The plane was taxiing to its intended gate when it hit the errant light pole. The wing was damaged, and the pole itself collapsed. There were 89 passengers and 5 crew members on board at the time.

There were no reported injuries. However, as a precaution the airport sent out buses to shuttle passengers and crew to the terminal, according to KMGH-TV.

Southwest says it is working with the FAA and the NTSB to sort out what happened.

Aviation safety consultant Steve Cowell told KMGH-TV that light poles at airports are meant to collapse after getting hit. He said that the accident was not too major.

No other flights were impacted by the Southwest snafu.

It’s a lucky break for Southwest. The company may be able to avoid the ire of a Denver personal injury lawyer since no passengers or crew were hurt.

If injuries had occurred it’s likely that hurt individuals could have sued. They may then need to prove that the accident was the result of the pilot’s negligence. They could have asked for compensation from the airline. Damages could have encompassed their medical bills and lost wages depending on the severity of their injuries.

There has been no word that anybody plans to sue the airline over its embarrassing runway mishap. It seems for now the Southwest “accident” won’t generate litigation — but it does provide some bad publicity. No airline wants to see “Southwest Plane Hits a Light Pole” as a headline.

Related Resources:

• Southwest Plane Hits Light Pole at Denver Airport (AP)
• In-Flight Injuries on Airplanes (FindLaw)
• Model’s Hand Cut Off by Small Plane Propeller (FindLaw’s Injured)
• 30 Injured in United Airlines Flight Turbulence (FindLaw’s Injured)

Peters brought the small claims suit after opting out of a proposed settlement in a Honda class action. The company was accused of overstating the fuel economy associated with its hybrid vehicles.

To settle those claims, the car manufacturer proposed a $200 settlement. It would also provide covered hybrid owners with a $1,000 nontransferable credit towards a new car.

Peters got the better deal, and actually received almost all of what she asked for — the $10,000 small claims maximum under state law.

Her case was somewhat solid, too. In a 26-page order — a rare action for a small claims case — the judge wrote “Honda was aware … there were problems with [the car] living up to its advertised mileage.”

It would be nice for Heather Peters if the Honda small claims lawsuit ends here. She could take her money and move on with her life. But Honda has the option to appeal — something the Los Angeles Times reports it is considering.

In most states, defendants can appeal a small claims case to a higher court. In California, a small claims appeal is heard by a different Superior Court judge. Different rules apply during an appeal, which means parties may bring in expensive attorneys.

The possibility of an appeal is thus something you should seriously consider when filing a small claims case against a corporation or someone with money. The stakes are small, but an appeal can be used to bully you into settling for a smaller amount.

But don’t worry about Heather Peters. The former attorney appears fit to handle a Honda small claims appeal.

Related Resources:

• Woman wins small-claims suit over Honda hybrid mpg (Associated Press)
• Small-Claims Court (FindLaw)
• When to Opt-Out of Class Action and Go to Small Claims (FindLaw’s Law & Daily Life)

Pfizer recalled about 1 million packets of birth-control pills because of a mix-up that could lead to unwanted pregnancies. The recalled products — Lo/Ovral-28 and generic Norgestrel/Ethinyl Estradiol — may not contain enough contraceptive to be effective, the Associated Press reports.

There are no health risks linked to the mix-up, Pfizer says. But some litigation attorneys foresee lawsuits linked to unexpected pregnancies that could net millions of dollars in damages.

“I think you potentially may see some very significant verdicts [if a woman gets pregnant],” New Jersey attorney Greg Gianforcaro told Fox News, “because in essence a person takes birth control pills so they don’t have to address issues that — as a result of the pill not working — they’re now going to have to address.”

Potential Pfizer birth-control lawsuits could be similar to botched vasectomy lawsuits in which women sued after becoming pregnant, Gianforcaro told Fox. In one such case involving a special-needs child, the parents sued for $650 million, he said.

In another case, a woman successfully sued a pharmacist after an error in filling her birth-control prescription led to an unexpected pregnancy, Harvard bioethicist I. Glenn Cohen told LiveScience.com.

Plaintiffs who become pregnant because of Pfizer’s birth-control mix-up could pursue a lawsuit to make Pfizer pay some of the costs of rearing the unexpected child, Gianforcaro said.

But Pfizer could also mount a defense. “There has to be proof that the person who got pregnant actually took the birth control pills, or there’s the fact that having children could be associated with inherent benefits that outweigh the costs,” Gianforcaro said.

Pfizer declined to comment about the potential for birth-control lawsuits. If you’re considering such a move, you may want to speak with an attorney about the best way to proceed in your specific situation.

Related Resources:

• Defective Birth Control Could Spur Big Lawsuits for Pfizer (LiveScience.com)
• Pfizer Birth Control Recall: 1M Packets May Not Prevent Pregnancy (FindLaw’s Common Law)
• Defective and Dangerous Products – Legal Issues (FindLaw)
• Browse Product Liability Lawyers by Location (FindLaw)

The body of the victim, who was not identified, was pulled Tuesday from a truck that got caught in a series of crashes on Interstate 75, CNN reports. Thick smoke from a brush fire blew across I-75 near Gainesville early Sunday, and drivers were blinded.

At least 12 cars, six tractor-trailers, and a motor home were involved in the crashes, Fox News reports. Some survivors and victims’ relatives are blaming state troopers for the accidents, and perhaps even a possible arsonist.

It’s not yet clear what sparked the brush fire that caused the Florida highway crash, and arson has not been ruled out. If the fire was intentionally set, the arsonist could face manslaughter and even felony murder charges, legal experts told Fox News.

Felony murder occurs when a death results from a perpetrator’s participation in a felony, such as arson.

But survivors are also pointing fingers at the Florida Highway Patrol. Troopers had closed I-75 for three hours because of dangerously low visibility Sunday, but reopened the highway about 3:30 a.m., a Highway Patrol spokesman told Fox News.

About 15 minutes later, the deadly crashes began.

Survivors and victims’ relatives may be considering civil lawsuits against the state in the wake of the Florida highway crashes. If so, they’ll need to consider Florida’s laws about suing state troopers.

Like many states, Florida law limits the government’s liability in tort actions. For example, a Florida state agency can only pay damage awards of up to $200,000 or $300,000, depending on the circumstances; any awards in excess must be approved by the Legislature.

Further, a Florida state trooper cannot be held personally liable for tort actions on the job, unless the trooper acted maliciously or in bad faith, the statute says. Timing is also a factor: Wrongful death claims, for example, must be filed within two years.

Those affected by the deadly Florida highway crash may want to consult a local attorney to ensure their rights are protected as the investigation continues.

Related Resources:

• Fire That Led To Deadly I-75 Crashes May Have Been Arson (Miami’s WFOR-TV)
• Fla. highway patrol defends opening I-75 (The Associated Press)
• State Sovereign Immunity and Tort Liability (National Conference of State Legislatures)
• Who Pays After a Multi-Car Pileup? (FindLaw’s Injured)

Those days are no longer. GIB, the company that makes the popular Brazilian Blowout products has agreed to label their products as potentially carcinogenic. They have also agreed to pay $600,000 in fines. The settlement comes after it was sued by California for violating state laws including statutes against deceptive advertising.

The company will send products to a state-approved lab for further testing. It is also required to send pamphlets to salons to instruct workers about proper safety procedures.

Brazilian Blowout products are used in salons across the nation. It’s a keratin smoothing treatment. Women with unruly hair wishing for smooth tresses flock to beauty parlors for the pricy service. One visit can cost upwards of hundreds of dollars. The products have been a salon staple for the past few years.

It also has some unpleasant side effects. The products can emit the potentially dangerous gas. Individuals exposed to formaldehyde gas can end up suffering symptoms that include irritated eyes, throat, and vomiting. It can even lead to cancer.

Both federal and state laws regulate advertising. Typically, ads deemed deceptive can be subject to penalties including fines. In GIB’s case, the suit was likely spurred partially by the company’s claims that their products were formaldehyde free when they actually aren’t.

The company still plans to market and sell its Brazilian Blowout products — albeit with the new warnings.

So should you dare to get a Brazilian Blowout, formaldehyde warnings be darned? It’s ultimately your decision. Salon workers are likely more at risk. They can be exposed to the product on a daily basis. On the other hand, customers likely only go to beauty parlors once every few months for a treatment.

Related Resources:

• Brazilian Blowout Maker Agrees to Warn Consumers About Formaldehyde (Time)
• Brazilian Blowout’s Cancer Risk from Formaldehyde (FindLaw’s Injured)
• OSHA: Brazilian Blowout Contains Formaldehyde (FindLaw’s Injured)

It’s an issue that is important to many sports-loving Americans. After all, an estimated half of all adult Americans bet on the Super Bowl.

Bets range in terms of size and scope. Some may choose to play in an office pool and buy squares. Others may choose to place sizable sums on a team through sportsbooks.

The aggregate amount of betting on the Super Bowl in 2010 was $82 million in Nevada. This doesn’t even count all the bets occurring in offices and homes across the nation.

This year likely won’t prove too different. Yet some may be surprised to find out that even an innocuous office pool may be illegal. It might even be the reason you get fired. Verizon dismissed six workers in Taunton, Massachusetts in 2011 over their participation in an office Super Bowl pool. The company thought their actions amounted to illegal gambling.

Gambling is illegal in most states. But some states allow an exception for social gambling. Social gambling is usually defined where the betting takes place in a purely social context. The individuals previously know each other. There is also no profit-making involved — as in, no bookies.

So in most cases, casual bets with friends would qualify under the social gambling exception.

It might be wise to check up on your state’s statutes before you whip out your checkbook. Not all jurisdictions have social gambling laws. Remember: Super Bowl gambling can be illegal. So try your best not to break the rules this weekend.

Related Resources:

• State Gambling Laws (FindLaw)
• Online Gambling (If Now Legal) May Be Big in 2012 (FindLaw’s Free Enterprise)
• Super Bowl Seating Lawsuit Should be Tossed, Cowboys Argue (FindLaw’s Tarnished Twenty)
• Court Throws Out CBS’s Janet Jackson Super Bowl ‘Wardrobe Malfunction’ (FindLaw’s Tarnished Twenty)

The unidentified guest stayed at the Luxor in December and fell ill shortly thereafter, the Las Vegas Sun reports. Tests found Legionella bacteria in the Luxor’s water system, which was immediately treated to kill the bacteria.

The Luxor Legionnaires’ death may lead to a lawsuit by the victim’s relatives against the hotel’s owner, MGM Resorts. The company already faces another Legionnaires’ lawsuit from a separate Las Vegas outbreak last summer.

In the summer outbreak, guests contracted Legionnaires’ disease — and later recovered — after staying at the Aria Resort & Casino. Eight guests sued MGM Resorts, Aria’s part-owner, seeking more than $330 million for medical bills, pain and suffering, and a “loss of life’s pleasures.”

The Aria Legionnaires’ lawsuit, which is pending in federal court, alleges properly functioning filtration systems would have kept the bacteria out of the resort’s water system. An MGM spokesman denied the Aria lawsuit’s negligence claim.

Chances are, a similar lawsuit may be filed against MGM in connection with the Luxor Legionnaires’ death. If that happens, the fact that the resort treated its water system after the guest’s sickness likely can’t be used as evidence in court. Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit “subsequent remedial measures” to be used to prove a party’s negligence.

But a potential lawsuit may bring up the fact that there were two other Legionnaires’ infections linked to the Luxor last year. The guests were infected in Spring 2011 and later recovered, according to the Southern Nevada Health District. Tests found no bacterial contamination in the Luxor’s water system at that time, the Associated Press reports.

Related Resources:

• Three Las Vegas Luxor Guests Diagnosed with Legionnaires’ Disease (Las Vegas’ KLAS-TV)
• Las Vegas’ Aria Resort Sued Over Legionnaires’ (FindLaw’s Injured)
• Elements of a Negligence Case (FindLaw)
• Browse Personal Injury Lawyers by Location (FindLaw)

Initiative 502, which supporters call “a new approach to marijuana,” qualified for November’s statewide ballot Friday after a months-long petition drive, Reuters reports. If approved, I-502 would make Washington the first U.S. state to legalize both medical and non-medical pot.

The new pot law would come with limits, however. Here’s what I-502, Washington’s marijuana-legalization initiative, would actually do, according to the New Approach Washington campaign:

• Allow adults 21 and over to legally possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana for any purpose — medicinal or non-medicinal.
• Allow adults 21 and over to legally possess up to 16 ounces (1 pound) of marijuana-infused solid products like cookies and brownies.
• Allow adults 21 and over to legally possess up to 72 ounces (4.5 pounds) of marijuana-infused liquids like teas and lotions.
• Require all marijuana sold in Washington to be produced in-state.
• Require all marijuana to be sold at licensed state-run stores.

Washington’s marijuana legalization initiative would also create a new threshold for marijuana-related DUIs. For adults 18 and over, the limit would be 5 ng/mL of blood concentration of THC, the main psychoactive element in marijuana. For drivers under 18, legal limit would be zero.

I-502′s backers say the proposal will protect medical marijuana patients from being wrongly arrested or prosecuted under Washington’s state laws. But because federal laws make no exception for marijuana, anyone who uses the drug — with a prescription or without — still risks facing federal charges.

Washington’s marijuana legalization initiative isn’t the first — California voters rejected a similar legalization push in 2010. Meantime, pot-legalization advocates are also pushing for a ballot measure in Colorado this fall.

Related Resources:

• Marijuana legalization on the November ballot in Washington state (National Post)
• States Legalize Marijuana, Clash with Federal Government (FindLaw)
• Smoke ‘Legal’ Medical Pot, Still Get Arrested by Feds (FindLaw’s Blotter)
• State Marijuana Laws (FindLaw)

That’s because throwing a party and serving alcohol makes you a social host in the eyes of the law. Under general legal principles, a social host has an obligation to the public to serve alcohol to guests in a safe and responsible manner.

Consequences can be costly.

For example, if one of your Super Bowl guests has too much to drink and gets in a crash while driving home from your party, you may be held liable for any third-party injuries, depending on the laws of your state.

In general, state laws about social hosts call for different types of liability:

• Underage liability: Laws in nine states explicitly hold social hosts liable only for the actions of underage guests — who shouldn’t be served alcohol anyway.
• All-ages liability: Another 18 states hold social hosts liable for all guests’ actions, regardless of age. But some states like Connecticut provide for harsher penalties when the guest is under 21.
• General negligence: With or without an explicit social host liability law, a host can still face legal consequences under a general theory of negligence. This happens when a social host knows or should know that a guest is intoxicated and will soon get behind the wheel, but does nothing to stop the guest from driving drunk.

Again, each state’s law is different. Check out FindLaw’s Social Host Liability page to see the laws that apply where you live. If you’re still confused, you may want to consult a local attorney before one of your Super Bowl guests gets drunk and commits a major party foul.

Related Resources:

• Police offer Super Bowl party kits to prevent drunken driving (The Plain Dealer)
• Practicing Your Serve: A Look At “Social Host” Liability (FindLaw)
• Social Host Liability (FindLaw)
• Browse DUI / DWI Lawyers by Location (FindLaw)

British tourists Leigh Van Bryan, 26, and Emily Bunting, 24, were stopped at Los Angeles International Airport last week after going through customs. Agents arrested the pair and interrogated them for 12 hours.

They were then deported over Twitter jokes.

Those jokes were made by Bryan, who tweeted at a friend, “Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America?”

He was trying to make plans before he went on vacation. “Destroy” is slang for “party,” according to the New York Times.

Federal agents didn’t believe his explanation, or that he didn’t really plan to be “diggin’ Marilyn Monroe up” while here, reports ABC News. Investigators apparently asked Bunting if she was going to be Bryan’s lookout while he went for the body.

Okay, so you probably already knew that the Department of Homeland Security lacks a sense of humor. But how did it find these joking Tweets?

No one knows, but the department does have an office that focuses on “Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness.” It’s also working on an application that would scan social media for certain key words and phrases, according to the New York Times.

Though U.S. citizens can’t be deported over Twitter jokes, they can be hauled in for questioning if picked up by this scanning application. So be careful what you Tweet or share on social media.

Related Resources:

• Lost In Translation: Because Of Twitter Joke, Brits Denied Entry To U.S. (NPR)
• Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination (FindLaw)
• Is Homeland Security Watching You Online? (FindLaw’s Technologist)