seeking to take advantage of people.

Internet dating site True.com, which performs background checks on members, says that about 5 percent of the people who try to sign up for the service are already married. Another 5 percent are convicted felons.

Other sites perform no background checks, and it’s impossible to say who might be signing up for the service.

Recently, two women sued a Manhattan fertility specialist who is a married father of three. According to the women, he posed as a bachelor online and lured them into sexual relationships by claiming that he had known them in a past life.

In some cases, an Internet dating service itself might be legally responsible if something goes wrong. This could be true if the service doesn’t perform background checks, doesn’t perform all the checks it says it does, or performs them carelessly.

Six states – California, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Texas and Virginia – have legislation pending that would require online dating sites to perform background checks or at least disclose whether they perform checks and what types they perform.

There are already federal laws on the books that protect mail-order brides. In a recent case, a Ukrainian woman came to the U.S. and was severely beaten by her husband. She won a $434,000 verdict against the online service that connected them.

These federal laws don’t apply if both people are from the U.S., although state laws might allow lawsuits.

Even if a website conducts background checks, no background check is foolproof. For instance, crimes committed while a person was a minor are often sealed and don’t show up on reports. And a person could possibly evade the system by entering a false name or date of birth.

Tenant Can Sue Paint Manufacturers for Lead Poisoning

A Wisconsin teenager alleged that he ingested lead paint from painted surfaces and paint chips, flakes and dust at three different rented homes when he was a toddler.

A lawsuit was filed on his behalf against seven paint manufacturers that produced the type of lead pigment (white lead carbonate) found in the paint used in the homes where the boy lived. He conceded that he couldn’t identify the specific manufacturer of the lead pigment he ingested.

But he claimed that each of the manufacturers should share responsibility for his alleged injuries under a legal principle

that manufacturers are liable if they make a product that causes an injury in violation of the law.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed that the lawsuit should not be dismissed.

Even though the boy had settled related lawsuits against the landlords, that didn’t absolve the paint manufacturers from liability, the court said. The boy alleged that the paint manufacturers were negligent in claiming that the lead pigment was safe.

While the landlords are in the best position to contain the dangers of lead paint once it’s been applied, they are not to blame for the fact that the lead pigment in the paint is poisonous, the court ruled.

Car Buyer Gets Triple Damages for Fraud

A woman bought a used car from a dealership for $25,858. The dealer never told her that the car had earlier been a rental car owned by Hertz. When she found out, she sued for fraud, saying she would never have bought the car if she knew it had been a rental.

She sued under a federal law governing odometer fraud, which says that people who are defrauded by a car dealer can get triple damages in some situations.

The dealer argued that the triple damages didn’t apply here, since the

fraud didn’t involve tampering with the odometer. Rather, the dealership shifted title to her by way of transfer forms, not the original title.

But the federal appeals court covering Florida, Georgia and Alabama recently ruled that triple damages could apply. The federal law says that if a dealership violates the law with an intent to defraud a consumer, then triple damages might be warranted. The appeals court said the law does not require specific proof of fraud related to a vehicle’s mileage.

Fan Hit by Foul Ball Can Sue Ballpark

Normally, fans attending a baseball game assume the risk of an injury from a foul ball, which means they can’t sue for the injury.

But there are some exceptions. One example was shown by a recent New Jersey case.

A man was hit in the eye while standing by a concession cart at a minor league game in Newark. He was struck by the ball as he was taking out money to buy a beer.

The concession operator had placed its carts so that customers could face the field and continue to watch the game while waiting to make a purchase. Some of the carts, including the one the man was standing near, were not protected by screens.

The man sued, claiming the stadium

owner owed him a legal duty to provide protection from balls that go out of play.

The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed, saying fans hurt by foul balls while in the stands can’t sue, but stadium owners have to provide reasonable protection in other areas of a stadium, such as a vendor concourse.

A similar ruling has come from Pennsylvania.