Had Alexander the Great gone to series instead of just being a passed over pilot and footnote in many recognizable actors filmographies, it seems likely the series would've had William Shatner's Alexander continue his conquest of the Persian Empire. The pilot is this strange mix of occasional action, Greek generals arguing, and battle footage from Italian epics. The Utah location shooting is great, but director Karlson's bad at the direction. John Cassavetes, Joseph Cotten, and Simon Oakland play the arguing generals. They can argue. But Robert Pirosh and William Robert Yates's teleplay is lacking.
And there's nothing to be done about integrating that battle footage. If Alexander the Great is going to be talking heads, which Karlson definitely directs better than the action, the action is going to have to be spectacular. And it's not. There's some tension with it in the original footage, but the reused stuff? The pilot doesn't get any mileage out of it.
Cassavetes is pretty cool as this disagreeable young general. By cool, I mean he's good at the yelling. His character yells. Cotten's character counsels. Cotten's good at the counseling. But the pilot doesn't really know what to do with Shatner. It's called Alexander the Great and everyone's a lot more comfortable dealing with Cassavetes's hurt feelings. Shatner's appealing and he manages to get through the overdone dialogue, but he's got no character.
He's got a love interest–Ziva Rodann–and a sidekick–Adam West–but Pirosh and Yates don't give either any attention in the script. Rodann's biggest scene is with Cotten and West is part of the set decoration. Though he gets enough closeups to suggest he'd played a bigger part in the series.
It's a long fifty minutes. The recycled battle footage and some red herrings drag it out too. It's kind of too bad, for Alexander, but good for the rest of us it didn't get picked up.
Directed by Phil Karlson; teleplay by Robert Pirosh and William Robert Yates, based on a story by Pirosh; director of photography, Lester Shorr; music by Leonard Rosenman; produced by Albert McCleery; aired by the American Broadcasting Company.
Starring William Shatner (Alexander), Joseph Cotten (Antigonus), John Cassavetes (Karonos), Adam West (Cleander), Simon Oakland (Attalos), Ziva Rodann (Ada), John Doucette (Kleitos), Robert Fortier (Aristander), Peter Hansen (Tauron), and Cliff Osmond (Memnon).
Director Malle sets up The Fire Within as a series of events. They don't feel like events–or even vignettes–because protagonist Maurice Ronet is so transfixing. As the film progresses and the viewer gets to know Ronet better, gets to understand him better, Fire changes. The film is always about Ronet's plans, Ronet's actions and how the viewer anticipates them, but once it becomes clear he's not in control… Well, it doesn't just change the last third of the film, it changes the first two-thirds of it as well.
Ronet is a recovering alcoholic. He can't get out of his recovery clinic. The first third of the film, after beautifully establishing his normal days by showing an abnormal one (visiting with his lover–and his absentee wife's friend–played by Léna Skerla), is mostly just Ronet by himself. Fire is about monotony but never monotonous. Malle has to establish Ronet's routines to best break them later.
The majority of the film takes place during Ronet's day trip to Paris. He's suicidal, saying goodbye to friends from his old life as an amiable, popular Parisian drunk. He's not an artist, but he's friends with artists. He's not an intellectual, but he's friends with intellectuals.
Fire is simultaneously an exploration of Ronet's alcoholism (after the fact) and the society he's abandoned. Malle's able to juxtapose the two so successfully because of the film's structure–Ronet moves from conversation to conversation, person to person, moment to moment. It wouldn't work without the gorgeous black and white photography from Ghislain Cloquet but, technically, the marvel is Suzanne Baron's editing. Whether cuts between scenes or cuts between shots, Baron brings a calm to even the most hectic moments. Given Malle frequently cuts to closer shots to emphasis Ronet, then out again to longer ones (though never too long, even outdoors), Baron's ability to maintain that tranquility is even more impressive.
Acting-wise, Ronet is the whole show. He's surrounded by great performances, but they're all in small parts. Jeanne Moreau is wonderful, but it's basically a cameo. Same goes for Bernard Noël. They're great, but they're great because Ronet's so great. The chemistry between the actors, how Malle has a slightly different style for each interaction, all while maintaining a particular deliberateness.
The Fire Within devastates, but it's also glorious in its intensity. It's relentless and breathtaking.
Directed by Louis Malle; screenplay by Malle, based on a novel by Pierre Drieu La Rochelle; director of photography, Ghislain Cloquet; edited by Suzanne Baron; production designer, Bernard Evein; released by Lux Compagnie Cinématographique de France.
Starring Maurice Ronet (Alain Leroy), Jean-Paul Moulinot (Dr. La Barbinais), Bernard Noël (Dubourg), Jeanne Moreau (Eva), Alexandra Stewart (Solange) and Léna Skerla (Lydia).
I'm not sure what's strangest about An Actor's Revenge, but my leading two candidates are Ichikawa's direction, which intentionally tries to make it feel stagy, or Mochizuki Tamekichi and Yagi Masao's score, which alternates between jazzy and melodramatic. Both make Revenge a peculiar viewing experience and, while Ichikawa definitely has some talent as a director, his approach puts the film's narrative back a bit. There's always artifice.
The story is appropriate for stage, of course. Hasegawa Kazuo is an actor–the greatest female impersonator in Japan–who comes to a city on tour. Only he's secretly there to extract his revenge on some bad guys who led to his parents' deaths (through greed). Supposedly Hasegawa has a plan, but the way Wada Natto's script is constructed, it never really matters. It does matter the viewer never finds out about it because it would inform Hasegawa's character, but it doesn't matter for the narrative. Wada serves up more and more melodrama until it all shakes it through coincidence.
There's some good acting in the film–Yamamoto Fujiko is great as a local thief who falls in love with Hasegawa, but he's already romancing the daughter of one of his targets, played by Wakao Ayako. When the film's dealing with Wakao and Hasegawa, it feels like Shakespeare and Ichikawa's stylistic choices make more sense. When it's dealing with Yamamoto and the other thieves–this city is beset with thieves who give to the poor–it feels like slapstick. Ichikawa does a better job with the thieves, even though they're pointless.
They shouldn't be pointless either, as Hasegawa also plays the master thief. Is there some great comment on duality? No. An Actor's Revenge is actually at its most interesting in why Hasegawa, as the actor, picked female impersonator, but no one dwells on it, not Ichikawa's direction or Wada's script.
A lot of Nishida Shigeo's editing is fantastic. Kobayashi Setsuo does well with all the stylistic lighting. It's visually stunning maybe fifteen percent of the time, but Ichikawa doesn't do anything with it. He alternates between visually stunning and over-stylized to visually boring and over-stylized.
There are a lot of good pieces to An Actor's Revenge, but they were poorly assembled.
Directed by Ichikawa Kon; screenplay by Wada Natto, based on a script by Itô Daisuke and Kinguasa Teinosuke and a newspaper serial by Mikami Otokichi; director of photography, Kobayashi Setsuo; edited by Nishida Shigeo; music by Mochizuki Tamekichi and Yagi Masao; production designer, Nishioka Yoshinobu; produced by Nagata Masaichi; released by Daiei Studios.
Starring Hasegawa Kazuo (Yukinojo the Actor / Yamitaro the Thief), Yamamoto Fujiko (Ohatsu), Wakao Ayako (Namiji), Funakoshi Eiji (Kadokura Heima), Hayashi Narutoshi (Mukuzu), Yanagi Eijirô (Hiromi-ya), Ichikawa Chûsha (Nakamura Kikunojo), Date Saburô (Kawaguchi-ya) and Nakamura Ganjirô (Dobe).
Once you get past Jeffrey Hunter (at thirty-seven) playing a character about fifteen years younger–and some other significant bumps, Seven Miles of Bad Road isn't entirely bad. It shouldn't be entirely bad, even with those bumps, but it's an episode of "The Chrysler Theatre," shot on limited sets with limited imagination from director Heyes.
Heyes also wrote the teleplay, which tries real hard. Heyes is talking about big issues–he's talking about men, women, post-war, youth, age, responsibility, regret. There's subtext about race and class and all sorts of things. Heyes doesn't know how to direct any of it. He doesn't know how to direct his actors. Neville Brand–as Eleanor Parker's abusive husband–is simultaneously good and bad in the part.
The overbearing Jerry Goldsmith music doesn't help.
Parker and Hunter have their problems due to Heyes's direction, but they're effective. Parker's got a couple fantastic scenes.
Written and directed by Douglas Heyes; "The Chrysler Theatre" executive produced by Roy Huggins; music by Jerry Goldsmith; produced by Richard Berg; aired by the National Broadcasting Company.
Starring Eleanor Parker (Fern Selman), Jeffrey Hunter (Gabe Flanders), Neville Brand (Sheriff Rufus Selman), James Anderson (Bert) and Bernie Hamilton (Joe).


url: if the result page is in different page than the one this shortcode is used, that parameters allow to redirect on an other page and hide the result on the page you use that shortcode.
This shortcode have to be use for let the customer have the access to the search form, detail job and then apply, so the customer apply for one job.
[jobsearch_apply] shown only the apply form, it allow the customer to apply without choosing job.
It's possible to put one shortcode on one page and the other one on another page.
url: let the widget know where it have to redirect the customer when he click on one job.
On the admin panel, you can set up the parameter to choose from how many time you want to show the 10 latest jobs.
that example will filter the job who are published the last 5 days.
On the admin panel, you can set up the parameter to choose the job category you want to show .
tag: tag id you want to use for filter.


Camp Otterbein places the upmost importance on safety. All activities are led by trained staff. A lifeguard is present for all aquatic activities and life jackets are always worn outside of the swimming area. Climbing, high ropes, and zip line are led by staff who have undergone a site specific facilitator training and the course and equipment are regularly inspected.


Decades after the fall of communism, the Baltic countries of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia remain a mystery to most travellers. We're not complaining, though; more mystery means fewer crowds and an easier time getting to know these fantastic countries. Beginning in charming cobblestoned Vilnius and... Read MoreDecades after the fall of communism, the Baltic countries of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia remain a mystery to most travellers. We're not complaining, though; more mystery means fewer crowds and an easier time getting to know these fantastic countries. Beginning in charming cobblestoned Vilnius and ending in beautiful Helsinki, this two-week trip gets to the very heart of the region. Get an up-close glimpse of Riga's castles and art district, experience rural life in Estonia, and venture into the fortresses and medieval architecture of Tallinn before crossing to Finland by ferry. Make the Baltics your special travel secret.


text:
Labor Law Pointers - Volume I, No. 3
Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012
Labor Law Pointers
Volume I, No. 3
A Monthly Electronic Newsletter Addressing
New York State Labor Law
Decisions and Trends
From the Editor:
We have all survived the holiday season around here and are back, nose to the grindstone, analyzing Labor Law cases for our own enjoyment (both personal and professional), and in an attempt to disseminate our take on these new cases to all of you.
I hope each of you had an enjoyable holiday, celebrating in whatever fashion suits your fancy. That would include, of course, those of you who choose to celebrate with the traditional airing of grievances and feats of strength made famous by Frank Costanza.
I would like to welcome our new subscribers this month and hope that you are able to find something enlightening and useful in this and every issue. I was once told that if I was able to find, retain and use one bit of practical and useful information from a seminar I attended, or provide one to each attendee when I was speaking, that it was a good day. I always thought that was setting the bar a bit low for those where I attended and a bit high for those where I presented. That said, I hope we are providing both useful information and practical tips which will help all of you in defending Labor Law cases.
For our third issue in a row we are able to lead off with a Court of Appeals decision. While not as large a departure as in the past two issues, it is none the less an important case.
A common theme through the cases analyzed below seems to be the need to establish the interrelationship between the safety device being used, misused or not used, and the task the worker was assigned to accomplish. In Ortiz and Charney below, the court did not grant Summary Judgment to either party, as neither had provided evidence that the task undertaken by the plaintiff created a risk which should or could be addressed with the use of a safety device enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1).
I hope you enjoy this issue. As always, feel free to call or email with any questions. I really do like talking to people about Labor Law, it seems to have become a bit of an obsession. As the Doobie Brothers once said "What were once vices are now habits." I do not think they ever in their wildest dreams would have imagined that anyone would apply that album title to an area of the law but for me, and I imagine for some of you, it fits.
As always, if you intend to print this newsletter to read it please print the attached version as it will print better for you. I include the entire newsletter in the email as several of you have indicated that it is easier to read in this format on your hand held devices but for those of you who like to print and read from paper, the attachment works much better. Again, if you want to distribute to anyone who you think would enjoy reading the issue feel free, that is why we send it out. Anyone wishing to subscribe just send me an email at [email protected] and I will gladly add you to the subscription list.
Happy New Year to all and I will be back in February.
David R. Adams
Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.
Suite 1300 Liberty Building
H&F Website: www.hurwitzfine.com
Labor Law Pointers is published the first Wednesday of each month. If you know of others who may wish to subscribe to this free publication, please feel free to forward it. If you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe, please send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the Editor/Labor Law Team Leader David R. Adams directly at (716) 849-8900.
Labor Law Section 240(1)
by: David R. Adams
12/20/2011 Ortiz v Varsity Holdings
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_09161.htm
Plaintiff was doing demolition work and, along with co-workers, putting debris into a dumpster. When the dumpster became full the plaintiff and his co-workers climbed up onto the dumpster via the attached ladder and began to rearrange the debris in the dumpster to make more room. As plaintiff stood on the top of the dumpster, with either one or both feet on the top of the dumpster, a ledge approximately eight inches wide, he lost his balance and fell to the ground about six feet below. Per the plaintiff's testimony, he was instructed to undertake this task and that the only way to do it was to stand on the ledge while putting heavy debris into the open areas of the dumpster.
The trial court granted defendant's motion for Summary Judgment and the court below (Second Department) affirmed but granted plaintiff leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals modified, finding a question of fact as to the defendant's motion for Summary Judgment and the plaintiff's cross-motion for Summary Judgment.
The defendant argued that the type of risk associated with loading a dumpster is not the type of elevation risk that the safety devices listed in Section 240(1) protect against. Defendant proposed that the risks associated with loading a dumpster are akin to the risks associated with descending from a flatbed trailer or similar surface, a four- to five-foot descent, which do not create the type of elevation associated risk that triggers the protections afforded to workers in Labor Law Section 240(1). The plaintiff argued that, in fact, it did.
The Court unanimously held that, based on the fact available for review, a question of fact existed as to whether the task plaintiff was expected to perform was the type of elevation risk that the safety devices listed in Labor Law § 240(1) protect workers from.
In language we are all familiar with from Rodriguez, the Court reaffirms that in deciding these cases "the practical differences between the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site, and ...the extraordinary elevation risks envisioned by Labor Law Section 240(1)" must be taken into account." Thus, the Court ruled, while a worker is expected to protect himself while stepping down from a flatbed truck, the instant case is distinguishable in that the task here required him to stand on the lip of the dumpster which was only eight inches wide and six feet off the ground, there was no evidence provided by the defendant that it was necessary for the plaintiff to assume this position to accomplish the task, and that no safety device of the kind enumerated in 240(1) would have prevented the fall. Thus, the Court held, they cannot say, as a matter of law, that equipment of the kind enumerated in Section 240(1) was not necessary to guard the plaintiff from the risk of falling.
The Court, in addressing the plaintiff's Summary Judgment motion, held that the plaintiff had not established that in order to carry out the task assigned to him it was necessary for him to stand on the lip of the dumpster and that there is a safety device of the kind enumerated in Section 240(1) which could have prevented the fall. The failure of the plaintiff to provide such evidence created a question of fact as to his Summary Judgment motion.
The Court unanimously found, viewing the proof in the light most favorable to the non-moving party in each instance, that neither party had established their right to Summary Judgment and upheld the denial of the plaintiff's Summary Judgment motion and modified to find a question of fact as to the defendant's Summary Judgment motion.
PRACTICE POINT: This case points out the necessity of all parties to have admissible evidence linking the task being performed by the plaintiff to a safety devise enumerated in Section 240(1). Absent such proof in a case where there is any question of the necessity of a safety device, it seems the best the moving party can hope for is a question of fact.
12/20/2011 Melchor v Singh
Appellate Division, Second Department
Plaintiff, while laying bricks under an air conditioner, fell from a ladder and was injured. The extension ladder the plaintiff was standing on had "old and worn feet", was not secured, no one was holding the ladder, and the plaintiff had placed blocks at the feet to prevent it from moving. The bottom of the ladder then slid away from the house and the plaintiff was caused to fall. The accident was not witnessed. The trial court denied plaintiff's Summary Judgment motion, finding questions of fact as to whether the plaintiff fell from the ladder and how he fell, if indeed he fell.
The Second Department wrote, in a reiteration of the current status of the case law, "to establish liability under Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendants violated the statute and that this violation was a proximate cause of his injuries. If the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries, liability under Labor Law § 240(1) does not attach. Where a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) is a proximate cause of an accident, the plaintiff's conduct, of necessity, cannot be deemed the sole proximate cause."
This is important as the cases have uniformly, over the past several years during the rise of the sole proximate cause defense, held that even where the plaintiff places the ladder, that if the ladder is not properly placed it is a violation of the Labor Law and, thus, nothing the plaintiff did could be considered the sole proximate cause and the violation must be, as a matter of law, a proximate cause of the accident. Thus, nothing else, including the plaintiff's actions, could ever be considered the sole proximate cause of the accident.
This would seem to be circular logic, as it generally the plaintiff who improperly placed the ladder in the first instance. This point would seem to me made taking a line from Blake, 1 NY3d at 290, cited by the Court in this decision, "Conversely, if the plaintiff is solely to blame for the injury, it necessarily means that there has been no statutory violation". The question is repeatedly asked of me by clients and carriers as to how these seemingly opposite statements can be read together as establishing liability under 240(1); where the plaintiff did, in fact, place the ladder, how is it that the plaintiff is not solely to blame for his own injury when he was the one who placed the ladder?
The answer, which I have argued against several times, seems to be that no matter who placed the ladder, the fact that it was misplaced in the first instance stops any further inquiry as to how or why it was misplaced and liability is established as long as it was this misplacement of the ladder which caused the ladder to shift or move causing the plaintiff to fall. This has been the result in cases unlike this case where the ladder was not defective in any way and it simply shifted causing the plaintiff to fall.
The facts of this case made it relatively easy for the Second Department to rule in plaintiff's favor, as he claims to have informed his employer of the issues with the ladder, asked for someone to hold the ladder, and asked for sand bags to secure the bottom of the ladder. None of these requests resulted in any assistance being given to the plaintiff.
Defendant attempted to argue that an un-witnessed accident created questions of fact as to the manner in which the plaintiff was injured and, thus, created a question of fact precluding the award of Summary Judgment to the plaintiff. The Court held that this does not, on its own, preclude the awarding of Summary Judgment to the plaintiff and that the defendant must have more than speculation as to how the accident occurred to prevent the award of Summary Judgment to the plaintiff. I have been doing this long enough to remember when that argument would have been successful, but it has not worked for many years.
PRACTICE POINT: It seems that a large percentage of the Labor Law cases which come across my desk are falls from ladders. In these cases, it is important initially to establish that the ladder itself was not defective, and then to move on to the exact manner in which the plaintiff fell from the ladder. Obtaining the ladder or at least photos of the ladder is a good practice. Careful examination of the plaintiff during depositions as to the exact cause of the plaintiff falling from the ladder is also crucial to establishing a sole proximate cause defense.
12/23/2011 Kirbis v LP Ciminelli
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_09480.htm
This case from the Fourth Department also addresses a situation where a plaintiff falls from a ladder. Plaintiff was standing on a six-foot step ladder from which he fell. Plaintiff claimed that the ladder bucked or twisted causing him to fall. There was no claim in this case that the ladder was not structurally sound. The Court held that "evidence that the ladder was structurally sound and not defective is not relevant on the issue of whether it was properly placed . . ., and defendant's contention that plaintiff fell because [he may have misused the ladder] is based upon mere conjecture and thus is insufficient to defeat plaintiff['s] motion".
The Court rules that a structurally sound ladder which shifts causing the plaintiff to fall must have done so due to improper placement, violating 240(1) and thus eliminating the possibility that plaintiff's actions could have been the sole proximate cause of the accident.
Again, here the Court dismissed the argument that Summary Judgment was not appropriate as the accident was un-witnessed. Additionally the defendant argued that as discovery was not yet complete that the Summary Judgment motion was premature. The court held that to oppose a Summary Judgment motion claiming that further discovery is necessary, the defendant must have more than speculation as to what may be discovered and, as stated by the court, that defendant must establish that "facts essential to justify opposition to the motion may exist but cannot then be stated."
12/22/2011 Gatto v Clifton Park
Appellate Division, Third Department
Plaintiff was taping drywall seams on a construction project when one of the stilts he was using to reach the nine-foot ceiling failed due to a bolt breaking, causing him to fall and sustain injury. Plaintiff, as well as other witnesses, agreed that stilts of the sort utilized by plaintiff were commonly used by tapers, and that the stilts were "ideal," "typical" and "appropriate" for the task undertaken by plaintiff. All also agreed that the plaintiff was using the appropriate safety device to do the task he was assigned.
In this case, the Third Department affirmed the ruling of the trial court below that there was a violation of 240(1) based on the failure of the safety device, the stilt which broke, and that, as there was a violation of the Labor Law, no action of the plaintiff could therefore be the sole proximate cause of the accident.
PRACTICE POINT: Where a safety device fails, even when it is the appropriate safety device, there is established a violation of the Labor Law precluding the sole proximate cause defense.
12/6/2011 Charney v LeChase
Plaintiff was employed demolishing the Finger Lakes Arts Center as part of a crew removing a steel canopy over the stage. They were cutting the steel beams and attaching a sling to the steel to be lifted and removed by a crane. The plan was to cut part way through the beam, attach the sling and attach the sling to the crane. Plaintiff had cut part way through the beam, attached the sling and was waiting for the crane when he returned to the floor of the stage to retrieve tools while waiting for the crane. Plaintiff heard noise above and, realizing that the steel beam was going to fall, jumped off the stage about four feet to avoid being struck by the falling beam. Plaintiff was injured when he landed in a pile of debris.
The trial court denied plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgment and granted defendant's Summary Judgment motions dismissing the complaint. The case was appealed to the Fourth Department. The Fourth Department held that the trial court properly denied plaintiff's Summary Judgment motion, but that Defendant's Summary Judgment motion should not have been granted. While the Court agrees that a plaintiff working on a stable surface only four feet off the ground does not create a situation requiring the use of safety devices, it finds that the defendants also potentially face liability for the collapse of the structural steel canopy, to the extent the accident causing plaintiff's injuries was elevation related.
The court was not, on the record, able to determine if the cause of the collapse of the canopy was a failure to have in place an appropriate safety device like those enumerated in 240(1), or if the cause of the beam falling was not related to any failure to use those safety devices.
PRACTICE POINT: Again, the importance to the moving party of associating, or disassociating, the safety devices enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) to the accident and injury cannot be over emphasized. The use of an expert to establish this nexus is generally money well spent.
12/30/2011 Baker v City of Buffalo
In another case addressing the "usual and ordinary" dangers faced by workers on construction sites, the plaintiff was climbing through a hole in the wall when his pants became caught, causing him to fall from the opening to the floor causing injury. The court held that the act of climbing through a hole to gain access to a room where construction was being done was "not the extraordinary elevation risks envisioned by Labor Law § 240 (1)".
PRACTICE POINT: It is important to note that there is no mention of the distance the plaintiff fell from the hole in the wall and I would not count on the same outcome if the hole in the wall was 20 feet in the air, as that may well be exactly the type of elevation related risk the court is looking for.
12/30/2011 DiPalma v State of New York
Plaintiff was injured when a skid box which was filled with concrete debris slid off the forks of a lift truck, fell about one to two feet and struck the plaintiff. The case was bifurcated and tried on liability only and a verdict was reached for the plaintiff regarding liability under Labor Law § 240(1).
The defendant argued, among other issues, that the height differential of one to two feet does not create liability under 240(1).
The Fourth Department, citing the recent Court of Appeals cases of Wilinski (a pipe tipping over from the same base level as the plaintiff, as reported on last month in this newsletter http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_07477.htm) and Runner (plaintiff lowering a spool of wire down 4 steps with a rope, http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_09310.htm), held that in spite of the one to two foot height differential, the fact that the skid box was heavy and thus the potential harm it could cause, that the height differential was not de minimis.
The recent cases, especially Wilinski, have eliminated any minimum elevation differential necessary to create liability when a falling object is involved.
by: Jennifer A. Ehman
12/30/11 DiPalma v. State of New York
Plaintiff was injured when a "skid box" containing concrete debris slid off a forklift and struck him. Plaintiff alleged a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (b), pursuant to which "[d]ebris shall be handled and disposed of by methods that will not endanger any person employed in the area of such disposal or any person lawfully frequenting such area."
In affirming the Court of Claims decision that defendant was liable under 241(6), the Fourth Department held that plaintiff was injured while in the process of removing debris and, contrary to defendant's contention, it was not necessary for plaintiff to have been struck by debris for the regulation to apply. With that said, according to the Court, there was still evidence that plaintiff was in fact struck by debris that fell out of the skid box, in addition to being struck by the skid box itself.
Take Away: The interesting part of this decision is the Court's determination that the regulation can be violated even if the plaintiff was not actually struck by debris.
12/30/11 Byrd v. Roneker
Plaintiff fell from a ladder while cutting a tree limb at a single-family home owned by defendant. Defendant hired a contractor to repair the roof and the contractor, in turn, hired plaintiff. Labor Law § 241(6) exempts from liability owners of one- and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work.
In reversing the trial court, and dismissing plaintiff's complaint, the Fourth Department held that direction or control is not present if the owner informs the worker what work should be performed, but there is direction and control if the owner specifies how the work should be performed. Here, while there was evidence defendant instructed plaintiff to cut down the tree limb, there was no proof that defendant told him how to perform the work or provided him any tools or equipment. Further, the Court held that the defendant's instruction that plaintiff cut the limb at the base was not sufficient control. According to the Court, it was no different than telling an electrician where outlets should be installed without telling him how to install them.
Also, plaintiff failed to establish a commercial purpose. Merely because defendant was getting the roof repaired on the advice of a realtor who intended to list the property, it did not make the work a commercial purpose.
12/30/11 Baker v. City of Buffalo
Plaintiff was injured when he climbed through an opening that had been cut through a wall for the purpose of gaining access to the room where he was working. Plaintiff's pant leg snagged on rebar, mesh or jagged concrete protruding from the ledge of the opening, causing him to jerk backward and fall to the floor. Interestingly, the court held that plaintiff's fall was not caused by a tripping hazard (a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1) and (2)); however, it was possible that the fall was caused by a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(f). This provision applies to vertical passages and provides that "[s]tairways, ramps or runways shall be provided as the means of access to working levels above or below ground except where the nature or the progress of the work prevents their installation, in which case ladders or other safe means of access shall be provided."
TAKE AWAY: It is hard to tell from the facts provided exactly what type of work the plaintiff was performing that was above or below ground, as required by the regulation.
12/23/11 Charney v. LeChase Construction
Where plaintiff was injured when he jumped into a pile of debris while escaping from a collapsing structural steel canopy, the court found a trial issue of fact as to whether 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 was violated. This provision requires that steel construction shall be demolished column length by column length and floor by floor.
12/20/11 Pacheco v. Halstead Communications, Ltd.
Plaintiff fell from a ladder while installing a satellite dish on the defendant's home. The court held that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that defendant's home was not a one- or two-family dwelling or that it was used for a commercial purpose.
12/20/11 Melchor v. Singh
In another ladder case, plaintiff fell while laying bricks. Plaintiff testified that the ladder had old and worn feet. The ladder was not secured and no one was holding it. Also, plaintiff had apparently placed small blocks at the bottom of the ladder to prevent it from moving. This was an un-witnessed accident.
In reversing the trial court and granting plaintiff Summary Judgment on Section 241(6), the court found that plaintiff's testimony established violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(3)(iv) [a ladder shall not be used if it has any flaw or defect of material that may cause ladder failure]; 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(4)(ii) [all ladder footing shall be firm and slippery surfaces and insecure objects such bricks and boxes shall not be used as ladder footings]; and 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(4)(iv) [when work is being performed on ladder rungs between 6 and 10 feet, a leaning ladder shall be held in place by a person stationed at the foot of ladder, unless the upper end is secured].
Labor Law Section 200 and Common Law Negligence
by: V. Christopher Potenza
With 2011 now behind us, it appears that everything old is new again, at least as it pertains to Labor Law § 200. In fact, a whole list of clichés can be used to describe 2011's final Labor Law § 200 recap. The more things change, the more they stay the same… It's déjà vu all over again…. meet the new boss, same as the old boss….
Labor Law § 200 codifies the obligation of owners and contractors to provide workers with a safe place to work. There is a two-prong analysis to establish a claim for negligence/Labor Law § 200, as a plaintiff must: (1) establish that those charged with liability either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition; or (2) establish that a defendant had supervision and control over the work being performed to correct or avoid the unsafe condition.
December's decisions do not alter this landscape at all.
12/6/11 Vella v. One Bryant Park, LLC
Plaintiff fell on an allegedly defective stair during the construction of a skyscraper. Because the plaintiff, a site-safety inspector, had reported the defective stair at a safety meeting prior to his fall, the Court found an issue of fact on constructive notice and whether the owner knew or should have known of the hazard.
12/6/11 Szczepanski v. Dandrea Construction Corp.
Plaintiff fell from a beam while constructing a new home. The Court found an issue of fact as to whether the homeowner defendant, who was also the sole owner of the general contractor, had authority to supervise or control plaintiff's work.
Plaintiff fell while installing a satellite dish at a single-family home. The Labor Law § 200 claim against the homeowners was dismissed as there was no evidence the homeowners had authority to exercise supervisory control over plaintiff's work.
A rare win in the Fourth Department for the defense, as the Court reversed the trial court and dismissed the Labor Law § 200 claim against defendant homeowner. Plaintiff fell from a ladder while cutting a tree limb at a single-family home. The Fourth Department held that the defendant homeowner established as a matter of law that he did not exercise supervisory control over plaintiff's work and that he neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition that caused the accident, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact.
Proving once again that 200 cases are quite fact specific, the Fourth Department held that although defendant general contractor established that it did not supervise or control plaintiff's work, there are triable issues of fact as to whether it had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition on the premises that caused plaintiff's injuries.
That's all the 200 news that's fit to print this month. Happy New Year!
Indemnity Issues in Labor Law
by: Steven E. Peiper
12/27/11 Simone v. Liebherr Cranes, Inc.
In this action, Beys Contracting ("Beys") sought an award of contractual indemnification from third-party defendant Resun Leasing, Inc. ("Resun"). Resun appears to have opposed the demand by arguing that neither it, or its subcontractors, were negligent.
In affirming the trial court, the Second Department started by reviewing the language of the indemnity clause at issue. Upon review, the Court noted that Resun was obligated to indemnify Beys so long as the loss was "caused in whole or in part by any act or omission of the Subcontract." Where there was no obligation in the contract that the acts or omissions be negligent, any argument that Resun (or its subcontractors) was free of negligence was irrelevant. Accordingly, because the incident arose from the work of Resun's contractors, the protections of the indemnity clause were triggered.
As noted above, this incident arose from the collapse of a steel canopy. As part of this litigation, defendants moved for Summary Judgment against Contour Erection ("Contour") pursuant to an indemnity clause found within the Contour contract.
In modifying the trial court's decision, the Fourth Department notes that any provision that purports to provide indemnification for a negligent party is void by operation of General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. The Court also notes, however, that an indemnity clause can be saved from the reaches of the GOL by simply inserting the term of art "to the fullest extent permitted by law." The inclusion of such language then requires the Court (or the jury) to make a determination as to the active negligence of the purported indemnitee. If negligence is found, then no indemnity right will exist for that portion of liability attributable to the negligent conduct of the party seeking indemnification.
12/20/11 Great American Insurance Companies v. Bearcat Financial Services, Inc.
Appellate Division, First Department
Great American commenced this action, in part, against third-party defendant Hayes as a result of Hayes' own wrongdoing. In response, Hayes commenced a third-party action seeking common law indemnification against another party, Dresdner. Dresdner moved to dismiss the common law claim on the basis that the main-party action filed by Great American only sought to recover for actions committed solely by Hayes. Accordingly, where the only basis for liability against Hayes was his own liability, it was impossible for a claim of common law indemnification to ripen.
Interesting enough standing alone, but the fact that Hayes' counsel was actually sanctioned as a result of bringing the third-party action makes this decision especially noteworthy. In the opinion of the trial court, and affirmed by the First Department, Hayes' third-party action seeking a remedy that was impossible to obtain was patently frivolous.
Hurwitz & Fine, P.C. is a full-service law firm
providing legal services throughout the State of New York
V. Christopher Potenza
Steven E. Peiper
Jennifer A. Ehman
Labor Law Team
David R. Adams, Team Leader
Dan D. Kohane
Michael F. Perley
Cassandra A. Kazukenus
www.hurwitzfine.com
© 2011-2012 Hurwitz & Fine, P.C., All rights reserved.
Select Type *
Coverage PointersEmployment & Business PointersHealth Law PointersLabor Law PointersMedical & Nursing Home Liability PointersPremises PointersProducts Liability Pointers
The Liberty Building
424 Main Street, Suite 1300
Long Island Office
Additional Offices
Albion | Amherst | Hartford, CT | Niagara-Falls | Rochester | Utica
Copyright © 2022-2023 Hurwitz Fine.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Posted on Apr 3, 2019 by greatcharityspeakers
List of charity speakers 'who are not white and male' published
First published: 10 Apr 2018
Mandy Johnson, the chief executive of the Small Charities Coalition, has published a list of non-male charity sector conference speakers.
Johnson drew up her initial list last Friday, after posting on Twitter that it had "come to my attention that we need to provide conference organisers with a list of brilliant speakers from the charity sector who are not white and male".
At the time of publishing the list features over 150 speakers divided between those "who do not identify themselves as white or male" and "white people who do not identify as male".
The list is further sub-divided into area of expertise, including "academic experts", "chief execs, exec directors and founders", "fundraising experts" and "service delivery experts".
In the preface to the list, Johnson wrote: "Too many times I am told that it is hard to find good speakers in the charity sector who aren't male and/or white. I want to rid conference organisers of that excuse."
Johnson has continued to ask for more recommendations from people from the sector on Twitter, tweeting a link to a form that people can complete.
The list is currently hosted on a free WordPress site, but Johnson has also launched a GoFundMe fundraising page to "upgrade" the site, which she said would allow her to "add a few features to the website and use it to continue to engage people with this conversation".
The page has now raised £320 of its stated £400 goal. Johnson said that if more than £480 is raised, "any additional funds will be donated to the Small Charities Coalition".
Speaking to Civil Society News, Johnson said: "The list is far from perfect at the moment. There are lots of great people missing from it and many more ways it could be developed to make it better but it is a start. I am also aware that there have been requests for changes to highlight people for different reasons, such as all of the brilliant disabled speakers who are often absent from charity conferences.
"I have been overwhelmed by the response that I have received to this list and apologise that I haven't been able to respond to everyone who has contacted me so far. I really appreciate everyone's support and would welcome offers from anyone who would like to volunteer to support the list's development and maintenance."
Source: civilsociety.co.uk
CategoriesCauses
Previous PostPrevious Why am I doing this?
Next PostNext Becoming Bombproof


Thank you for visiting the Florida Transportation Commission Website. Your privacy is very important to us. Simply stated, our policy is to collect no personal information about you when you visit our Web site unless you affirmatively choose to make such information available to us. When you visit our Website, our Web server automatically recognizes only the Internet domain and IP address from which you accessed our Web site. This information does not result in the identification of your personal e-mail address or other personal information.
In addition, we gather information regarding the volume and timing of access to our Website by collecting information on the date, time and Web site pages accessed by visitors to the Web site. We do this so that we can improve the content of our Website, and this information is not shared with other organizations. Again, only aggregate information is collected, and individual visitors' personal information is not identified.
If you have other questions about our privacy policies, or have ideas about improving our policies, please feel free to e-mail us or you can reach us by telephone at (850) 414-4105. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.
Content provided by the Florida Transportation Commission presented herein is for informational purposes only. The Commission has not screened each individual or organization that appears on this site or that is electronically linked to this site. The appearance of or the linking to an individual or organization on this site is not intended as or in any manner serves as an endorsement of that individual or organization or any products or services offered by any individual or organization or identified on the individual's or organization's site. The Commission disclaims any and all warranties with regard to the Website and Website information, including without limitation: (A) any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, infringement, or title; (B) any warranty of quality, functionality, operability, use, or performance of the Website or Website information; (C) any warranty of the accuracy, completeness, or validity of data or information communicated through the Website or included in the Website information; (D) any warranty of the continuous availability of the Website or Website information, or that the Website or Website information will be uninterrupted or error-free; (E) any warranty that the Website information or other files or data available for access or downloading will be free of infection, viruses, or other code manifesting harmful, contaminating, or destructive properties; or (F) any warranties arising from course of dealing, trade usage, trade practice, or otherwise. In addition, the Department does not represent or warrant that any defects in the Website or errors in the Website information will be corrected. In addition, the Department does not warrant either expressly or by implication any individual, organization, product, or service appearing on this site or that is electronically linked to this site. The Department strongly urges all users of this site to conduct their own investigation of any individual, organization, product, or service appearing on this site or that is electronically linked to this site.
Various clipart and image collections appearing on this site are used under license by the Commission or its web managers for this site. These images are for viewing purposes only. Any reproduction may be prohibited under federal/state copyright, Trademark, or trade secret laws.


Pay nothing today! Not even shipping!
You will be shipped 2 bottles of Profemin™, which is a 60-day supply. Profemin™ is yours to try for 30 days! Then, unless you call to cancel, after 30 days your credit card will be charged only $39.95 per bottle ($79.90 per shipment)! Every 60 days, we will send you a new 60-day supply of Profemin™ billed to your credit card at the same low price $39.95 per bottle ($79.90 per shipment) plus $9.95 S&P. You can stay on the program as long as you want and cancel at anytime! Usually, shipping and processing is $9.95, but today, you won't pay a thing!
U.S. orders only. All orders shipped via USPS. 30-day money-back guarantee ( less s&p ).


text:
Q: Why do not all CSS rules work in HTML emails? Why can't HTML emails support normal positioning and HTML tags.
Is there a specific reason for simple css rules like float and background-image not to work ? I can't imagine these could present any security issues that we don't already have in normal emails?
I would like any answers to be based on reliable sources/ references and to explain the fundamentals of this behaviour within email clients.
Why are HTML emails not following normal web standards when it comes to HTML and CSS.

A: Some general info on HTML emails:

*

*How HTML email works

*Rock solid HTML Emails
Here's a nice article which gives tips concerning HTML emails: the Do's and Don'ts of HTML email
My own interpretation of the CSS problem is the following:

HTML is a markup language, this means that the email program needs a HTML parser to read it.
Also, as you know, not all browsers use the same rendering engine or rendering rules. Just as with browsers, this is the same for all HTML parsers: each parser will differ a little bit.

And so the reason why float doesn't work, is simply because the implemented HTML parsers that the email clients use, are not 'good' in interpretating layouts based on float.
I quote:

Because clients like Gmail and Outlook 2007 have poor support for
float, margin and padding, you'll need to use tables as the framework
of your email.

Hence it is recommended not to use floats but that doesn't mean they definitely won't work. It depends on the email client and how well it supports CSS.
I highly recommend you check out this list which shows CSS support for the major email clients:
The Ultimate Guide to CSS in HTML Email
and you can download the complete guide here: complete CSS guide for all 18 email clients
To conclude:

Just as with websites, different email clients have different CSS interpretations and rules. Some email clients even ignore specific CSS rules. The best solution is to be on the safe side and only use CSS that all (or most) email clients support.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


I collected my old component rack from my mum's loft a couple of weeks ago and in one of the drawers I found two pieces of breadboard with the same thing built on each of them. I built these when I was in my early teens and that's quite obvious from the quality of the soldering. The amazing thing was that they worked and actually worked quite well.
Here's a picture of the two dusty boards.
I think there are 2 x BC107s and a BC108 in there but it's quite difficult to tell.
Would anyone (except my brother) care to take a guess as to what this board is?
3 Responses to What's this?
I have a feeling I still have the circuit floating around somewhere. Didn't you use a heated-up screwdriver as a soddering iron?
If you've still got the circuit, I'd like a copy.
I had a few suggestions via Twitter about this one, it's actually a VHF FM transmitter with a very limited range.
Once it surfaces, you're welcome. I think I still have the one I made.
Go on, what were the suggestions? Spill please!


Strong atheism is the position that we should not suspend judgment about the non-existence of gods.
Agnosticism is the position that we should suspend judgment on the existence or non-existence of gods.
If strong atheism is true, then agnosticism is invalid. One can give various strong-atheistic arguments to prove the validity of strong-atheism and therefore disprove agnosticism.
Many agnostics posit that we do not or cannot have any knowledge on the god-concept, and that this their justification for their agnosticism. If one posits that no knowledge is possible, for instance because human beings are too limited for their arguments to have any weight, then one can deny any argument. This is the most popular agnostic position.
It is certainly an attractive position, especially for nihilists. If we cannot really know anything, then ignorance is a privileged position.
How can you derive meaning from a concept you can know nothing about?
If one presupposes that no knowledge about "god" is possible, including semantic knowledge, then one cannot give any objective meaning to "god". Therefore the proposition "the existence of gods is possible", which is part of agnosticism, becomes meaningless, and so is agnosticism made meaningless.
Another direct and critical problem with such an agnosticism is that it is self-refuting. If we are impotent beings, if we can make no statement of knowledge, then certainly we cannot claim to know this.
We do not, in fact, need to be unlimited beings in order to make propositions about hypothetical unlimited beings. See the FAQ question 'Aren't universal negatives impossible to prove?' for more information.


text:
The 6,224-Foot View Of Social Media
Five big-picture ideas about social media came into focus at the Social Media Insider Summit in Lake Tahoe.
Photo by Drew Neisser (taken on an iPhone)
By Drew Neisser 3 minute Read
Sometimes you just have to get high to achieve clarity. Or at least that's what I told myself as I ascended 6,224 feet to Lake Tahoe for the Social Media Insider Summit last week. And, true to form, this elevated event not only met my lofty expectations, but it also revealed five somewhat surprising, if not pristine, truths about social media.
1. One tree does not a forest make.
As the practice of social media evolves from novelty to mainstay, it becomes clearer and clearer that the big success stories rarely happen in isolation. In her keynote case study Natalie Malaszenko, Director of Worldwide Digital Marketing & Social Media at HP, provided a detailed look at the successful "entirely through social media" launch of the ENVY14 Spectre Ultrabook.
And though it did not include any "above-the-line advertising," a huge party in Las Vegas during CES, complete with a performance by the famous DJ Tiesto, set the stage for the world's first live streaming concert on Twitter. Without the party, two successful teaser videos and a huge PR machine behind it all, this "social" success story would have been like a solitary tree falling in an otherwise deserted forest.
2. Social TV apps may not prevent forest fires, but they could breathe new life into live TV.
With over 40% of Americans now time-shifting their TV viewing, TV networks are looking for any opportunity to reverse this trend since Nielsen ratings only include viewings that happen within 3 days of airing, and lower ratings means lower ad revenues. One solution to this raging fire just might be a deluge of social apps.
Kristin Hersant, VP of Marketing at Echo, a firm that has developed several social TV apps for AMC, WE tv and IFC, explained that "it can be challenging to drive live show viewership; however for Breaking Bad, specifically, AMC saw a 14% increase in ratings." And while Hersant concedes that their social TV app can't take all the credit, "the general sentiment is that it's working very well for them."
3. Despite its falling stock, Facebook remains the sequoia of social.
Sure, Zuckerberg & Co. have been battered in the press as their stock tumbled shortly after their clearly over-hyped IPO, but it would be a gargantuan mistake to write off Facebook just yet. With people spending upwards of 6.7 billion hours a month on THE social network, Facebook is the largest entertainment resource in the world, siphoning off droves of traffic from other major sites.
As such, few marketers can afford not to have a strong presence on Facebook and be looking to engage their biggest fans with interesting content and valuable offers that, in turn, can drive site traffic and, yes, even sales. And with Facebook's updated iPhone and Android apps, it looks like marketers will be able to engage millions of mobile users with bigger and better sponsored stories.
4. If you can't see the forest for the trees, just calculate value-per-like.
Mention "value-per-like" to most social media pros and they will simply roll their eyes with derision. Long the Quixotic pursuit of data geeks, the notion that you could actually put a business value on a mere click of the Like button was considered too simplistic a metric or too complicated to calculate with meaningful precision. Well, that forest of wishful thinkers is now gaining some impressive fans.
LoudDoor, a data analytics company, believes that knowing "value-per-like" is a game-changer for social media proponents and will clear the path for bigger ROI-driven budgets in the near future. "It's simply a matter of getting your hands on the right data," explains Jeff French, chairman of LoudDoor, which just happens to have a database of over 50 million Facebook users at its fingertips.
5. It's way too early to yell "timber" for Google+.
While Google+ boasts 170 million registered users, chances are that unless you are a 28-year-old tech geek, your activity on the lone pine of social networks is minimal. In fact, RJ Metrics reports that 30% of users who make a public post never make a second one, and the average post gets less than one +1 and fewer than one reply. With numbers like these, it's almost surprising Google hasn't just chopped the whole thing down.
But before you grab your chainsaw, consider the rumor that Google+ and +1 will merge, creating a search driver that marketers simply can't ignore. In simplistic terms, this would mean that a post on Google+ could result in better SEO performance. Add on the fact that marketers can finally stake out vanity/branded URLs (like they've enjoyed on Facebook for years), and brands may finally have to plant themselves firmly in Google+ (or should we call it Google+1?).
–Visit TheDrewBlog.com to read some of the follow up interviews I conducted while I was at this alpine paradise.
Drew is the founder of Renegade, the NYC-based social media and marketing agency that helps inspired B2B and B2C clients cut through all the nonsense to deliver genuine business growth. A frequent speaker at ad industry events, Drew's been a featured expert on ABC's Nightline and CNBC


Whitianga Marine Centre is under new ownership but with the same friendly and helpful staff.
Shane Conder has been the manager for the last 3 years and now has taken the next step along side with his wife Lavana and partners Raewyn & Dennis Hartridge to purchase the growing business.
Check out the website Not only can you find out all about who we are and what we can do for you, but you will be the first to find out all about the LATEST BOATS & OUTBOARDS, the LATEST PROMOTIONS and the LATEST NEWS.
We also have an ON-LINE FINANCE PRE-APPROVAL form so we can get you on out on the water sooner. You can check out our SPECIALS, ACCESSORIES, and REQUEST A SERVICE for your marine product. Whitianga Marine now also has the franchise for Yamaha Waverunner.


text:
the site to watch and learn about Mediterranean and Iberian heterobranch molluscs
Pictures Wanted
GDPR – Data Access Request
Registered User Request
What is an Opisthobranch?
Anatomy of the opisthobranchs
Coloration: Defense strategy
Feeding and radula
Sensory organs and rhinophores
Breathing, cerata and gills
Classic taxon
Species by geographic zone
Catalonia (Spain)
Straits of Gibraltar
Visual Catalog
Guide to Opistobranchs
Unassigned Cladobranchia
Unidentified Opisthobranchs
Opisthobranchs of the Costa Brava
Opisthobranchs of Granada
Opisthobranchs of the Straits of Gibraltar
Opisthobranchs of Portugal
Opisthobranchs of Galicia (Spain)
Opisthobranchs of Asturias (Spain)
Rare Opisthobranchs
Sea Slugs Postal Stamps
Literature search engine
New Observation
Observations Record
Home Introduction to Opisthobranchs Sensory organs and rhinophores
The main sensory organ of prosobranch molluscs is a structure with many folds called osphradium, located in the gill cavity. The current or water passes through the osphradium allowing the snail determine some aspects of the chemical composition of the water that surrounds it (the smell). Only the most primitive opisthobranchs still have the osphradium because the immense majority have evolved and have developed new sensory structures such as sensory mounds or oral tentacles, around the mouth.
The most obvious sensory organs in the opisthobranchs are the rinophores, which are horn-shaped structures they have on the head. Little is known about the function of rinophores, although it seems they are very important organs. The tissue that covers them is not much different from other parts of the body but for the absence of secretory glands. Although there is no direct evidence, most authors agree that the role of rinophores is to find food and other individuals of their same species to reproduce.
In Anaspidea, Notaspidea and most Sacoglossa, the rinophores are rolled and look like rabbit ears. The inside face is covered with ciliated cells to promote water movement. Epithelium, the tissue of the outer side, is covered with nerve terminations in the form of receivers.
Detail of anaspidean (Aplysia punctata) rhinophores
with the shape of rabbit ears
The Cephalaspidea lack rinophores, so this function is assumed by an external folded structure, the Hancock's organ, or a kind of sensory funnel.
The Nudibranchia have more complicated rinophores. The clavus or distal end is usually composed of a series of folds like gills, although some are smooth and others have greatly elaborated designs. In some species the surface is covered in ciliated cells to cause water movement. Rinophores' nerves are highly branched and connect directly to the cerebral ganglion. The major group of doridacean nudibranchs (Cryptobranchia) the rinophores can retract inside the body, pressumably for protection.
Ballesteros, Manuel, Enric Madrenas, Miquel Pontes (2012-2019) "Sensory organs and rhinophores" in OPK-Opistobranquis, Published: 25/12/2012, Accessed: 17/07/2019 at (https://opistobranquis.info/en/Tq7u9)
In order to copy this cite or text fragments you must be a registered user.
Reproduction 21/05/2019
Sensory organs and rhinophores 21/05/2019
Language – Idioma
Introduction to Opisthobranchs
Guide to Opisthobranchs
Doridacean 001
Sea Slugs of the Algarve
Aplysia fasciata in 30s.
Aplysia fasciata swimming
Elysia timida dance
Gymnosomata – Sea Angels
Sea Butterflies
Lobster attack on Aplysia
Melibe leonina feeding
Nudibranch eats nudibranchs
Nudibranchs of Papua New Guinea
Opisthobranchs, Sea Harlequins
Opisthobranchs as bioindicators
Pteropods: swimming opisthobranchs
All photos and text are property of their authors and are protected by Intellectual Property Law. Any unauthorized use of this material may have consequences for the offender.
VIMAR is a non-profit marine studies group. If you want to collaborate with us, contact us.
Check our privacy policy.
Our website uses cookies. By accessing our website and
agreeing to this policy, you consent to our use of cookies.


Nets swingman Caris LeVert, who underwent tests on Tuesday after leaving Monday's game with a gruesome leg injury, has been diagnosed with a subtalar dislocation of the right foot, the team announced today in a press release. It's good news for LeVert, who didn't break any bones and hasn't been ruled out for the entire 2018/19 season.
LeVert, who has dealt with foot injuries in the past, appeared to be in the midst of a breakout season until Monday's injury. In 14 games, he had averaged 18.4 PPG, 4.3 RPG, and 3.7 APG, putting him in position to receive early consideration for this season's Most Improved Player award.
LeVert almost certainly won't be in the running for that honor anymore, since his latest foot injury will sideline him for a good chunk of the season. However, the fact that the Nets expect him to return to the court by the spring is great news, considering the injury initially looked like a sure bet to end his season. The 24-year-old remains a long-term building block for the franchise, as ESPN's Zach Lowe details in an excellent piece today.
LeVert's injury could open up the door for players like D'Angelo Russell, Allen Crabbe, DeMarre Carroll, and Rondae Hollis-Jefferson to pick up some extra minutes, depending on how the Nets structure their lineups in his absence.
Wow amazing, the Nets still have hope if he returns March around there. I think they could stay afloat till he gets back, Joe Harris leads the league in spot up 3 point percentage.
It's a weak draft, if you aren't drafting top 5 there is no need to tank.
That's what I was sure of as well.
I'm relieved to be wrong.
I hope he can be Caris again.
I just dropped him in my fantasy league…now everyone is so hyped off the news that hes coming back so im trying to make everyone spend their FAAB money on him…im spreading fake news that he will be back in late december. We have an IR spot.
LeVert is a good, solid player… but in no way he should be considered a building block for the Nets, well if they are trying to compete that is, the only potential star they have right now is D'Lo, though, so far he hasn't proved himself, Jarrett Allen is another good solid player, but I think all in this team could be on the market, maybe except D'Lo & Jarrett, as it is always the hardest to get a good big, for the rest all should be expendable, even LeVert, like Richardson in Miami, they might be good assets to bring someone better through the door.