Critical Legal Thinking Case Summary

958 Words4 Pages

1. PG 126, Critical legal Thinking Cases – 6.1 Negligence Clancy had been negligent, as he nodded off while driving, which brought about an inescapable mischance. The mishap brought about Diana's leg removal and she experienced different wounds too. Diana's restorative costs added up to $368,000 and a repeating expense to supplant her "C-Leg". The measure of harms to be honored to Diana ought to be $1.5 million and correctional harms of $700,000. 2. PG 127, Critical legal Thinking Cases - 6.2 Duty and Causation Standard: Duty of care – the commitment individuals owe each other not to bring on any preposterous damage or danger of mischief Negligence – a doctrine that says a man is subject for damage that is the predictable outcome of his/her activities Analysis: Michael Carneal, a 14-year-old, played vicious computer games and viewed fierce motion pictures all the time. On December 1, 1997, he shot a few of his kindred understudies. The Court of Appeals held that the computer game and motion picture makers and merchants were not held obligated and did not owe an obligation of consideration to the offended parties by offering the items to Carneal. Conclusion: No. 3. PG 127, 6.5 Merchant …show more content…

In this way, the critical inquiry is whether a noteworthy number of the devouring open would likely be befuddled or deluded in the matter of who the wellspring of the stamped items really is. One doesn't need to demonstrate that there is real disarray, nor does he host to demonstrate that the other gathering proposed to bring about perplexity, albeit both of these are solid bits of confirmation adding to the determination of whether there is a probability of perplexity. Respondent Intelsys could possibly have proposed to exploit Intel's solid trademarks and service marks. All things considered, their activities were illegal and brought about trademark

More about Critical Legal Thinking Case Summary