How to get to Staples in Phoenix by Bus or Light Rail
Public Transportation to Staples in Phoenix
Wondering how to get to Staples in Phoenix, United States? Moovit helps you find the best way to get to Staples with step-by-step directions from the nearest public transit station.
Moovit provides free maps and live directions to help you navigate through your city. View schedules, routes, timetables, and find out how long does it take to get to Staples in real time.
Looking for the nearest stop or station to Staples? Check out this list of stops closest to your destination: Osborn/Central Ave; Central Av & Osborn Rd; 7th Av & Osborn Rd; Indian School Rd & Central Av.
You can get to Staples by Bus or Light Rail. These are the lines and routes that have stops nearby – Bus: 0 Light Rail: RAIL
Want to see if there’s another route that gets you there at an earlier time? Moovit helps you find alternative routes or times. Get directions from and directions to Staples easily from the Moovit App or Website.
For information on prices of Bus and Light Rail, costs and ride fares to Staples, please check the Moovit app.
Staples Studio Brighton | LiquidSpaceStaples Studio Brighton | LiquidSpace
1660 Soldiers Field Road, 100, Boston, MA 02135 – Confirmed Open
Schedule a tour
Select a date and time for your tour. Your venue host will confirm or propose a different time. We’ll send you a tour schedule with directions and times.
Go see the spaceCheckout the space, ask questions and get a feel for the ambiance and surroundings. Here is a questions checklist to ask on your visit.
Book it onlineOnce you’ve found your perfect space book it on LiquidSpace to ensure that you are protected under DASH®, have payment transparency and access to full LiquidSpace network benefits.
Schedule a Tour
Select a date and time for your tour. We’ll send a tour schedule with directions and times.
Design Review and Sign off
With your concierge review the different kits Launch, Sprint, Thrive or Tailored to choose the best fit-out for your team’s needs today and future growth requirements.
Complete Dash and Book It!
Sit Back. Relax. Your New Office is Ready in 60 Days!
The LiquidSpace team and Venue will prep the space. Set up internet, technology and secure access. Take care of the furniture and accessories delivery to your spec.
It’s free to create listings for all your spaces. You set the availability, price, amenities, and more.
Qualified leads come to you by requesting to tour your space, or you can contact them directly with custom space proposals.
You earn 90% and we take a 10% transaction fee when the deal closes.
Let’s Do This
|The Free Trial Requires a Valid Credit Card|
|Monthly Subscription PLans||
|Annual Subscription Plans||
|Subscribe to Annual Plans & Save||
|Access 17+ million Company Profiles|
|Access to 18,000+ Industries|
|Create & Save Basic Company Lists|
|Access to Basic Search Filters & Formats|
|Create & Save Adv. Company Lists & Search Criteria|
|Advanced Search (filter by dozens of criteria including revenue, employees, business activity, geography, distance, industry, age, phone & demographics)|
|Company Information Export Limits||
250 / month
500 / month
750 / month
1,000 / month
|Tenant List @ 6+ million Buildings|
|Building & Tenant Search by Address or Street Name|
|Create, Save & Share Place Lists and Search Criteria|
|Access Information on 40+ million Contacts ( No Email)|
|Advanced Contact Search|
|Create, Save & Share Contact Lists & Search Criteria|
|Contact Information Export Limits (No Email Addresses)||
500 / Month
750 / Month
1,000 / Month
|Monthly Subscription – Contact Email Address Limits||
100 / Month
200 / Month
|Annual Subscription – Contact Email Address Limits||
1,200 / year
2,400 / year
|Content Use Limits (Pages per Day)||
|Click Here to Start Your Free Trial 212-913-9151 ext. 306|
|Note: Free trial requires registration and a valid credit card. Each user is limited to a single free trial. [email protected]|
Staples – Office supply store
Category: Office supply store
Address: 106 W Osborn Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85013, USA
Saturday: 9AM–7PMAdd Review
Thanks! Your review is awaiting moderation.
Questions & Answers
Do you make plastic containers to put you’re bus pass in
Flossie House | Jul 29, 2019
Brandon | Jul 30, 2019
Do you sell the sticky paper to put on CDs for the CD art?
ShortyMF Wikkid | Jul 28, 2020
Nakeema Boston | Jul 29, 2020
Yes they do!!!Add Answer
Do customers actually get help when they walk into this Staples?
M Garcia | Jul 29, 2019
M Garcia | Jul 30, 2019
I recieved very unhelpful info from there. There were like 5 clerks and one was on her phone in an isle. A young guy finally asked me if I needed help them quickly regretted it and said he was already late to lunch. The young girl he handed me over to was a dip! And she didn’t know why she was helping me.. Not her department! I HAD a Staples account. They have actually never been good and overcharge.Read More Add Answer
Are you open on Sundays?
Rosemary Lagarda | Jul 29, 2018
Judy Walker | Jul 30, 2018
Yes, the Staples on Osborn is open on SundayAdd Answer
I need to print a letter for my computer.
George Smith | Jul 29, 2018
DRock Nava | Jul 30, 2018
Is drive is best bring it in to emAdd Answer
Thanks! Your answer is awaiting moderation.Ask Question
Thanks! Your question is awaiting moderation.
Laurel Osborn’s volunteer efforts support dental access and advocacy
Volunteering abroad: Mrs. Osborn, in front at left, travels by truck with her husband, Dr. John Osborn, in front at center, and other volunteers before hiking to Medor, Haiti, for a charitable dental clinic.
Knoxville, Tenn. — Whether assisting a volunteer team providing dental care to homeless residents in her hometown or helping with logistics and public relations for Remote Area Medical Clinics throughout the U.S. and abroad, Laurel Osborn is a hands-on volunteer and advocate for her husband, her community and people in need worldwide.
Mrs. Osborn brings a wealth of boots on the ground experience, advocacy and nonprofit organization leadership to the Alliance of the American Dental Association as its incoming president. She will be installed Oct. 10 in San Antonio at the AADA Convention at the Hilton Palacio Del Rio hotel.
A retired critical care nurse turned stay-at-home mom, Mrs. Osborn and her husband Dr. John Osborn have been dedicated RAM volunteers for two decades, not only in Tennessee, but in other states and even outside the U.S. Dr. Osborn has served as RAM’s dental director for 15 years. The couple volunteer at between six and 10 charitable dental care clinics every year.
Mrs. Osborn has not only volunteered with helping patients but also in raising awareness about the organization’s work with state and national policymakers. Tennessee was the first U.S. state to pass legislation, dubbed the “Stan Brock Law,” in honor of the founder of Remote Area Medical, allowing medical and dental professionals licensed in other states to provide volunteer care at Tennessee charitable medical and dental clinics. Currently a dozen U.S. states have such laws. She also helps organize clinics in other states.
“Access to care initiatives like RAM and Mission of Mercy clinics have always been a major focus for me,” said Mrs. Osborn. “I find it rewarding to help fill the gap for people in need of dental services.”
In the past 25 years, Mrs. Osborn has served the Alliance at all three levels: president, vice president and treasurer of the Alliance of the Second District Dental Society; president, vice president, treasurer, legislative representative and convention co-chair of the Alliance of the Tennessee Dental Association; and membership council chair, board member and president-elect of the Alliance of the ADA.
She said the Alliance, like other volunteer organizations, has been working to focus on what its value is to the dental community of today.
“Everyone is busy. Frequently both spouses work and time that our volunteers spend needs to be rewarding and produce a feeling that we are making a change in the world,” she said. “The purpose and mission of the AADA is to support and promote the profession of dentistry. There is a lot we can do. We strive to mirror the priorities of the ADA by focusing on their initiatives. In the last year we launched, “Healthy Smiles from the Start” in partnership with the ADA, Henry Schein and Colgate, a program that addresses pre- and postnatal oral health, and it has been a huge success. The AADA has launched a volunteer page on its website, allianceada.org, to keep our members informed of upcoming volunteer opportunities particularly related to access to care. We actively participate in legislative advocacy on the state and national level, attend meetings so we are educated on the issues and participate in visits to our congressmen and senators. We can leverage the strength of the ADA by utilizing the voice of the AADA membership.”
During her term as president, Mrs. Osborn said she hopes to foster a positive relationship with the ADA, ASDA and state dental associations and encourage members to bring enthusiasm, inspiration and focus to the Alliance as they move forward in these changing times. Other priorities for the Alliance include promoting tripartite membership, identifying and providing for the needs of the local and state organizations and increasing use of technology and social media to reach out to AADA members and partner organizations.
Mrs. Osborn and her husband have three sons. John II is recently married, Andrew just started his first year of dental school and Thomas is a musician. The family enjoys outdoor activities including motorcycling, four wheeling, mountain and street biking, hiking, boating, flying and camping. Mrs. Osborn also tries to squeeze in time in her busy schedule for horseback riding, jazzercise, gardening, cooking and singing. In addition to focusing on access to care issues, Mrs. Osborn has served on several Knoxville-area nonprofit organization boards.
For more information on the activities of Alliance of the ADA or to join, visit allianceada.org, the Facebook page at facebook.com/AllianceADA, follow on Twitter @AllianceADA or call the ADA toll free number, ext. 2865.
OSBORN v. CITY OF WHITTIER
District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.
OSBORN v. CITY OF WHITTIER.
Decided: April 19, 1951Clay & Staples, Herbert G. Staples and C. F. Zimmerman, all of Los Angeles, for appellant. Jennings & Belcher, R. P. Jennings, Stevens Fargo, Los Angeles, Thomas W. Bewley, City Atty., Whittier, for respondent.
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of dismissal entered pursuant to an order sustaining a demurrer of defendant city of Whittier to the complaint without leave to amend in an action for damages for injury to property.
The complaint alleged these facts:
The city of Whittier maintained, managed, and operated a rubbish disposal dump within the city near Savage Canyon for its use, convenience, and benefit, and that of its residents.
Plaintiff was the owner of property on Turnbull Canyon Road in Puente which was improved with bearing avocado trees, a sprinkler system, fences, and tree props. On June 22, 1949, there was fruit on the trees.
Defendant, over a period of years and particularly on June 21 and 22, 1949, when a high wind was blowing, maintained the rubbish disposal dump in a dangerous condition, permitting the continued burning of rubbish therein, under all weather conditions, without supervision. The dangerous condition was known to defendant for a long period of time prior to June 21 and 22, 1949. Defendant neglected to take any measures to remedy the condition. (The specific allegations are set forth in the margin.1 )
On June 22, 1949, a fire started in the rubbish disposal dump and spread through and over surrounding property to plaintiff’s property, burned and destroyed 248 avocado trees, full grown and bearing, and the crops thereon, damaged the sprinkler system and fence posts, and destroyed 750 tree props, to her damage in the sum of $21,130. 97. The fire loss and damage was a proximate result ‘of the negligent failure and neglect to remedy the dangerous and defective condition’ of the rubbish disposal dump.
On September 16, 1949, plaintiff filed with the clerk and city council of defendant a written claim for damages. A copy of the claim is made a part of the complaint.
The question for decision is whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the city of Whittier. The controlling statutes in effect on June 22, 1949—the Public Liability Act of 1923 and The Claims Act of 1931—in pertinent part read: ‘Counties, municipalities and school districts shall be liable for injuries to persons and property resulting from the dangerous or defective condition of public streets, highways, buildings, grounds, works and property in all cases where the governing or managing board of such county, municipality, school district, or other board, officer or person having authority to remedy such condition, had knowledge or notice of the defective or dangerous condition of any such street, highway, building, grounds, works or property and failed or neglected, for a reasonable time after acquiring such knowledge or receiving such notice, to remedy such condition or failed and neglected for a reasonable time after acquiring such knowledge or receiving such notice to take such action as may be reasonably necessary to protect the public against such dangerous or defective condition. ’ Stats.1923, ch. 328, § 2, p. 675.2 ‘Whenever it is claimed that any person has been injured or any property damaged as a result of the dangerous or defective condition of any public street, highway, building, park, grounds, works or property, a verified claim for damages shall be presented in writing and filed with the clerk or secretary of the legislative body of the municipality, county, city and county, or school district, as the case may be, within ninety days after such accident has occurred. Such claim shall specify the name and address of the claimant, the date and place of the accident and the extent of the injuries or damages received.’ Stats.1931, ch. 1167, § 1, p. 2475. The 1923 and 1931 statutes are now embodied in sections 53050–53056 of the Government Code.
Defendant states that plaintiff’s property was located several miles from the dump. We are unable to ascertain the distance from examination of maps. For the purpose of this opinion only, we will assume that defendant’s statement is correct.
Defendant argues that the maintenance in a dangerous condition, of a rubbish disposal dump, where rubbish is burned, cannot give a right of action to a property owner whose property, several miles away from the dump, is damaged by a fire from the dump which ignited grass and brush and spread to plaintiff’s property; that what is meant by ‘dangerous or defective condition’ is that it ‘is dangerous to persons who might be expected to come in contact with the defective or dangerous condition or to property which might reasonably be expected to be injured thereby’; that there must be a close relation between the dangerous condition and the property damaged.
The Public Liability Act of 1923 imposed on a municipality liability for injury or damage resulting from a dangerous condition of property. If the officers or employees of the municipality had actual or imputed knowledge or notice of the dangerous condition and neglected to remedy it within a reasonable time after knowledge or notice, or neglected for a reasonable time after acquiring such knowledge or receiving such notice to take such action as might be reasonably necessary to protect the public against such dangerous condition, liability ensued. Fackrell v. City of San Diego, 26 Cal.2d 196, 157 P.2d 625, 158 A.L.R. 773; Gibson v. County of Mendocino, 16 Cal.2d 80, 105 P.2d 105; Arellano v. City of Burbank, 13 Cal.2d 248, 89 P.2d 113; George v. City of Los Angeles, 11 Cal.2d 303, 79 P.2d 723; George v. City of Los Angeles, 51 Cal.App.2d 311, 124 P.2d 872; Allen v. City of Los Angeles, 43 Cal.App.2d 65, 110 P.2d 75; Bauman v. San Francisco, 42 Cal.App.2d 144, 108 P.2d 989; Sandstoe v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 28 Cal.App.2d 215, 82 P.2d 216.
In George v. City of Los Angeles, 11 Cal.2d 303, 308, 79 P.2d 723, it was held that if a municipality creates a dangerous condition of its property, it is liable for any injuries to persons or property resulting from such condition provided it had knowledge thereof and neglected to remedy said condition within a reasonable time after acquiring such knowledge; that this liability is based upon negligence; and that the question of the negligence of the municipality is for the determination of the jury. See also Brooks v. City of Monterey, 106 Cal.App. 649, 654, 290 P. 540; Sandstoe v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 28 Cal.App.2d 215, 218, 82 P.2d 216.
If the dangerous condition is the proximate cause of the injury or damage, liability ensues. Bosqui v. San Bernardino, 2 Cal.2d 747, 760, 761, 43 P.2d 547; Lorraine v. City of Los Angeles, 55 Cal.App.2d 27, 30, 130 P.2d 140. ‘Proximate cause’ means that the injury or damage was the natural and probable consequence of the wrongful or negligent act or omission and the ability on the part of a person of ordinary intelligence reasonably to have foreseen or anticipated the harmful consequence of his act or omission. Chutuk v. Southern Counties Gas Co., 21 Cal.2d 372, 380, 132 P.2d 193; Weck v. L. A. County Flood Control Dist., 80 Cal.App.2d 182, 189, 181 P.2d 935; Johnson v. Union Furniture Co., 31 Cal.App.2d 234, 238, 87 P.2d 917.
The precise consequence of a wrongful act or omission need not have been foreseeable. The question is not whether defendant did foresee, or by the exercise of ordinary care should have foreseen, the identical consequence that happened, in order that its act or omission be a proximate cause of the injury or damage. The question is whether it was reasonably foreseeable that injury or damage would likely occur. Defendant’s duty is measured by the standard of foreseeability of injury or damage to the eyes of a reasonably prudent person having regard for the accompanying circumstances. Werkman v. Howard Zink Corp., 97 Cal.App.2d 418, 425, 218 P.2d 43. Whether the dangerous condition was a proximate cause of the damage is a question of fact. Barker v. City of Los Angeles, 57 Cal.App.2d 742, 748, 135 P.2d 573; Allen v. City of Los Angeles, 43 Cal.App.2d 65, 67, 110 P.2d 75; Bauman v. San Francisco, 42 Cal.App.2d 144, 154, 108 P.2d 989.
Though an act or omission be removed from the injury and damage by intermediate causes or effects, yet if, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any superseding cause, it produces that injury or damage, and if without it the injury would not have happened, it is a proximate cause of such injury or damage. Proximity in point of time or space is no part of the definition. That is of no importance except as it may afford evidence for or against proximity of causation. Hyer v. Inter-Insurance Exchange, etc., 77 Cal.App. 343, 347, 246 P. 1055. Whether defendant should have foreseen that a fire from the dump might spread to adjoining property and thence to property more distant, is a question of fact. Adams v. Southern Pacific Co., 4 Cal.2d 731, 738, 53 P.2d 121; Bauman v. San Francisco, 42 Cal.App.2d 144, 154, 108 P.2d 989; Butcher v. Vaca Valley & C. L. R. R. Co., 67 Cal. 518, 521, 8 P. 174; Henry v. Southern P. R. R. Co., 50 Cal. 176, 183; Paiva v. California Door Co., 75 Cal.App. 323, 331, 242 P. 887. The allegation that the damage was a direct and proximate result of the dangerous condition of the dump is a sufficient allegation of proximate cause. Guilliams v. Hollywood Hospital, 18 Cal.2d 97, 103, 114 P.2d 1.
In collecting garbage, trash and other refuse, hauling it to its dumping ground and disposing of it by fire, defendant was exercising a governmental function which was not completed until the ashes were disposed of. Pittam v. City of Riverside, 128 Cal.App. 57, 62, 16 P.2d 768. In Pittam, the city maintained a dumping and burning ground similar to that alleged to have been maintained by defendant city of Whittier. The plaintiff’s property was located more than 1,000 feet from the burning area. A fire from the dump spread across intervening lands to that of plaintiff, destroying an apiary. The court held, 128 Cal.App. at page 65, 16 P.2d at page 771: ‘It is evident from the evidence that the general plan of operation of the dumping ground adopted by the city provided for the consumption of garbage, trash, and other inflammable refuse by open fires. It is undisputed that winds from the north occasionally blew with considerable intensity at certain times of the year and carried charred and partly burned paper onto the property of respondent and his near neighbors. If the proper municipal authorities had notice of a dangerous or defective condition of the dumping ground prior to the fire and permitted such condition to continue for an unreasonable time; if the fire which consumed respondent’s property had spread or was carried from a fire on the dumping ground burning at a place, or one of the places, where fires were to be kindled in accordance with the plan of operation established by the municipal authorities and in operation at the time of the destruction of respondent’s property; and if the fire was not spread from one wrongfully started by another agency such as trespassers on the city property, then we are of the opinion that a dangerous or defective condition of the public grounds, works or property of the city of Riverside existed which would render it liable for damages to the property of respondent. Huff v. Compton Grammar School Dist., 92 Cal.App. 44, 267 Pac. 918.’ The judgment for plaintiff was reversed because the trial court had instructed the jury on general negligence. Defendant suggests that the quoted portion of the opinion was dictum. We think not. In any event it was a correct statement of the law.
It is not necessary for a plaintiff to show, in order to recover for damage caused by a fire, that the fire was directly communicated to the property consumed; there may be a recovery where the fire burned across intervening lands before reaching the property damaged for which recovery is sought, if there was no superseding cause between the original wrong and the loss complained of. Time, distance, and the fact that the fire burned over intervening tracts of land, do not affect the question of defendant’s liability except insofar as they relate to the probability of a superseding cause and the unforeseeability to an intelligent person that injury or damage would accrue as the result of the act or omission causing the fire. Generally, a fire, however far it may go, is one continuous fire—the same fire—and is the proximate cause of all the injuries and damage it may produce in its destructive march, whether it goes to abutting property or several miles. 22 Am.Jur. 625, § 47; Irelan-Yuba Gold Quartz Min. Co. v. Pacific G. & E. Co., 18 Cal.2d 557, 560, 565, 116 P.2d 611; Butcher v. Vaca Valley & C. L. R. R. Co., 67 Cal. 518, 8 P. 174; Henry v. Southern P. R. R. Co., 50 Cal. 176, 182, 183; Viera v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 10 Cal.App. 267, 101 P. 690; Paiva v. California Door Co., 75 Cal.App. 323, 327, 331, 242 P. 887; Kennedy v. Minarets & Western Ry. Co., 90 Cal.App. 563, 566, 572 et seq., 266 P. 353; Haverstick v. Southern Pac. Co., 1 Cal.App.2d 605, 607, 611 et seq., 37 P.2d 146; Dippold v. Cathlamet Timber Co., 111 Or. 199, 225 P. 202; Prosser on Torts, 349, § 48. In Henry v. Southern P. R. R. Co., supra, it was said, 50 Cal. at page 183: ‘[C]onsidering the long dry season of California and the prevalence of certain winds in our valleys * * * it may be left to a jury to determine whether the spreading of a fire from one field to another is not the natural, direct or proximate consequence of the original firing.’3
Miller v. City of Palo Alto, 208 Cal. 74, 280 P. 108, and Hanson v. City of Los Angeles, 63 Cal.App.2d 426, 147 P.2d 109, relied on by defendant, are not in point. The acts there relied on were single acts of negligence in the performance of a governmental function and not the maintenance of a dangerous or defective condition.
We hold, therefore, that liability is not, as a matter of law, dependent upon proximity of the damaged property to the dangerous condition, but is dependent upon the dangerous condition being a proximate cause of the damage, and that the question is one of fact.
Defendant asserts that the verification of the claim is insufficient in that ‘It nowhere purports to contain a statement over the signature of Edith E. Osborn that she swears to anything. She merely states certain things. The statement does not purport to follow the requirements of the Code Sections as to an affidavit of verification.’ The verification is set out in the margin.4 The fact that the opening statement of the affidavit does not state that plaintiff was first duly sworn is not fatal where, as here, it appears that the affidavit was ‘subscribed’ by plaintiff and was ‘sworn to’ before the notary whose signature is affixed. Defendant does not refer us to the code sections, the requirements o which it asserts plaintiff failed to follow. The statute involved here provides merely that the claim be verified. Stats.1931, ch. 1167, § 1, p. 2475. No particular form of verification is prescribed. Cf. Pol.Code, § 4076, where a prescribed form of verification is provided for claims filed against a county. A verification is an affidavit of the truth of the matters stated. Code Civ.Proc., §§ 446, 2009; Pol.Code, § 4076; McCaffey Canning Co., Inc. v. Bank of America, 109 Cal.App. 415, 420, 294 P. 45; Pasqualetti v. Hilson, 43 Cal.App. 718, 720, 185 P. 693. Its object is to insure good faith in the averments or statements of a party. Patterson v. Ely, 19 Cal. 28, 39; Bittleston Law & Collection Agency v. Howard, 172 Cal. 357, 360, 156 P. 515. The term ‘verified,’ as applied to claims against municipalities, has a settled meaning, and refers to an affidavit attached to the claim, as to the truth of the matters therein set forth. Patterson v. City of Brooklyn, 6 App.Div. 127, 40 N.Y.S. 581, 582; Bristol v. Buck, 201 App.Div. 100, 194 N.Y.S. 53, 55. The chief test of the sufficiency of an affidavit is whether it is so clear and certain that an indictment for perjury may be sustained on it if false. Davis-Heller-Pearce Co. v. Ramont, 66 Cal.App. 778, 781, 226 P. 972; Gee Chong Pong v. Harris, 38 Cal.App. 214, 217, 175 P. 806; Kelley v. City of Flint, 251 Mich. 291, 232 N.W. 407, 408. The affidavit here meets this test and is sufficient. In passing, we note that the second paragraph in the affidavit is copied verbatim from Political Code section 4076, including ‘that the same is presented within one year after the last item thereof has accrued.’ The statute involved here provides that the claim be filed within ninety days; and since the claim was filed within the prescribed period, the quoted part was surplusage.
The complaint contains factual allegations of all the elements essential to a cause of action under the Public Liability Act: (1) facts showing a dangerous condition of public property; (2) actual knowledge of the dangerous condition by persons having authority to remedy the condition; (3) the lapse of a reasonable time after knowledge within which to remedy the condition, or to take such action as might be reasonably necessary to protect the public against the dangerous condition; (4) failure to remedy the dangerous condition; (5) the dangerous condition was a proximate cause of the damage; and (6) presentation of a verified claim within ninety days. Arellano v. City of Burbank, 13 Cal.2d 248, 254, 89 P.2d 113; Bosqui v. City of San Bernardino, 2 Cal.2d 747, 759, 43 P.2d 547. The complaint met the requirements of the statute, and was not vulnerable to a general demurrer.
In view of our conclusion, it is not necessary to consider plaintiff’s contention that the facts alleged are sufficient to state a cause of action on the theory that the maintenance and operation of the dump constituted a nuisance. See Phillips v. City of Pasadena, 27 Cal.2d 104, 162 P.2d 625; Los Angeles Brick & Clay Products Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 60 Cal.App.2d 478, 141 P.2d 46; Annotation 156 A.L.R. 718.
The judgment is reversed with directions to overrule the demurrer and permit defendant to answer.
1. ‘That said fire and the loss and damage to plaintiff by reason thereof, was a direct and proximate result of the negligent failure and neglect to remedy the dangerous and defective condition of the said Disposal Dump by the defendants and each of them, as is more particularly set fort as follows: that the defendants and each of them, and particularly the defendant City of Whittier, and the City Council thereof, maintained said Rubbish Dump in Savage Canyon in the City of Whittier; that the defendants and each of them permitted, allowed and failed to prevent the continual and habitual burning of rubbish over a long period of years, at all hours of the day and night under all weather conditions without adequate or proper control or supervision or fire prevention measures; that the defendants and each of them failed to attend or control said Dump while trash and materials were burning; that during said time the defendants and each of them permitted and allowed fires to burn in said dump without employees or other personnel present to control and supervise said burnings; that on or about the 21st and 22nd days of June 1949, the defendants and each of them allowed and permitted fires to burn and continue to burn in said Dump; that on said dates said fire was allowed to continue to burn without supervision or attendance or fire equipment present to control said burning; that a high wind was blowing on said dates at said time and place; that dry and combustible brush materials and scrub undergrowth were allowed by said defendants to remain on adjoining premises immediately adjacent thereto; that the said dangerous, hazardous and defective conditions of said Dump and the portion thereof as aforesaid, were well known to the defendants and each of them long prior to and at the time of the said 21st and 22nd days of June 1949; that said defendants and each of them, failed to take any measures whatsoever to remedy said dangerous and defective operation and condition of said Dump; that as a direct and proximate result of said failure and neglect of the defendants and each of them, as aforesaid, fire spread from said Rubbish Disposal Dump to the premises of the plaintiff herein, and as a direct and proximate result of said spread of fire plaintiff’s premises and property sustained severe damages and destruction as hereinafter set forth.’
2. The old maxim that the King can do no wrong-immunity of the sovereign for the torts of its officers and employees when acting in a governmental capacity—an unjust relic of the dark ages, is rapidly passing into oblivion. See ‘Should California Accept Tort Liability?’ by Thomas H. Kuchel, State Controller of California, XXV Cal. State Bar J. 146; 22 So.Cal.L.Rev. 78; 34 Yale L.Jour., 1–45, 129–143, 229–258; 35 Yale L.Jour. 150; 36 Yale L.Jour. 1; 56 Yale L.Jour. 534; 30 Harv.L.Rev. 20; 4, Ill.L.Quar. 28; 4 Wyo.L.Jour. 96; 11 Am.Bar Ass’n Jour. 495; Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2671–2680, 60 Stat. 843, as amended; United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 71 S.Ct. 399, 404, 95 L.Ed. 523, particularly footnote 8.
3. A person who allows a fire kindled or attended by him to escape from his control or to spread to the lands of any person other than the builder of the fire without using every reasonable and proper precaution to prevent the fire from escaping, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Health & Safety Code, § 13000.
4. ‘State of California‘County of Los Angeles} ss.‘The undersigned, under the penalty of perjury states:‘That the above claim and the items as therein set out are true and correct; that no part thereof has been heretofore paid, and that amount therein is justly due this claimant, and that the same is presented within one year after the last item thereof has accrued.‘Edith E. Osborn‘Edith E. Osborn‘Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of September, 1949.‘Helen Harden‘Notary Public in and for said County and State’
SHINN, P. J., and WOOD, J., concur.
OSBORN et al. v. OZLIN et al. | Supreme Court | US Law
310 U.S. 53
60 S.Ct. 758
84 L.Ed. 1074
OSBORN et al.
OZLIN et al.
Argued March 27, 1940.
Decided April 22, 1940.
Appeal from the District Court for the Eastern District of virginia.
Messrs. John Lord O’Brian, of Buffalo, N.Y., and Andrew D. Christian, of Richmond, Va., for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 54-56 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Abram P. Staples, of Richmond, Va., for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from Page 57 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.1
Appellants have challenged the validity of a Virginia statute regulating the insurance of Virginia risks and have brought this suit to enjoin state officers from enforcing it. Its relevant provisions, copied in the margin, forbid contracts of insurance or surety by companies authorized to do business within that Commonwealth ‘except through regularly constituted and registered resident agents or agencies of such companies.’ § 4222, c. 218, Acts of 1938. Such resident agents ‘shall be entitled to and shall receive the usual and customary commissions allowed on such contracts,’ and may not share more than half of this commission with a non-resident broker. § 4226a, as amended by Acts 1938, c. 218. Disobedience of these provisions (from which life, title and marine companies are exempted) may entail a fine or revocation of the corporate license in Virginia, or both. A district court of three judges, convened under § 266 of the Judicial Code as amended, 28 U.S.C. § 380, 28 U.S.C.A. § 380, dismissed appellants’ bill on the basis of elaborate findings of fact and conclusions of law, set forth in an opinion by Circuit Judge Soper. 29 F.Supp. 71. From this decree the case comes here on appeal under § 238 of the Judicial Code as amended, 28 U.S.C. § 345, 28 U.S.C.A. § 345.2
The bill was brought by foreign corporations authorized to do casualty and surety business in Virginia, and by some of their salaried employees. It is their claim that the statute deprives them of rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The exact nature of these claims will appear more clearly in the setting of the illuminating findings below which may here be abbreviated.3
The ‘production’ of insurance—’production’ being insurance jargon for obtaining business—is, in the main, carried on by two groups, agents and brokers. Though both are paid by commission, the different ways in which the two groups perform their functions have important practical consequences in the conduct of the insurance business, and hence in its regulation. The agent is tied to his company. But his liability to ‘produce’ business depends upon the confidence of the community in him. He must therefore cultivate the good will and sense of dependence of his clients. He may finance the payment of premiums; he frequently assists in the filing and prosecution of claims; he acts as mediator between insurer and assured in the diverse situations which arise. The broker, on the other hand, is an independent middleman, not tied to a particular company. He meets more specially the needs of large customers, using their concentrated bargaining power to obtain the most favorable terms from competing companies. His activities, being largely confined to the big commercial centers, take place mostly outside Virginia.4
A policy, whether ‘produced’ by broker or agent, must be ‘serviced’—an insurance term for assistance rendered a customer in minimizing his risks. To this end the companies exert themselves directly, but the ‘producer’ may render additional service. Only to a limited extent can risks be minimized at long range; local activity is essential. When the contract is ‘produced’ by a non-resident broker the ‘servicing’ function is normally performed by the company exclusively. When the ‘producer’ is a resident agent the case is ordinarily otherwise. For this, as well as for other reasons, it is obvious that non-resident brokers prefer to negotiate their contracts covering Virginia risks with companies authorized to do business in that Commonwealth.5
These basic elements in the insurance business attain special significance in the case of enterprises operating not only in Virginia but in other states as well. For them the brokerage system offers the attractions of large-scale production. Through what is known as a master or ‘hotchpotch’ policy, the assured may obtain a cheaper rate by pooling all his risks, whether in or out of Virginia. This wholesale insurance may furnish not only a reduced rate but a reduced commission to the customer. These are advantages which naturally draw the Virginia business of interstate enterprises away from local agents in Virginia to the great insurance centers.6
In effecting the cost of these master policies, say the appellants, Virginia is intruding upon business transactions beyond its borders. Not only is a licensed company forbidden to write insurance except through a resident agent, but the agent cannot retain less than one-half of the customary commission allowed on such a contract for what may, so far as the requirements of the law are concerned, be no more than the perfunctory service of countersigning the policy.7
But the question is not whether what Virginia has done will restrict appellants’ freedom of action outside Virginia by subjecting the exercise of such freedom to financial burdens. The mere fact that state action may have repercussions beyond state lines is of no judicial significance so long as the action is not within that domain which the Constitution forbids. Alaska Packers Ass’n v. Industrial Accident Comm’n., 294 U.S. 532, 55 S.Ct. 518, 79 L.Ed. 1044; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Grosjean, 301 U.S. 412, 57 S.Ct. 772, 81 L.Ed. 1193, 112 A.L.R. 293. Compare Equitable Life Assur. Society v. Pennsylvania, 238 U.S. 143, 35 S.Ct. 829, 59 L.Ed. 1239. It is equally immaterial that such state action may run counter to the economic wisdom either of Adam Smith or of J. Maynard Keynes, or may be ultimately mischievous even from the point of view of avowed state policy. Our inquiry must be much narrower. It is whether Virginia has taken hold of a matter within her power, or has reached beyond her borders to regulate a subject which was none of her concern because the Constitution has placed control elsewhere. Compare Wallace v. Hines, 253 U.S. 66, 69, 40 S.Ct. 435, 436, 64 L.Ed. 782.8
Virginia has not sought to prohibit the making of contracts beyond her borders. She merely claims that her interest in the risks which these contracts are designed to prevent warrants the kind of control she has here imposed. This legislation is not to be judged by abstracting an isolated contract written in New York from the organic whole of the insurance business, the effect of that business on Virginia, and Virginia’s regulation of it.9
A network of legislation controls the surety and casualty business in Virginia. Insolvent companies may not engage in it. Virginia Code, § 4180. Neither companies nor agents may give rebates. § 4222(c). Rates for workmen’s compensation, automobile liability and surety contracts are determined by its Corporation Commission. §§ 1887(75), 4326a1, 4350(3). The difficulty of enforcing these regulations, so the District Court found, may be increased if policies covering Virginia risks are ‘produced’ without participation by responsible local agents. Rebates evading local restriction may be granted under cover of business done outside the state. Contrariwise, if resident Virginia agents are made necessary conduits for insurance on Virginia risks now included in master policies, the state may have better means of acquiring accurate information for the effectuation of measures which it deems protective of its interests.10
It is claimed that the requirement that not less than one-half of the customary commission be retained by the resident agent is a bald exaction for what may be no more than the perfunctory service of countersigning policies. The short answer to this is that the state may rely on this exaction as a mode of assuring the active use of resident agents for procuring and ‘servicing’ policies covering Virginia risks. These functions, when adequately performed, benefit not only the company, the producer, and the assured. By minimizing the risks of casualty and loss, they redound in a pervasive way to the benefit of the community. At least Virginia may so have believed. And she may also have concluded that an agency system, such as this legislation was designed to promote, is better calculated to further these desirable ends than other modes of ‘production.’ When these beliefs are emphasized by legislation embodying similar notions of policy in a dozen states, it would savor of intolerance for us to suggest that a legislature could not constitutionally entertain the views which the legislation adopts. Compare Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 259 U.S. 530, 537, 42 S.Ct. 516, 520, 66 L.Ed. 1044, 27 A.L.R. 27.11
The present case, therefore, is wholly unlike those instances in which a ‘so-called right is used as part of a scheme to accomplish a forbidden result.’ Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Tafoya, 270 U.S. 426, 434, 46 S.Ct. 331, 332, 70 L.Ed. 664. For it is clear that Virginia has a definable interest in the contracts she seeks to regulate and that what she has done is very different from the imposition of conditions upon appellants’ privilege of engaging in local business which would bring within the orbit of state power matters unrelated to any local interests. It is not our province to measure the social advantage to Virginia of regulating the conduct of insurance companies within her borders insofar as it affects Virginia risks. Government has always had a special relation to insurance. The ways of safeguarding against the untoward manifestations of nature and other vicissitudes of life have long been withdrawn from the benefits and caprices of free competition. The state may fix insurance rates, German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 233 U.S. 389, 34 S.Ct. 612, 58 L.Ed. 1011, L.R.A.1915C, 1189; it may regulate the compensation of agents, O’Gorman & Young v. Hartford Ins. Co., 282 U.S. 251, 51 S.Ct. 130, 75 L.Ed. 324, 72 A.L.R. 1163; it may curtail drastically the area of free contract, National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Wanberg, 260 U.S. 71, 43 S.Ct. 32, 67 L.Ed. 136. States have controlled the expenses of insurance companies, New York Insurance Law, Consolidated Laws of New York, c. 28, § 244, and Wisconsin Statutes, § 201.21; and see Report of Joint (Armstrong) Insurance Investigation Committee (N.Y.) pp. 403-418 (1906). They have also promoted insurance through savings banks; see Berman, The Massachusetts System of Savings Bank Life Insurance, Bulletin No. 615, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and New York Laws of 1938, c. 471. In the light of all these exertions of state power it does not seem possible to doubt that the state could, if it chose, go into the insurance business, just as it can operate warehouses, flour mills, and other business ventures, Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233, 40 S.Ct. 499, 64 L.Ed. 878, or might take ‘the whole business of banking under its control,’ Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 104, 113, 31 S.Ct. 186, 188, 55 L.Ed. 112, 32 L.R.A.,N.S., 1062, Ann.Cas.1912A, 487. If the state, as to local risks, could thus preempt the field of insurance for itself, it may stay its intervention short of such a drastic step by insisting that its own residents shall have a share in devising and safeguarding protection against its local hazards. LaTourette v. McMaster, 248 U.S. 465, 39 S.Ct. 160, 63 L.Ed. 362. All these are questions of policy not for us to judge. For it can never be emphasized too much that one’s own opinion as to the wisdom of a law must be wholly excluded when one is doing one’s judicial duty. The limit of our inquiry is reached when we conclude that Virginia has exerted its powers as to matters within the bounds of her control.12
In reaching this conclusion we have been duly mindful of the cases urged upon us by appellants. In Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 17 S.Ct. 427, 41 L.Ed. 832, apart from the doubts that have been cast upon the opinion in that case, the state attempted to penalize the making of contracts by its residents outside its borders with companies which had never subjected themselves to local control. Thus the statute was thought to be directed not at the regulation of insurance within the state, but at the making of contracts without. This was followed in St. Louis Cotton Compress Co. v. Arkansas, 260 U.S. 346, 43 S.Ct. 125, 67 L.Ed. 297; but see the refined distinctions drawn in Compania General de Tabacos v. Collector, 275 U.S. 87, 48 S.Ct. 100, 72 L.Ed. 177. In Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Tafoya, supra, the Court found that New Mexico had exceeded its power by forbidding ‘the payment of any emolument of any nature to any (non-resident) for the obtaining, placing or writing of any policy covering risks in New Mexico’. The Court was of opinion that this statute went ‘beyond any legitimate interest of the State * * *,’ Id., 270 U.S. at page 435, 46 S.Ct. at page 332, 70 L.Ed. 664, but carefully withheld its judgment as to the validity of a later New Mexico statute not unlike the Virginia law here under review.13
The decree must be affirmed.15
I am unable to agree with the decision in this case. I think it sanctions an exertion of power by Virginia over transactions beyond her jurisdiction.16
Virginia may, of course, regulate the making of contracts of insurance within her borders. She may require such contracts to embody specified provisions. She may regulate the enforcement of these contracts in her courts. She may supervise and condition the activities of registered foreign insurance companies, agents or brokers within the Commonwealth. The statute in question has no such purpose.17
The purpose and effect of the statute is to compel an insurance company which is a citizen of another state, and which negotiates a contract of insurance with an agent or broker within such other state, to pay a resident of Virginia for a service not rendered by him, but rendered by another in another state. By force of the statute a Virginia agent must countersign a contract negotiated outside of Virginia with an assured whose residence is outside of Virginia, which contract of insurance was negotiated by an agent or broker living outside of Virginia. The countersigning Virginia agent must be paid one-half the usual commission, even though the broker or agent who produced the business is licensed as a non-resident broker by Virginia, although the only service such Virginia agent is required to render and, in many cases all he does render, is the mere countersignature of the policy. With respect to this situation the court below said, 29 F.Supp. 71, 83:18
‘We do not overlook the peculiar situation of the non-resident assured who form no part of the Virginia public which the state desires to protect. Undoubtedly their business methods will be disturbed by the enforcement of the statute. It is contended, not without merit, that they have no need for the services of the resident commission agents, and that in fact, the latter cannot assume the function of producing agents in their behalf without harmfully intruding themselves into confidential business affairs. Moreover, it is fair to say that these affairs are so important and so widespread in their scope as to be beyond the technical knowledge and skill of the average Virginia agent, and that the interests of the non-resident assureds can be best looked after by the brokers at the great centers of population where the head offices of the insurance companies and of the assureds are located, and in Virginia by the engineering and claim personnel of the companies. It is also true that the substantial compensation required by the statute to be paid to the Virginia agents will increase the cost of the business.’19
The plain effort of Virginia is to compel a nonresident to pay a resident of Virginia for services which the latter does not in fact render and is not required to render. The principles underlying former decisions of this court are at war with the existence of any such asserted power.20
The CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS join in this opinion.
Ozzy Osbourne Recorded New Album – Ozzy Osbourne
72-year-old Ozzy Osbourne is releasing a solo disc with original compositions – the first in the last 10 years. This unexpected news draws on a sensation: the elderly rocker spent almost the entire year in hospitals – one after the other he suffered flu, pneumonia and bronchitis, and in the end he injured his arm, fell unsuccessfully, after which he had to undergo 3 operations – the metal braces holding vertebrae after a severe accident in 2003, when the musician fell off an ATV.All concerts scheduled for 2019 and early 2020 had to be canceled. And least of all, the immobilized Ozzy was expected to start writing music, and then sit down in the studio to record new material.
It all started with the fact that Ozzy invited rapper Post Malone as a guest to take part in the recording of his track “Take What You Want”. Osborne later honestly admitted that he had no idea about the existence of such a musician. Nevertheless, the work on the track, which took 4 days, was extremely inspiring.
Immediately after the end of the recording, Andrew Watt, a producer who worked with the rapper, received an offer from Ozzy to record an album with him. They did not postpone the matter – and in four weeks the album was ready. Watt is very proud of this work and claims to be the best thing he has done in his professional career.
The album will be titled “Ordinary Man”. It is due out in January. Ozzy is going to have time to shoot a couple more videos for him before the release. He is still not very steady on his feet and has difficulty keeping his balance.But it was working in the studio, according to the rocker, that helped him recover relatively quickly. “Anyway, I’m not retiring,” says Ozzy. “I will make music until I die.”
Meanwhile, Osborne’s single “Take What You Want” debuted at number eight on the Billboard charts, while Post Malone’s album Hollywood’s Bleeding topped the album charts.
No retirement – Ozzy Osbourne goes on tour, despite illness
The show must go on: The Osbourne Family is back
Ozzy says goodbye, but does not want to leave the stage
The Osbourne family bought all lots of the auction of rarities Black Sabbath
Black Sabbath dies – long live Ozzy Osbourne!
Ozzy is ready to cheat – but not get drunk
Ozzy Osbourne is planning to get divorced
Ozzy Osbourne releases an audio and video compilation “Memoirs of a Madman”
Ozzy Osbourne almost died in a fire
Ozzy Osbourne returned to Black Sabbath after a 34-year hiatus
Remember how Captain Smith brews a tea bag in a mug in James Cameron’s Titanic? Most likely, this is a mistake of the scriptwriters. The prototype of tea bag, of course, was at the beginning of the 20th century, but it appeared on the market much later than the sinking of the Titanic.
The first significant change occurred with tea in 1904, and was not at all associated with factories – tea bags appeared in the USA.And this curiosity of the beginning of the century is now gradually replacing the classic loose tea and is produced exclusively on automated lines. 77% of the tea consumed in Europe is tea bags. And in conservative England – the trendsetter of tea fashion – tea bags are consumed by 93% of the population.It all started like this: In 1904, American merchant Thomas Salivan first proposed an unusual way of drinking tea. He began sending out to his customers consignments of various types of tea in silk bags.Each of the bags contained the amount of tea leaves needed to brew one cup of tea. The mailings were not intended to simplify the tea ceremony. They were samples! That is, customers could compare different types of tea without buying large quantities, and then decide on the choice.
A few years later, during the First World War, the tea company in Dresden, Teekanne, adopted this idea, modified it, and began to organize supplies to the army in the form of gauze bags.The soldiers called these bags “tea bombs” because, if desired, one could quickly drink a cup of tea at any time.
Due to such an accident, “tea in bags” was first made by hand. Only by 1929 did the first factory bags appear.
In the twenties, American engineer Fay Osborne, who served in a company that produced various types of paper, became interested in brewing tea without a teapot. He thought he could try to find a variety that would be cheaper than silk, gauze or gauze and would not have any taste of its own.One day he noticed an unusual thin, soft, but strong paper in which some types of cigars were packed. Learning that this kind of paper is made in Japan by hand from some exotic fiber, in 1926 he decided to make the same paper. He tried various types of tropical wood, jute, sisal, cotton and even pineapple leaf fibers. Nothing worked. Finally, he came across the so-called Manila hemp, or, in short, manila, from which sea ropes are twisted (in fact, this plant has nothing to do with hemp, it is a relative of the banana).The result was promising.
In 1929-31, Osborne tested different chemistries that would make manila paper more porous with the same strength. Having found the right method, he spent several more years translating his laboratory process, which made it possible to make single sheets, to a large machine that releases entire rolls of paper.In the meantime, tea bags with tea leaves have already gained a foothold in the American market. They were made of gauze, and the number speaks of the scale: in the thirties, more than seven million meters of gauze were consumed annually in the United States for tea.By the spring of 1934, Osborne had started making tea paper from Manila fiber on a large machine. As early as 1935, its paper was also used for packaging meat, silverware and electrical goods. By the end of the thirties, paper bags were already successfully competing with gauze.
But with the outbreak of World War II, attracted to become a strategic raw material (it grows only in the Philippines), and the US authorities not only banned spending it on tea bags, but also requisitioned Osborne’s supplies for the needs of the fleet.The inventor did not give up, he set up “washing” the decommissioned Manila ropes from dirt and oil, and since this raw material was not enough, he introduced viscose additives into his paper. Continuing his research, in 1942 he obtained a new, very thin, but strong enough paper without Manila fiber, and two years later he found a way to “glue” the edges of the bags by hot pressing instead of sewing with threads. These two advances have opened a wide road for tea bags to the table.
In the late 1950s, the first two-chamber tea bag with metal staples closed, was patented by Teekanne.The novelty made it possible to speed up the tea brewing process even more. However, according to other sources in 1952, the company of the tea king Thomas Lipton (some mistakenly attributed the authorship of tea bags to him) created and patented double tea bags. Although Teekanne may have belonged to Lipton by that time.
Over time, the assortment of tea bags has been replenished with new forms; there appeared sachets in the form of a pyramid, square and round without thread, which are especially loved by the inhabitants of England.And not only staples were used for fastening, the bag was also thermally sealed.
Today tea bags occupy a leading position in the tea market. This is not surprising, since many types of tea can be found in such a comfortable guise. And after spending just a few minutes on preparation, you can enjoy the wonderful taste and aroma of black, green, fruit or herbal tea.
There is a strong opinion that tea bags are waste of the main tea production.Like instant coffee, tea bags are bought by lazy people who do not understand what’s what. There are many excuses, one of those: for convenience and speed you have to pay with taste. Manufacturers, however, claim that tea in bags is simply finer and its quality is not nearly worse than large-leaf tea.
We also recommend reading
Naturally! Healthy! Unforgettably!
20% discount on the assortment of farm honey “Slepushkino”
“Arkhyz” – ideal water for every day!
Mountain drinking water for the whole family!Read more
Time to restore the strength of your body!
“Longavita” water and “ALV” hair cosmetics – your key to recovery and health!Read more
Write your comment:90,000 how Florida tried to get rid of tires
Human attempts to interfere with nature very often do not end well.And even the best intentions lead to unexpected and unpleasant consequences. Osborne’s Reef is one example of this.
2. In the 1970s, Florida faced a problem – the landfills of old tires grew by leaps and bounds, and mainly around settlements. It was necessary to do something … And then a brilliant idea came to the head of a group of specialists – why fence landfills on land when there is an ocean very close by. Gregory Mackintosh presented a project according to which tires had to be placed on the bottom of the sea, and the local fauna would use them as their home.
3. It was about creating an artificial coral reef. Complex marine communities were supposed to settle on the tires – corals, mollusks, fish. So the garbage from the land would be removed and ensured the growth of commercial fish.
4. The plan was implemented with enthusiasm. The tires were fastened into bundles with synthetic tapes and metal staples. Over the years, there were about 2 million tires at the bottom on an area of 15 hectares. They called all this Osborne Reef, it is located 2 km from the coast at a depth of 20 m.
5. But in practice, everything was very different from the layout. Very quickly, the sea water corroded the mountings, sea currents, waves, hurricanes began to carry light tires over great distances. In addition, the tires were constantly moving, the corals could not get a foothold on them, and even when driving, the tires demolished natural thickets of corals. And after the hurricanes, tons of tires washed up on beaches along the coast.
6. By the early 1990s, we tried various tire weighting schemes, but nothing helped.An additional problem was that the tires contained about 120 types of carcinogens, which, under the influence of sea water, were actively released into the environment and poisoned the local fauna.
7. And in the 21st century, the tires began to be lifted. At first, various organizations were engaged in this, the cost of lifting one tire was at that time about $ 17. In 2007, the US Army got involved – lifting debris was combined with training for combat divers, and the cost of lifting was reduced.
8. In general, so far only 73 thousand tires have been lifted out of 2 million dropped to the bottom …
The train moved forward, and Jenny grabbed the metal brace to better maintain her balance. She took out her pistol and waited for the door to open.As soon as that happened, she let Chulo pass her by. Chulo approached the entrance to their carriage, and then Jenny poked him in the spine with the barrel of a pistol.
With the next movement, she snatched o-kitchen.ru from his fingers with his own pistol and laughed when he swore.
– Put your palms on the door! She ordered, and tossed his pistol out.
Verde Flores was already behind and the train went faster. A hot wind burst into the platform, tore off Jenny’s hat and carried it away, and wrapped her skirt around her ankles.She waited for the speed of the train to increase to the limit, and listened indifferently as Chulo swore and threatened to deal with her in the most terrible way with the help of other Barrancas. She will not be able to steal their little cousin. They will kill her, but first they will have enough fun with her. And so on and so forth …
– Okay, you pig, listen to what we’re going to do … – She poked him again with the gun, this time in the fat fold on his back. “You take a step back, turn right, and then jump off the train.If you stay even for a second, I’ll shoot. – She backed away enough that he could not grab her. – Come on, son of a whore. Jump!
The wind ruffled her hair and skirt, the platform under her feet twitched and swayed. And Chulo was agile.
He turned, belching curses, and Jenny did not see the knife in his hand until Chulo, slashing it across the stomach, threw it up. The bloody blade glinted in the sun.
Jenny flew back to the door of the first carriage and, falling, fired.Chulo bent over, clutching at his stomach. She didn’t see him fall off the train. She frantically grabbed the brace, trying to keep the hem out of the joint between the cars. Feeling safe, Jenny looked around. On the site, except for her, there was no one. The son of a bitch Chulo fell over the fence.
Jenny examined herself – a red spot was spreading over the white fabric of her blouse. A curse! The wound hasn’t hurt yet, but it will hurt. Swearing through her teeth, Jenny tucked the still-hot pistol into her belt.Clutching the wound with her hand, she straightened the shawl so that the blood was not visible. With a jerk she opened the heavy door, walked through the passenger car to the next platform, and then into her own car.
Ty stood by Graciela and rushed to Jenny, kicking the chickens out of the aisle. He grabbed her by the shoulders.
– What the devil are you taking so long?
– Do everything you can for people on the other side of the passage to cross somewhere. We need to be alone.
Ty raised his eyebrows in question, and Jenny lifted the hem of her shawl so he could see the blood.
– Lord! Is the wound serious?
“I don’t know yet,” Jenny answered through gritted teeth: the pain was already beginning. – I think I’ll have to sew it up.
– I will persuade this family to move.
He sorted it out sooner than Jenny could have guessed, turning a sullen refusal into a smiling agreement with a handful of pesos. Jenny pressed her hand to the wound, feeling the blood seep between her fingers. She hoped that her wobbly gait would be attributed to the uneven movement of the train.By the time she reached the last bench, beads of sweat glistened on her forehead and her face was deathly pale. Almost falling into the seat, Jenny closed her eyes.
– Jenny? Graciela stared at her in disbelief.90,000 Why does the third season of The Handmaid’s Tale seem superfluous
The third season of The Handmaid’s Tale, based on the dystopian novel by Margaret Atwood, is out in the US this week. Farid Bektemirov, having watched the first three episodes, tells how the problems of “Game of Thrones” and “The Walking Dead” knocked down an almost brilliant project.
A close-up of an exhausted female face. Eyes full of pain, anger and determination to take revenge on their tormentors. The hood, thrown over a snow-white cap, paints the heroine in blood-burgundy colors. She stares intently at the camera, turns around and leaves into the night against the background of water falling into the tunnel.
Thus ended the second season of The Handmaid’s Tale, a breakthrough film adaptation of the novel of the same name by Margaret Atwood about a totalitarian society with an exotic practice of forced surrogacy.This scene would have become an absolute classic of television art, if not for one “but”: we have already seen it in this series twenty times. In different variations and to different music, but with the same consequences: the threat in the eyes of the heroine never came true.
It all started too well. The first season was, without exaggeration, a milestone in the current serial boom: brilliant cinematography (literally every frame a painting), a complex, thoughtful world with the finest nuances, a more than relevant topic, especially against the backdrop of Trump’s presidency, and the explosion of the acting inspiration of Elisabeth Moss, who created the image, in realism and drama, comparable to Walter White from Breaking Bad.
Of course, the passive protagonist syndrome, one of the main problems of the series, manifested itself even then. June Osborne, who turned out to be a servant in the house of Commander Waterford after the religious fundamentalists came to power, angrily looked at the owners and spectators, sprinkled with scathing phrases like “Don’t let the bastards trample you,” but she really did nothing. However, in the first season, so much time was devoted to describing the brave new world that her passivity was almost imperceptible.
The real problems began later, when the book material ran out (an analogy with “Game of Thrones” suggests itself), and the creators of the series set off on a free voyage.At first, they successfully caught the wave, trying on their own to continue the study of the theocratic state of Gilead: they showed the colonies where the exiled women were dismantling nuclear waste, the life of ordinary people in a small town (before that we had seen very few people except maids, soldiers and commanders). But on this, the fantasy ran out.
I had to focus on June and her pregnancy – and this could be a solution to the problem if she was allowed to do at least one meaningful act. Like the ones that the minor characters did: the second Ofglen (detonated a bomb in the middle of a meeting of commanders), Emily (stabbed her aunt Lydia) or Moira (killed a client and crossed the border on her own).
But she was not allowed. For two seasons, she tried to escape three times, but each time it was an initiative from the outside: her friend Moira, the Mayday resistance fighters and, finally, the repentant Commander Lawrence. Dozens of people transported the heroine from place to place, endangering their own lives, while for the most part she pretended to be either a carcass or a scarecrow.
At some point, they even gave her a gun in her hands and set the enemies as targets – chop from the shoulder, it won’t get any worse, you’ve been dreaming about it for so long.No? OK then. Maybe then somehow … for a week …
No, the protagonist does not have to be active at all. Showing the character’s powerlessness in the face of circumstances is also a worthy task for an artist. But the problem is that the series over and over again presents June as a revolutionary and rebel, constantly throwing seeds to the viewer – they say, now, she’s about to change everything. And … in the next episode, someone just does all the work for her.
With the third escape, the situation turned out to be quite comical.Already, nothing prevented the character Moss from finally going to Canada free of prejudices, but at the last moment she decided to stay herself to save her eldest daughter, who had been kidnapped at the beginning of the series. Recall: this is in the Orwellian world, where women cannot even walk down the street without an escort. Where monstrous torture and executions without trial are practiced. And from where she had already tried to escape twice, not really thinking about her daughter. Just a decision of the century.
This ending became for “The Handmaid’s Tale” an analogue of “King Bran” or “Queen of Ash” – fans and critics reacted to it with about the same bewilderment.
After this from the third season, few expected a return to the rut, and he, in any case, in the first three episodes lived up to expectations. The development of events became even slower, symbolic images like the bed burning in the slow mo where June was raped are even more pretentious, the song inserts are even more inappropriate, and some characters themselves seem to feel uncomfortable that they are still there.
Commander Waterford, who looked like a complex and mysterious villain, now seems like a gullible fool who did not even realize that the guard Nick had betrayed him.Nick himself is still able to only sadly stand behind the backs of his superiors and from time to time drop in to June for a sexy time. And the husband of the main character, Luke, in just half a series manages to go through the arc of redemption, which took some Jaime Lannister eight seasons. This was done, apparently, so that the audience does not forget who he is.
With the “Story”, in essence, the same trouble happened as with the “Thrones”. A tragedy of almost antique proportions: either about Icarus, who flew too close to the sun, or about Narcissus, staring at his reflection.Too fixated on the form, the creators forgot about working out the story itself and began to walk in circles.
Of course, the series still retains some level of scripting and visual ingenuity. June seems to be taking matters into his own hands for the first time in three years, planning to create something like Ocean’s team, and the scenes of repentance from Serena Joy (aka Serene Joy), the show’s most controversial character, inspire sacred awe.
But this is far from the regal greatness that was at the start of the project.And worst of all, the story, according to the creators, plans to stretch for another seven seasons. At this pace, “The Story” risks turning into a kind of classic comedy show “Gilligan’s Island”, where the heroes in each episode try to get out of a desert island, but every time they are hampered by some stupidity, made with offscreen laughter.
Poor June is more sorry than ever. She herself does not understand the scale of her problem. Now she is not held captive by Gilead or the Waterford family, but by the streaming service and her own popularity.And it will be much more difficult to get out of this captivity.
“The Walking Dead”, for example, has not worked so far.
In Russia, the third season of The Handmaid’s Tale can be viewed on the service Videomore .90,000 10 facts about the series “The Handmaid’s Tale” :: Impressions :: RBK Style
Shot from the series “The Handmaid’s Tale”
author Elena Fomina
07 June 2019
For the premiere of the third season of the dystopian series based on the novel by Margaret Atwood, we are revealing the details of the creation of the project that you might not know.
– 1 –
Hulu is the tenth adaptation of a 1985 novel by Canadian writer Margaret Atwood. The first performance was shown on the stage of the private research university Tufts in 1989.In 2000, Paul Ruders presented opera in Copenhagen, and in 2002, Brandon Burns staged his performance at London’s Royal Haymarket Theater. The ballet was adapted by Leah Yorke and premiered in 2013. Atwood’s novel was also suitable for the mono performance, which Joseph Stollenwerk invented and presented in the USA in 2015.
In 1990, German filmmaker Volker Schlendorff filmed The Handmaid with Natasha Richardson, Faye Dunaway and Robert Duvall.In addition, an audiobook, a music album and two radio plays were made based on the book. The first, directed by John Dryden for BBC Radio 4, was introduced to listeners in 2000. The second was the Canadian radio CBC in 2002 under the direction of screenwriter and playwright Michael O’Brien.
– 2 –
The novel has a sequel and will be released in the fall of 2019. Margaret Atwood did not plan to develop the story: the action of the first book ends more than perfectly. However, in 2018 it became known that Atwood was actively working on a sequel called The Testaments.The reader will return to Gilead 15 years after the events of the first part, and the story will be conducted from the perspective of three women.
© Emma McIntyre / Getty Images for Hammer Museum
Although The Handmaid’s Tale is set in the near future in New England, Atwood has repeatedly had to clarify that her work has nothing to do with science fiction.On the contrary, when creating the novel, the author tried to bring into the plot the events that took place in different societies at different times.
– 3 –
The author of the novel received a cameo in the series. In the stream of terrifying plot events and against the background of Ann Dowd’s bright acting out, it was difficult to notice another strict guard over the maids, with gray hair and a sharp gaze. This was Margaret Atwood. In the pilot episode, she had to punish the rebellious Fredova (June) with a slap in the face.The writer herself wanted to play the “aunt”, but the slap in the face was the idea of the creator of the series, Bruce Miller.
– 4 –
The #MeToo movement pushed a storyline that broke with the book’s fountainhead after the season 1 finale. The lot of women trapped in the Republic of Gilead is suffering. Bruce Miller leads his heroines through real torture – physical and, worse, psychological.
© Christopher Polk / Getty Images for The Critics’ Choice Awards
According to the writer, the fate of the main character June Osborne would not have been convincing if it were not for the modern women who have united in the #MeToo movement.Inspiration works both ways here: real events inspire and fuel June in the world of the show. At the same time, the image of his main character has long been an example of courage for all the fans of “The Handmaid”.
– 5 –
The Handmaid’s Tale was never broadcast on television. It is entirely a product of the Hulu streaming service, and fans can only watch the series online. However, this did not stop the organizers of the Emmy Award from celebrating the merits of the show. The Handmaid was the first streaming series to win awards in 2017 in four categories, including Best Drama.This is a unique case considering that Netflix has been battling for awards for its series for years, and Hulu, with its dystopian nightmare, has been able to win exclusive privileges in no time.
– 6 –
One of the central characters – the head of the security service of Commander Nick – appeared in the book without a surname. The authors of the series decided to fix this and named it Blaine. An attentive viewer, noticing this surname, will remember Rick Blaine, the protagonist of the tape “Casablanca”. The hero of Humphrey Bogart helped the “captives” of Casablanca to leave the city, and the hero of Max Minghella in Gilead is trying to do the same.
– 7 –
Snow-white “wings” – a distinctive element of the maid’s wardrobe, along with red raincoats and floor-length dresses – an extremely uncomfortable headdress. The actresses admitted that he radically limits the angle of view and practically blinds: if you want to see something, you only have to look straight ahead.
Costume Designer Anne Crabtree said the “wings” help reflect the “psychological, physical and emotional imprisonment of the handmaidens” of Gilead.Elisabeth Moss, who plays June, spent a lot of time with her partners on the set, learning the rhythm of the steps of the maids so that she could move in groups calmly in the frame and not collide with each other.
– 8 –
Actress Amanda Bruegel, who plays Martha Rita in the home of Commander Fred Waterford, was a fan of the Margaret Atwood novel in her youth. Brugel read the book in high school and experienced a kind of shock, after recovering from which she wrote the final scientific work based on “The Handmaid’s Tale.”The work about the heroine of the novel Rita provided Brugel with a scholarship for higher education.
– 9 –
The producers had to neglect one of the important details of the novel due to the diversity trend – the demands of racial and ethnic diversity in cinema. In the book, among the atrocities of the Gilead government was the expulsion of all representatives of the “non-white” race, so the population of the republic was homogeneous. However, Bruce Miller could not imagine how to show this state of affairs, given current social trends.
“Will there be a difference between a TV show about racism and a ‘racist series’ if the roles do not go to actors of color in both cases?” – so the producer asked himself. As a result, the atrocities of the serial Gilead bypassed the national issue and focused on the religious and political aspects.
– 10 –
Fans take the plot twists and turns of the show and the characters too personally.This is partly because the viewer has no difficulty in finding the common ground between fiction – Gilead – and reality, America of the Trump era. The release of the new season again resonates with social and political events in the United States. Resistance in the series will unfold against the backdrop of the struggle of American women for the right to abortion and stories of how children and parents are separated on the border with Mexico.
Talking about the 3rd season, the leading actress Elisabeth Moss tried to explain the act of her heroine at the end of the 2nd.June’s decisions annoy many fans. Throughout the year, while the shooting of the new season was underway, fans of “The Handmaid” tried to forgive June for her demarche with an escape to Canada – she had a chance to complete her trials, but she deliberately missed it, and now she will prepare a revolution in Gilead.